Commons Sitting of 8 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:—
Great Western Railway Bill.
Northern Counties Electricity Supply Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
City of London (Celluloid Regulations) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).
Private Bills (Group C),
Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th March; Sir William Anson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]
COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Account showing Receipts and Expenditure on account of Procedings in connection with the winding up of Companies under the Act during the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure on account of Bankruptcy Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed.

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Bowerman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Frederick Hall (Normanton).
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government contemplate leaving Article II. and Article III. of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 unaltered, notwithstanding subsequent constitutional changes in China?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I do not see that the Articles in question are affected by the constitutional changes in China.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Chinese Minister of Finance, Mr. Chon Hsuehhsi, addressed on 11th March a letter to the senior representative of the sextuple banks, pointing out that he had complained of the delay in the completion of the negotiations and disclaimed all responsibility for the difficulties which had arisen, while he asserted that he would have to negotiate in other quarters for the advance which the Government required; whether he is aware that the Minister asserted that when, on 3rd March, the new proposals were put forward by the six Powers regarding the appointment of advisers, he declared the Chinese Government never anticipated such a departure from the original scheme; and, seeing that the Minister finally asserted that the Powers whose proposals prevented the conclusion of the loan had accused China of failure to meet her indebtedness, and that the Government was criticised for not
  972
  proceeding with administrative reforms more expeditiously by those Powers whose deeds had frustrated the loan, whether he will now make a full statement to the House showing the actual course of the negotiations?
  Sir E. GREY: A letter substantially in the terms indicated by the hon. Member was addressed to the representative of the six groups by the Chinese Minister of Finance, but the latter explained in a subsequent message to His Majesty's Minister that, although his letter might be interpreted as meaning that he desired to break with the groups and borrow elsewhere, it was not his intention to do so. In view, therefore, of the fact that negotiations must be considered as still proceeding and to be only temporarily in suspense, I cannot undertake to make any further statement especially as the Chinese Parliament is just meeting and the Chinese Government presumably desire to consult it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact, as appears from Mr. Hsuehhsi's letter, that it was only on the 3rd of March that the Powers first demanded that the financial advisers should be selected by nationality instead of freely by the Chinese Government, subject only to the approval of the Powers?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether any nation has yet recognised the new Government at Peking; whether any communications have passed between the Great Powers relative to such recognition; and if he can also say when Great Britain intends to come to some definite decision on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second in the affirmative. For the third part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given yesterday to an unstarred question from the hon. Member for East Nottingham.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the concessions of the Julfa-Tabriz-Arumiah and the Mohammerah-Khorramabad Railways have been finally granted to Russia and Great Britain, respectively?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this subject. A concession has been granted to the Russian Government and an option for a concession to the British syndicate, who are sending out surveyors to commence the survey of the line.

  Congo.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to lay any Papers on the subject of the Congo before asking the House to approve the recognition of Belgian sovereignty?
  Sir E. GREY: Papers were laid at the end of last Session; the condition of affairs in the Congo under Belgian rule is now very different from what it was under the old regime, and it is very undesirable that His Majesty's Government should withhold the recognition that has been given expressly or practically by almost every other Power. But as has been repeatedly promised, recognition will not be formally given by His Majesty's Government till the House has had an opportunity of discussing the most recent Papers on the subject. These were laid at the end of last Session.
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked whether the prospective recognition by the British Government of the Belgian annexation of the Congo State may be taken as an indication that reforms establishing the rights of the Congo natives in the land and the fruits of the soil have been fully conceded by the Belgian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Papers which have been laid before Parliament to form a basis for discussion of the recognition of the Belgian annexation of the Congo. As I have already informed the House, I hope that that discussion will take place next month.

  Opium Stores (Shanghai and Hong Kong).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the names of the British firms owning the stores of opium now accumulated at Shanghai and Hong Kong; whether he has received any representations, written or oral, from any of these firms; and whether any promise has been given as to the course which the British Government intend to pursue?
  Sir E. GREY: I am unable to give the hon. Member a list of the firms owning opium stocks at Shanghai and Hong Kong. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative and to third part in the negative.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the amount of the indemnity claimed by Russia from Turkey in 1878 and by Turkey from Greece at the conclusion of the war of 1897; and whether it would be in accordance with precedent that the Balkan Allies should refrain from demanding an indemnity from Turkey at the conclusion of the present war?
  Sir E. GREY: The total indemnity stipulated in Article IV. of the Treaty of 8th February, 1879, between Russia and Turkey was 802,500,000 francs. The indemnity stipulated in Article II. of the Preliminaries of Peace between Turkey and Greece, signed on September, 1897, was £T4,000,000. In regard to the question of precedent, I would remind the hon. Member that no indemnity was paid at the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese war, or of the war between Italy and Turkey, and in both the cases he has cited the whole or a great part of the territory occupied during the war was restored by the victor or not annexed by him, so that the search for a precedent that is likely to apply to the present case will probably not be very fruitful.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of Sate for India whether he has information to the effect that officers of the Tibetan Government from Lhassa are obstructing the Chumbi Valley trade route?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): After inquiry of the British Agent at Yatung, the Government of India report that there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that Tibetan officials are obstructing the Chumbi Valley trade route.

  Aviation (Indian Army).
  Sir J. D. REESasked what action the Government of India has taken in the direction of providing aviation classes in and an air fleet for the Indian Army?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A scheme is now under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

  Moslem League (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any official information showing that the resolution of the All-India Moslem League, at Lucknow, in favour of a system of self-government suitable to India, represents the opinion of the Indian Mahomedan community?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir.

  Legislative and Executive Functions (India).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has been officially informed of the result of the voting in the Viceroy's Legislative Council on Mr. Banerjea's motion for the separation of judicial from executive functions; if so, whether the whole of the Indian members, Hindus and Mahomedans, voted without exception in favour of it; whether this unanimity is without precedent in the history of the reformed Council; and whether the Government of India has yet come to any decision upon this important subject?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise; to the third part, I do not know; and to the fourth, No.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. H. V. Lanchester went out to Delhi to report on the lay-out and town-planning of the new city at the request of the Viceroy or of the Secretary of State; whether Mr. Lanchester's report will be made known by a copy being placed in the Library; and whether his plan for the lay-out of the new city will be exhibited before, simultaneously with, or after the exhibition of Mr. Lutyens' plans?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Lanchester went to Delhi at the request of the Viceroy conveyed to him by the Secretary of State. There is no report such as my hon. Friend refers to, and Mr. Lanchester's memoranda are not in a form or of a nature for presentation to Parliament, nor do I think them relevant to the consideration of the plans prepared by the town-planning committee.
  Mr. KING: Is it not the case that Mr. Lanchester gave a full plan of the lay-out which he proposed for the new city?
  Mr. MONTAGU: He made several communications to the Viceroy and Government of India, but not in such a form that they could very well be submitted to Parliament. The town-planning committee's report and plan are now being prepared for presentation to Parliament immediately. When my hon. Friend sees them he will be in a better position to say what further information he requires.
  Mr. KING: Were Mr. Lanchester's memoranda shown to the town-planning committee?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I do not know that, but all the time the town-planning committee were conducting their investigations in India the views of Mr. Lanchester were well known to them, and were discussed by them.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has now definitely decided on the southern site for the new capital of Delhi; whether he can state the extra cost likely to be incurred by the choice of the northern site; and whether he has official information showing which site would be the more advantageous from from the sanitary and health point of view?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State cannot answer the second part of the question, but the additional cost for Government headquarters on the same scale would be undoubtedly heavy; as regards the third part of the question, the southern site is overwhelmingly more advantageous from the health point of view.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the land has been appropriated for both sides or only one side?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A large portion of the area already belongs to the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARMY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement made at the annual meeting of the Secret Commissions and Bribery Prevention League (Incorporated) to the effect that a question arising out of Army contracts was at the present time under consideration; whether

    977
    any such allegations have been brought to the notice of the Army Council; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any action?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): My attention had been called to this statement. It is believed that the contracts mentioned are not Government contracts. The matter which appears to be the subject of the question is now under inquiry.

    TRANSPORT OF TROOPS (COST).
    Mr. KINGasked the amount paid for the transport of soldiers, officers, and men to the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company during the period when the Earl of Selborne was a Member of the Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): There are no figures available at the War Office to enable me to answer this question.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any reason why those figures should not be looked up?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think we could get all the facts and figures. I will inquire whether they can be obtained, but I do not suppose there is enough material. It is a long time ago.
    Mr J. WARD: I shall repeat the question.

    4TH ARGYLL AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS.
    Captain GILMOURasked whether seven officers of the 4th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders have resigned their commissions; if so, whether their action is due to the appointment of an officer on the retired list of the Highland Light Infantry to command; and if he will state whether the second in command possessed the necessary certificates of tactical fitness to qualify him to command?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no information to show that the cause was that suggested in the second part. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.
    Captain GILMOUR: Is it not rather a serious position that these officers have resigned, and will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly. I have been making inquiries, and the reason cannot be entirely as suggested in the question. One of the officers concerned has been holding a Colonial appointment.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it not the fact that three of the officers were on the retired list?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not like to say off-hand. These appointments are made on the recommendation of the General Commanding-in-Chief, who is generally acquainted with all the circumstances.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. HUNTasked (1) whether Regular officers receive their pay during instruction in flying; whether Special Reserve officers receive no pay during instruction; and (2) whether, as officers have to provide their own lodging and outfit for instruction in flying, he can say if anything is allowed towards these expenses if they are prevented by illness or accident from obtaining a certificate?
    Colonel SEELY: It is presumed that in this and the next question the hon. Gentleman refers to the period during which the officer is obtaining his preliminary knowledge of aviation for the purposes of the Aero Club certificate. The Regular officer does receive pay, just as he would during ordinary leave of absence. The Special Reserve officer does not receive pay, but at the end of the course receives the £75 Grant for having obtained the certificate at his own expense. As regards Question 22 the reply is in the negative.
    Mr. HUNT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to remove this injustice from these Reserve officers who have to risk their necks and pay for the privilege as well.
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot admit the injustice, because both classes of officers run the same risk. We deliberately adopted the plan of giving an officer £75 on obtaining his certificate.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that the Special Reserve is part of the Regular Army, does it not seem rather hard on these officers?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; they are under different conditions.

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked (1) how long it will take before information can be given to this House as to the actual effective strength of the National Reserve and the numbers of men in Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3, respectively; and (2) whether the number of 190,000, which has been estimated officially as the effective strength of the National Reserve, has increased since 1st January, 1913; and whether, as on the 17th of March last there were no statistics available to show the number of men who had been struck off the registers of the Veteran and National Reserves since their formation on 21st May, 1910, and 5th August, 1911, respectively, for any of the following causes, namely, found to belong to the Army Reserve or Special Reserve, for misconduct, physical unfitness, resignation, emigration, death, or other reasons, the figure 190,000 still bears an approximate relation to the real effective strength of the National Reserve or whether such effective strength is at present an unknown quantity?
    Mr. BAKER: A Return will be furnished at the first available opportunity, and I hope it will contain the information required.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is an ample supply of arms, ammunition, and equipment over and above that necessary for the full establishment of each and every unit of the Territorial Force with which to arm and equip the large numbers of men whom he expects to join the Territorial Army on mobilisation, namely, 190,000 units of the National Reserve, 105,000 ex-Territorial soldiers, and 140,000 rifle club members, with the 880 Territorial Reserve men, in all 435,000 men in round numbers?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply to a question on this subject put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Birmingham on the 17th March.
    Mr. NIELDasked whether the appointment of brigade commander of the Territorial Force can now only be held by an officer of the rank of substantive colonel; and what is the amount of the consolidated (namely, inclusive) pay of officers holding such appointment?
    Mr. BAKER: The appointment is open to colonels and lieutenant-colonels. In practice colonels have been appointed to these posts. The normal rate for officers now appointed is £500 a year.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under the recently proposed adjustment of officers' pay the sum which may he drawn by a lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion for bare pay and command pay (exclusive of any allowance, e.g., for lodging, fuel, light, servants, etc.), will not in fact be greater than the consolidated pay of a substantive colonel holding the appointment of brigade commander of the Territorial Force; whether he will explain why the promotion of an officer on the active list to a command carries a lower salary than that payable to him previous to such promotion; and will he state what steps he proposes to take to remedy a state of things so inequitable and so prejudicial to those officers who have brigade commands in the Territorial Force?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not at present in a position to give any information upon points arising out of the new scehme for officers' pay. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman shall receive consideration.

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary of Scotland whether an amending Education Act is contemplated for Scotland?
    The SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The only legislation which I contemplate for this Session in connection with the Education Acts is a Bill to give additional power to the school boards to provide for the medical treatment of children.

    Prison Clerkships (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether the second-class clerkships under the Prison Commissioners have been revived after being in abeyance for over twenty years; whether any existing store warders have been allowed to apply for such clerkships; and whether these positions are filled by nomination or otherwise?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In reply to the first part of the question, the Prison Commissioners propose to open the appointment of certain prison clerks to applicants from without as well as from

    981
    within the prison service, in accordance with a practice formerly in force but recently in abeyance. They have advertised the posts, and existing store warders have been allowed to apply. The precise method of filling the posts is at present under consideration.

    Imperial Institute.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what are the duties of the Advisory Committee for the Imperial Institute, of which Sir Sydney Olivier, the permanent secretary of the Board, has recently been appointed a member; what amount of time is expended in the execution of such duties; and whether Sir Sydney Olivier has any duties or employment other than the above outside the work of his department?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Member will find complete information concerning the Advisory Committee of the Imperial Institute if he will refer to the Imperial Institute (Transfer) Act of 1902. Sir Sydney Olivier has been appointed in succession to Sir Thomas Elliott as the representative of the Board on the Committee, and the amount of time which it will be necessary for him to devote to this part of his departmental duties will depend upon various circumstances. So far as I am aware, Sir Sydney Olivier has no duties or employment outside the work of his department.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Was this appointment in accordance with the ordinary practice, and is there nothing special in regard to Sir Sydney Olivier?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It was made in the ordinary course.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to publish the Report of the Departmental Committee upon cheaper buildings for small holdings?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report will be published to-morrow.

    Agricultural Education.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the difficult and delicate position in which the new provincial advisory councils on agricultural education will be placed with regard to the co-ordination of agricultural education in their provinces
    982
    in the event of the local education authorities in their provinces abstaining from giving them information as to the existing arrangements for the provision of agricultural education within their administrative areas, or their projected schemes for earning Development Fund Grants in respect of new and additional work in connection with farm institutes, and from seeking advice as to such schemes, the President of the Board of Agriculture will address an official communication to each of such authorities announcing the existence of an advisory council for their province, and asking them to give such council the fullest information possible as to their agricultural education work?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Each of the local authorities was consulted before being asked to nominate representatives on the advisory councils, and I have every reason to hope that they will readily furnish all information that may be necessary. However, to prevent the possibility of any such difficulty arising as is contemplated by the hon. Member, I will communicate with the local authorities as he suggests.

    Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office have ever committed themselves to the view that all land in Northern and Southern Rhodesia not already sold to settlers is the absolute property of the Chartered Company; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to safeguard the rights of the natives to any portion of the soil?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir, the exact limits of the Company's rights have formed the subject of controversy in Rhodesia, and His Majesty's Government, when asked by the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia in 1908 to decide them, hold that, the question was not susceptible of a binding solution, except by the Courts of Law. In regard to the natives, however, the Southern Rhodesia Order in Council of 1898 clearly lays down in Article 81 that the Company must from time to time assign to the natives land sufficient for their occupation, whether as tribes or portions of tribes, and suitable for their agricultural and pastoral requirements, including in all cases a fair and equitable proportion of springs or permanent water. The same provision exists in the Northern Rhodesia Order in Council (Article 40).
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May we take it that no change in Rhodesia will be detrimental to the natives' rights in the land?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly.

    Census (Agricultural Labourers).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state, according to the Census of 1911, what proportion of the persons engaged in agricultural pursuits are agricultural labourers; how the number compares with those so returned in the three previous decennial Censuses; and what proportion of the total population on each occasion they were found to represent?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have explained to the hon. Member in correspondence that the results of the Census are not yet complete and ready for publication. The volume containing the occupation statistics will be issued as soon as it is ready.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the volume will be published?
    Mr. BURNS: A number of volumes have been already issued, and they have appeared much earlier than previous reports. As to this particular volume it is not likely to be ready until July or August.

    Pauper Boys (Indentures).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked (1) whether, with reference to the Portsmouth scheme for training and indenturing pauper boys, the right hon. Gentleman, before sanctioning the scheme, will take into account the fact that such State-regulated contract labour will compete injuriously with the labour of independent youths not under Poor Law control; and what precautions he proposes to take to prevent those indentured labourers being used as strike-breakers in trade disputes; (2) whether there is any limit to the age up to which the guardians are or may be able to keep paupers in this form of unfree labour and to appropriate their wages for their keep; and, if not, whether the Board contemplate eventually the organisation of the whole of the Poor Law unemployed into a body of efficient hired artisans, living in compounds under the control of the guardians or other central State Department; (3) whether the President of the Local Government Board's attention has
    984
    been called to a scheme of the Portsmouth guardians, in which it is proposed to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board to keeping pauper boys under the guardians' control until the age of eighteen, and, with the view of preventing them from drifting into blind alley employment, to apprentice them after school age to some useful trade in the town, keeping them meantime in a specially provided home and appropriating the wages they earn to the cost of their board and lodging, in that home, but allowing them some fraction of their earnings as pocket money; and whether this scheme has yet come before the Board for approval; and (4) whether the Department will fix what proportion of their wages the labourers are to receive as pocket money; and whether the pauper boys themselves are to be in any way consulted as to giving their consent to becoming workers on the arranged terms?
    Mr. BURNS: I received yesterday a communication from the Portsmouth guardians giving the outlines of the scheme which I suppose is that to which my hon. Friend refers. Before deciding whether to consent to the proposal I shall obtain somewhat fuller particulars.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see that scheme?
    Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Member will put a question down I will do my best to provide him with information.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is the phrase "indentured labourers" an accurate description?
    Mr. BURNS: No; I should say it was an illuminative title.

    Trade Boards Act.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what evidence he is taking or proposes to take before coming to a decision as to what trades are to be included under the heading of Sugar Confectionery in the proposed extension of the Trade Boards Act; and whether he will give the principal employers in the various sections of the trade an opportunity of being heard?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Officers of my Department have visited a number of factories in various parts of the country, and

    985
    a few clays ago I received a deputation of employers connected with the sugar confectionery trade. I shall be very glad to have the benefit of the advice and assistance of any persons in the trades which, as at present advised, I contemplate including in the proposed Provisional Order extending the application of the Trade Boards Act.

    Tonbridge Labour Council.
    Mr. G. ROBERTSasked whether the Tonbridge and District Trades and Labour Council has applied for accommodation for the meetings of the said council at the local Labour Exchange and that the application has been refused; and whether the President of the Board of Trade can state the reasons for such refusal?
    Mr. BUXTON: In accordance with the statutory Regulations made by the Board of Trade under the Labour Exchanges Act, applications for accommodation within the premises of a Labour Exchange may be granted only for such purposes and on such terms and conditions as the Advisory Trade Committee for the district may approve. The application of the Tonbridge and District Trades and Labour Council was referred to the Advisory Trade Committee for London and the South-Eastern Counties, who recommended that it should not be granted. In the circumstances, the Board of Trade have no power to grant the application.

    Port of London Authority.
    Mr. G. ROBERTSasked if the tribunal set up to inquire into the Port of London Authority by-laws relating to watermen and lightermen has yet reported; and, if so, whether such Report will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the same before the findings are given effect to?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Report of the three gentlemen appointed to inquire into the by-laws recently made by the Port of London Authority as to the licensing of lightermen and watermen was presented to Parliament on the 20th March last, and was circulated on the 25th March, together with correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Port Authority informing them of the decision to confirm the by-laws in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Committee.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the protests of the lightermen against the by-law?
    Mr. BUXTON: The position is that the Port of London Authority made this by-law. I referred it to a Committee consisting of three. They went carefully into the matter, heard both sides and all persons interested at great length and quite fully, and came unanimously to the decision that the by-law should be confirmed. Under those circumstances, it appears to me that the by-law should be confirmed.
    Mr. J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the absolute responsibility of the final sanction of this by-law in spite of the opposition of the workmen concerned?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade is the confirming authority, and under the circumstances we think it well, after the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into it, to sanction it. Of course I take full responsibility for so doing.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is there any other case of any other class of the community losing a vested interest of this description without at least proper consideration being given to them?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask when the by-law will be finally confirmed and in operation?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am not quite sure, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice. With regard to the question of consideration this is exactly what has occurred in regard to this matter. The fullest possible consideration was given by the Committee who went most carefully into it and heard evidence from all sides and all parties interested, and came unanimously to the conclusion that the Order should be confirmed, and I would also point out in this connection that it was anticipated by Parliament in the Port of London Authority Act that something of this character would be carried through at no distant date because this particular by-law was carried out under a particular Sub-section of that Act.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is this the punishment you are meting out to the men because of the strike?
    Mr. BUXTON: No.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: May I ask whether the Lightermen's Association acquiesced in the reference of this by-law to this tribunal?
    Mr. BUXTON: The position is that the Port of London Authority sent the by-law to the Board of Trade for confirmation. I was requested by, I think, the Lightermen's Association through their representatives, to inqure into it so that the matter might be fully considered and discussed by all the parties interested. That request I acceded to; and I should have done so on my own initiative. The matter was inquired into very fully by this Court, and they came to the conclusion to which I have referred.
    Mr. WEDGWOODrose…
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any other questions had better be put down.
    Mr. G. ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has succeeded in arranging a conference or conferences between watermen and lightermen, employers and employed, engaged in the trade of the Port of London, with a view to the regulation and restriction of the hours of labour; and, if so, is he able to state the result thereof?
    Mr. BUXTON: The hours of labour of lightermen and watchmen in the Port of London were settled by an agreement dated 11th August, 1911, between the master lightermen and the Lightermen's Union. Masters and mates of tugs, who were not covered by that agreement, were, I understand, given an increase of pay after the dispute in that year. I am informed that the Master Lightermen's Association were in communication with the Lightermen's Union in October last in regard to wages and conditions of employment in connection with tug work, but that, in the opinion of the employers, no fresh circumstances had arisen in connection with the employment of tug-hands to justify rearrangement of wages or conditions of employment. I understand that in the course of correspondence the master lightermen stated that they were prepared to meet officers of the Lightermen's Union, but could not hold out the hope of any alterations.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the officers at Cutler Street tobacco warehouse have made a complaint as to the accommodation recently supplied by the Port of London Authority and approved by the
    988
    Board of Customs and Excise; and, having regard to the dissatisfaction caused by the present method of approval, especially with reference to this recent case, will the responsibility for furnishing and approving all such offices be transferred to His Majesty's Office of Works?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The complaint referred to in the first part of the question has been received and is now being inquired into. As regards the latter part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his previous question by my right hon. Friend on the 10th February last.

    North British Railway Company (Conciliation Scheme).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the North British Railway Company have recently classified twelve ticket-collecting stations on a lower scale than previously, and so enabled themselves to pay 22s. per week instead of the 25s. granted for the same duties by the arbiter in terms of the conciliation scheme; and whether, in view of the terms of the conciliation scheme, he can or will take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have received an application from one of the Conciliation Boards for the North British Railway for the interpretation of the conciliation scheme in regard to the classification of stations in respect of the wages of ticket collectors. Both sides of the Board are desirous of being heard before a decision is given, and arrangements have been made for a hearing.

    Civil Servants (Weekly Half-Holiday).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Prime Minister whether the subject of a weekly half-holiday for Civil servants is still under consideration; and, if so, when an announcement on the subject may be expected?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The question is still under consideration. A decision will, I hope, be announced shortly.

    High Courts of Justice.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister the number of days during the sittings of the High Courts of Justice on which judges of the High Court have

    989
    been engaged on Royal Commissions or Government inquiries since the increase in the number of judges was made by the present Government; and if he can state any reason, other than their duties in connection with these inquiries, which prevented them discharging their judicial duties on these days?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that Mr. Justice Darling has sat on seven occasions after four o'clock on the Royal Commission inquiring into delays in the King's Bench Division. On each occasion he has discharged his judicial duties until half-past three. Lord Parker, when a judge of the High Court, has at various times presided over the Committee of experts inquiring into the merits of different sytems of wireless telegraphy, but this did not interfere with the discharge of his judicial duties. No other judge of the High Court has been prevented from discharging his judicial duties by reason of being engaged on a Royal Commission or Government inquiry.

    Parliamentary Elections.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister when he intends to make provision out of public or local funds for the payment of returning officers' expenses in Parliamentary elections?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on 23rd January last, the Government cannot now indicate when they may be able to deal with this and other matters connected with electoral reform, and the Corrupt Practices Act, which, in their opinion, need review.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it the intention of the Government, when they do deal with it, to deal with the period in which the elections take place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot go into details.

    Railway Rates.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to bold the inquiry into the question of existing railway rates and their effect upon trade and industry, promised on behalf of the Government during the Debates on the Railways Bill of last Session; and whether he will see that legislative treatment of the question of owners' risk rates, the unfairness of which has already been admitted by several Departmental Committees, is not again post-
    990
    poned by including it among the matters referred to any Committee of Inquiry.
    Mr. BUXTON: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the meantime increases of as much as 50 per cent. are being made by some railways on the rates upon potatoes and other farm produce?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have received a statement with regard to existing railway rates, and the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. PETO: Is it the intention of the Government to take no steps during the present Session to remedy any of these grievances of the traders?

    Education Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to introduce the Government's Education Bill before Whitsuntide?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether in that case he will see, bearing in mind the importance of the Bill, that sufficient time will be allowed before the Session closes to discuss the provisions of the Bill adequately in Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no such undertaking.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will there not be plenty of time during the next two or three years to discuss this Bill?

    Fishworkers (Scotland and the Hebrides).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the conveyance of women fishworkers between ports on the mainland of Scotland and the Hebrides, and between ports on the mainland and the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, vessels carry as many as 600 passengers and over; that no proper arrangements are made for such a large number of passengers; that many of these passengers are compelled to make the journey on the open deck; that no proper arrangements are made for sanitary conveniences; and that the vessels are not equipped with sufficient lifeboats and life-belts for the number of passengers carried; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made during the

    991
    ensuing season as to the equipment of the vessels and the arrangements made for the conveyance of the women and enforce any regulations the Board may have for the safety and convenience of passengers on such vessels?
    Mr. BUXTON: Special arrangements have in past years been made for the conveyance of large numbers of fishworkers during the fishing season, and special passenger certificates have been issued by the Board of Trade for the purpose. Before these certificates could be issued the Board's officers had to be satisfied that the vessels were in all respects fit for the intended service. Before any such certificate is issued for this season, I am taking steps to have special inquiries made which will cover the various points to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this takes place in the summer months at a time when there are not many storms, and has he received any complaint whatever from any of those passengers on those boats whose living largely depends on time?
    Mr. BUXTON: I understand there is a conference proceeding with my advisers and I will put these points to them.

    Public Trustee ("Titanic" Fund).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether any, and, if so, what supervision is exercised by his Department over the Public Trustee; whether accounts are presented by this official and reports made, and, if so, to whom; and when the last report was made; and (2) whether any report has been made to him of the disposal of the funds for the relief of the sufferers by the "Titanic" disaster; whether a copy of this account can be seen, and, if so, where; and whether the Public Trustee has a balance in hand, and, if so, how much?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have no powers in regard to the Public Trustee or cognisance of the accounts or reports rendered by him. No report as to the disposal of the "Titanic" fund has been made to the Board of Trade.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    POST OFFICE.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General whether under
    992
    the Government of Ireland Bill the Irish Parliament will be free to reduce postal facilities in Ireland and to place future postal servants upon a lower scale of pay than that now prevailing?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Under Clause 2 (8) of the Bill the Irish Government will have power to arrange at its discretion any internal postal service. Clauses 32 to 36 in the Bill, relating to Civil servants, apply to existing officers of the Post Office, and the Irish Government will be free to determine the conditions of service of future Post Office servants in Ireland.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General (1) what is the increase in the cost of the Post Office in Ireland in the last fifteen years; to what causes it can be attributed; and what has been the increased cost under each of the principal heads; and (2) whether, having regard to the opinion expressed by the Committee on Irish Finance that the increased cost of the Irish Post Office certainly requires explanation, he will issue a Memorandum giving the particulars and the necessary explanation to enable Members to share the information given to the Committee on Irish Finance, and the better equip them for a thorough understanding of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland under the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The increase in the cost of the Post Office in Ireland in the fifteen years to 1911–1912 was £599,000. It is attributable mainly to the Jubilee Concessions of 1897, under which extended postal and telegraph facilities were afforded to the rural districts, and to improvements in the scales of pay and conditions of service of the staff made in accordance with the recommendations of successive Committees. The increased cost under each of the principal heads is as follows:—

    £

    Headquarters Salaries

    …

    142,000

    Provincial Salaries

    …

    310,000

    Superannuations and Marriage Gratuities

    …

    34,000

    Conveyance of Mails

    …

    26,000

    Maintenance, Renewals, and Extensions of the Telegraph and Telephone systems

    …

    37,000

    The causes of the increase are stated in paragraph 12 of the Report of the Committee on Irish Finance, and I do not

    993
    think any further useful information could be furnished in a Memorandum.

    Committee on Irish Finance.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what was the result of the scrutiny of accounts which was made with special reference to the Inquiry of the Committee on Irish Finance; and what are the details of the further adjustments which were made as the outcome of that scrutiny?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The result of the scrutiny of accounts made with special reference to the Inquiry of the Committee on Irish Finance is stated in paragraph 50 of the Committee's Report, namely, an increase in the revenue attributable to Ireland of about £50,000. The items making up this figure are for the most part similar in character to those shown in Appendix B, page 33, of the Report, but further adjustments in favour of Ireland were made to allow in round figures for the estimated excess of letters and telegrams delivered over those posted in Ireland.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received the further Grant for rural party lines which he informed this House on the 9th December, 1912, the Treasury had consented to give; and, if he has received it, whether it is now exhausted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Grant referred to by the hon. Member was duly made and has already been allocated for the provision of a number of new rural party telephone lines in different parts of the country. I am glad to say that I have now received authority to spend a further sum of £20,000 in providing lines of this class.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the case of a telephone subscriber residing in Ella Road, Crouch Hill, in the borough of Islington, who is denied the benefits of the inner London exchange tariff, whilst near neighbours who are not resident, as he is, within the Metropolitan area, but in the borough of Hornsey, are connected to a Metropolitan exchange, with the result that they can speak to the whole Metropolitan area for 1d., although they live outside it, while he is charged 2d.; and, in view of the disadvantage of this arrangement, will steps be taken to endeavour, as far as possible, to serve
    994
    persons residing in the county of London from exchanges situated therein, so as to remove inequalities of the kind indicated?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The address of the subscriber in Ella Road referred to is within the area which is proper to and has, since 1907, been served by the Hornsey exchange, and he has no claim to be connected with any other exchange. The addresses of the two neighbours are also proper to that area, but their circuits, with a number of other circuits for other persons in the locality, were provided by the National Telephone Company to their North exchange in 1905, before the Hornsey exchange was opened. Steps are now being taken to adjust the anomaly which exists by transferring such circuits as far as practicable to their proper exchange.

    Carriginimma (County Cork) Postman.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that auxiliary postman James M'Sweeney, of Carriginimma, county Cork, is the local parish secretary of the secret sectarian and political order known as the Board of Erin, A.O.H.; that this man is frequently guilty of neglect of duty in the delivery of letters by attending funerals of the members of his order during official hours, and that meetings of this secret society have been held in the Carriginimma post office belonging to his sister; and, seeing that M'Sweeney organised a political invasion from Macroom and Ballyvourney and other outside districts to the Carriginimma Catholic church on Sunday, 23rd March, which nearly led to a riot in the precincts of the church, will he say whether it is with his sanction that a Post Office official organises church parades of a political nature which are offensive and provocative to the majority of the people of the district?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The postmaster of the district has no knowledge of any incidents such as those mentioned by the hon. Member. Mr. James M'Sweeney is reported to be a satisfactory officer, and no complaint of any neglect of duty on his part or on that of the sub-postmistress of Carriginimma have been received.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the questions on the Paper? He has not replied to a single one of them. He has merely given the state-

    995
    ment of the postmaster. I want to know whether the statements in the question are facts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I sent the hon. Member's question for local report, and I have given the hon. Member all the information in my possession. If he desires fuller information I will ask one of the surveying staff to make inquiries.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: The question was put on the Paper a week ago. Did the right hon. Gentleman institute any inquiries locally, or did he simply ask the people whether the facts stated in the question were correct or otherwise?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The postmaster reported to his superior officer, who reported to me, that he had no such information whatever.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentlemen know whether he can reply upon the information received from members of this order? Is he not aware that the National President of this society stated in this House that the members are bound by a solemn obligation not to reveal the secrets of the order?
    Mr. SHEEHAN: I will repeat the question on Thursday.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will allow a little longer interval I will ask one of the officers of the Surveying Department to make inquiries.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question? It is of an extremely important character. This is a secret society with 100,000 members.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of that.

    Sixpenny Postal Orders.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the average number of 6d. postal orders now being sold weekly; and whether he can say how many of this number represents the average business demand?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are no figures available to show how many sixpenny postal orders are being sold weekly; but the average number paid weekly during the last two months was 343,000 The average number paid weekly during two months in the middle of last year, in which I believe few or no newspaper competitions were carried on, was 116,000.

    Newspaper Lotteries.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office has any arrangement with weekly and other newspapers for delivering letters addressed to their various competitions; if so, with which papers; and whether he can state the largest number of letters delivered to such and the smallest, giving the weekly total in each case?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the practice to make special arrangements for the delivery of letters when the number to be delivered is unusually large, and such arrangements are made with the publishers of newspapers as with others. To give the figures asked for would involve considerable labour and cost in the preparation of special Returns.
    Mr. HOGGE: Have these separate weekly newspapers definite arrangements with the Post Office by which the business in connection with these competitions is conducted for them by the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No special arrangements are made; they are exactly the same as with other people having a large postal business.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has considered the advisability of approaching the Swiss Government with a view to their co-operation in making illegal competitions advertised in this country by newspaper proprietors and others which could not be conducted in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of competitions carried on abroad which would be illegal in this country is under my consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the sweepstakes being advertised in the current periodical journals in this country, with guarantees by responsible persons, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something ought to be done before the sweepstakes take place?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid that it would require legislation, and I am not sure that it would be possible to pass legislation before the sweepstakes take place.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dutch Government have driven these people out of Holland? Surely we can drive them out of Switzerland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We did not drive them out of Holland. The Dutch Government have driven them out of Holland, and the British Government have driven them out of England, and also out of Scotland.

    Valentia Harbour (Telegraphic Facilities).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster General whether, in view of the representations made to him and of the opening of the fishing season, arrangements will be made for a temporary telegraph office at Valentia Harbour, in continuation of the service supplied last year?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the affirmative.

    Customs and Excise Department (Overtime).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that no precedent has been produced for the reduction in the rate of overtime of certain officers of Customs and Excise (late junior examining officers of Customs), he will now be prepared to restore the 2s. rate, of which those officers were deprived by the operation of Customs General Order 54/1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON (for Mr. Masterman): I fear I can add nothing to the answer to the hon. Member's question of 16th December last on this subject.

    Suffragist Prisoners (Holloway Gaol).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Miss Emerson, who is serving a sentence of two months' imprisonment in Holloway for breaking a window, is an American citizen and is being forcibly fed; and, if so, what report do the doctors give of the present state of her health?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. The doctors report that the condition of her health is quite satisfactory.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is she being forcibly fed?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have said that the answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. The second question is whether she is being forcibly fed; therefore she is being forcibly fed.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: There are two forms of forcible feeding. Is she being forcibly fed and resisting, or is she being forcibly fed without resisting?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am afraid I cannot differentiate.

    Metropolitan Police (Pension for Injuries).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he will say what proportion the pension now being received by Police-constable Norman Macdonald, 394 L Division, who has been incapacitated from active service on account of injuries received when on duty, bears to the rate of pay which he was receiving before his injury?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Macdonald's pension of £51 2s. 9d. represents twenty-eight-fiftieths of his retiring pay. He is partially incapacitated from earning a livelihood and the pension granted is the maximum provided for such a case under the Police Act, 1890.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to inquire into this case and have it reviewed again, having regard to the fact that this man is doomed practically to destitution, owing to serious incapacities incurred in the performance of his duties?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If the hon. Member will put any facts before us to justify a reconsideration of the matter, we shall be glad to consider them.

    Football Competitions.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it is illegal to enter football competitions from Scotland and apparently legal from other portions of the United Kingdom; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to assimilate the Law of England to that of Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is another injustice to Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The matter was under consideration yesterday, and it is still under consideration to-day.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEE (MINUTES).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the minutes of an insurance committee are open to the inspection of an insured person in the same way that those of municipal bodies are open to the inspection of ratepayers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Insurance committees are not required to allow the inspection of their minutes by insured persons, but I believe their meetings are usually open to the public and their proceedings reported in the local Press.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In cases where the Press are not allowed to be present, are the minutes open to inspection?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of any given case.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that all meetings are open to the Press?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does he know of some which are not open to the Press?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Some are not open to the Press, and committees are not required to allow inspection of the minutes.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are the minutes not read and confirmed in public?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In the cases where the public are admitted to the meetings, of course they hear the minutes read.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. LARDNERasked whether the President of the Local Government Board's attention has been called to the case of a workman named Michael Henigan, an inmate under the National Insurance Act of the Aysgarth sanatorium, in the North Riding, who was sent to the institution from a lodging-house in Guisborough without proper clothing, with the result that he was kept in bed and did not
    1000
    therefore receive full advantage of the treatment; whether he is aware that, when the insurance committee applied to the Guisborough guardians, they were unable to provide clothing, as advised by the medical superintendent of the sanatorium, on the ground that Henigan was not a pauper, and that even if he had been he had no settlement in Guisborough; whether he is aware that the guardians of the Aysgarth union on 24th March absolutely declined to receive Henigan into the workhouse hospital, and that they have intimated in a letter to the North Riding insurance committee that they cannot accept him or any other tuberculous patient who happens to be sent to Aysgarth sanatorium, and whose settlement cannot be traced; does he support the attitude of these boards in their refusal; and can he state, in view of the hardship likely to be caused to insured persons in such circumstances, whether it would be possible for guardians to admit such cases?
    Mr. BURNS: The question raises several points of difficulty with which it is impossible to deal in the course of an answer. The creation of insurance committees has no doubt produced some new Poor Law problems, but I am in hopes that, as a result of consultations and by co-operation between the authorities concerned, the difficulties may be overcome. I am in communication with the guardians and the Insurance Commissioners on the subject.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether it is in the power of the London Committee to make any provision for the removal to a sanatorium of a consumptive patient in Islington who has been ill for four years, and an absolute invalid for the past six months, to whose case his attention has been called, the patient being one of a family of orphans with no private means and entirely dependent on a brother and sister insured under the National Insurance Act, whose own health is imperilled by the strain of nursing their sister in addition to long hours of work in business, while they are also exposed to some risk of infection?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the patient referred to in the hon. Member's question is not an insured person, and as sanatorium benefit has not been extended in London to the dependants of insured persons, I regret that she is not eligible for sanatorium treatment under the Insurance Act.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will these matters have consideration in an amending Bill?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will pass on the question to the Department concerned.
    Mr. DAWES: Did not the London County Council unanimously pass a resolution some time ago to take over the care of tuberculous persons? Has anything been done since the resolution was passed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of it.

    COST OF ADMINISTRATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the administration of the National Insurance Act costs upwards of 26 per cent. of the total estimate of the sum required for health insurance; and, if so, whether any precedent, other than the Land Taxes of the 1909 Budget, can be found for such a charge upon the taxpayer for administration in proportion to the amount of benefit received?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The figure of 27 per cent. which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury named in his answer on 26th March related, as desired in the question to which he was replying, to voted expenditure only, and omitted the main portion of the expenditure on benefits. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

    EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATION GAS COMMISSIONERS.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a number of employés under the Edinburgh and Leith Corporation Gas Commissioners, who do the work of lighting and extinguishing common stair gas, and who are paid 10s. per week of seven days, were, when the National Insurance Act was brought into operation, declared by the Insurance Commissioners to be under the Act; that the sum of 4d. per week was accordingly deducted from their wages; that recently the Commissioners issued statutory rules and orders showing that those stair lighters who only gave part-time service were exempted from payment; and that they now refuse to refund the contributions paid in respect of those men under their own instructions; and whether steps can be taken to order repayment of such contributions?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the hon. Gentleman now in a position to give an answer to the supplementary question put yesterday by my hon. Friend as to what will be done with this money?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not in a position to say.
    Mr. LYELL: Are we to understand that the Insurance Commissioners are absolutely prohibited by the Insurance Act from making this repayment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is as the Act stands.
    Mr. LYELL: Have they not got the power under the Power to Remove Difficulties Clause?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand not, but that is another question.

    Elementary Teachers (Examinations).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education the percentage at the certificate examination for acting teachers in December, 1912; and the percentage of passes amongst college-trained teachers who left college in July, 1912?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The percentage of students completing their period of training in July, 1912, who failed to qualify for the certificate was 6.85. The percentage of candidates who failed at the certificate examination for acting teachers in December, 1912, was 75.1.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make arrangements for candidates who fail in the certificate examination for acting teachers to be told in what subjects they have failed?
    Mr. PEASE: Candidates are not required to pass in particular subjects in the certificate examination for acting teachers, but the Board are prepared to send to any teacher on application a statement of the subjects in which his work in the examination was weak.

    National Education (Ireland).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mrs. Margaret Kerin, assistant teacher in the Knockeenahane girls' school, whose appointment since 1st October, 1912, has been approved by the Commissioners of National Education, received her salary claim for the quarter ended 31st March, 1913; and, if not, what is the cause of it being withheld; what has become of her salary claim for the quarter ended 31st December last, which was handed to the manager, Monsignor O'Leary, P.P., Castleisland; and, seeing that the manager is not carrying out the rules of the Commissioners in respect of this teacher, will an order be issued that payment of her salary shall be made through the inspector, or a respectable resident approved by the Commissioners, as provided for in Schedule III.?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education, by Order of the 26th November, 1912, sanctioned the appointment of Mrs. Kerin as full assistant from the 1st October, 1912. Mrs. Kerin was at the time a recognised junior assistant mistress in the school, but was a trained teacher and had the necessary qualifications for the higher position. She had been appointed junior assistant mistress by the manager, and it was assumed that he would have no objection to her appointment as full assistant when the average attendance at the school would warrant this course. The manager, however, refused to appoint her as full assistant, and declined to certify her application for a full assistant's salary for December, 1912, quarter. The appointments of teachers in ordinary national schools are in the hands of the local managers, and the Commissioners can pay no salary to any teacher unless the manager makes the appointment and enters into the usual form of official agreement.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in view of the representations made on behalf of Jeremiah D. Shea, Rossmore Island, near Tahilla, steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to make him an allotment of untenanted land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have no knowledge of any representations made on behalf of Jeremiah D. Shea. The untenanted land on the estate
    1004
    on which Rossmore Island is situated will be distributed by the Board in accordance with their usual procedure, and any application that may be made by Shea will be duly considered.
    Mr. BOLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Congested Districts Board received a memorial, influentially signed, on behalf of this man?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
    Mr. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, but I do not know that it will make much difference.
    Mr. REDDYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have yet divided the Lissanerin farm, on the estate of the Earl of Rosse, of Roscamroe, King's County; if so, whether they have recognised the claim of J. J. Foley for part of these lands; and if so, will something be done to hasten the carrying through of this work, so that this man and his family may be put into a home where they shall have some comfort as soon as possible?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first and second paragraphs of the question is in the negative. The purchase agreements for the sale of the holdings on this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, were not lodged until the 19th August, 1908, and having regard to its position on the principal register of direct sales (all cash) and the claims of other estates, several years will elapse before this estate will be reached.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SOLENT NAVIGATION (OBSOLETE WARSHIPS).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of men are permanently stationed on the obsolete battleships moored in the Solent; and if proper watches are kept and the usual lights shown on these ships?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): This group of five vessels is in charge of a chief officer of the Coastguard or Permanent Cruiser Service, and each ship is in charge of a civilian caretaker. The caretakers live in the ships, and are responsible for hoisting the usual anchor light at sunset and keeping it burning until daylight. No regular watches are kept.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Should there not be continuous watch, in view of the dangers front foggy weather and the state of the waterway?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I think the answer to the hon. Member's next question will answer that.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the danger to navigation in foggy weather, especially to the steamers plying between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, due to the position in which the obsolete warship "Empress of India" is moored; and if he could see his way to have this vessel removed further to the west?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Inquiries have been made, and no complaints have been received from captains of steamers plying between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.

    Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked when the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian on Thursday.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that before any definite progress is made with the English Bill we shall see a copy of the Scottish Bill for the purposes of comparison?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I think there is no doubt that a copy of the Scottish Bill will be ready before progress is reported with the English Bill.

    Advisory Committees (Magistrates).
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDSasked the Attorney-General whether the Advisory Committee for the appointment of magistrates for the county of Glamorgan has been duly constituted; and, if so, whether its members have yet been convened for the first meeting of the Committee?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The Advisory Committee for the county of Glamorgan was appointed a considerable time ago, but it was subsequently found desirable to add to its numbers. It is expected that the Committee will be finally constituted in the course of this week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    ANIMALS (ANESTHETICS) BILL.
    "To make further provision for the protection of Animals from cruelty." Presented by Mr. WALTER GUINNESS; supported by Dr. Addison, Sir Frederick Banbury, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Greene, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Mills, Sir Charles Rose, and Mr. Snowden; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
    CHURCHWARDENS' COUNCILS BILL.
    "To provide for the constitution of Churchwardens' Councils in England and Wales." Presented by Lord HUGH CECIL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
    BENEFICES AND ECCLESIASTICAL SUITS BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to institution to benefices, to ecclesiastical suits, and to public worship; and otherwise to make better provision for the discipline of the clergy of the Church of England." Presented by Lord HUGH CECIL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

  PLURAL VOTING.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to impose a penalty on any elector who votes in more than one constituency at a general Parliamentary election."
  The House, Mr. Speaker, will not expect me to repeat the various arguments which have been advanced in favour of the principle of one man one vote, upon which this Bill is founded. In 1906 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies introduced a Plural Voting Bill, and the principle of that Bill was then discussed in all its branches and through all its stages in this House. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Harold Baker) introduced another Plural Voting Bill, in a very able speech, and the question was discussed on the Second Reading of that Bill, and it was discussed upon the First and Second Reading of the Franchise and Registration Bill over which I had charge. The argu-
  1016
  ments in favour of the principle are well known to the House, and, so far as there are arguments against, they are also well known to hon. Members. The objection which, I understand, the Opposition takes is not one of hostility to the principle of this Bill, for otherwise right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have accepted that principle in connection with their Referendum proposals in 1910; but I believe their objection to be founded upon the view that this is piecemeal legislation and an attempt to redress an anomaly in the interest of one political party. The question, therefore, I presume they would like to put to me is this: "Why introduce legislation merely to help one party in the State from an electoral standpoint and defer franchise, registration, and electoral reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords, and redistribution—subjects upon which there might be a greater consensus of opinion in all quarters of the House?" My reply to any such question would be that during the lifetime of the present Parliament we intend to proceed with these reforms.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Put it in the Preamble?
  Mr. PEASE: We are all agreed that no Autumn Session ought to be taken this year, except in the case of very exceptional emergency—unforeseen emergency, perhaps I ought to say. The only consideration which, therefore, really deters the Government from proceeding with the other measures such as I have enumerated is the question of time, and owing to want of time it is quite impossible for us this year to introduce any more comprehensive measure. We therefore think it right to confine our proposal this year to this single reform, urgent, long overdue, and which can be effected in a simple manner without prejudicing or trespassing upon further and more complete amendment of the law, of which we have not lost sight, and which we hope later on to achieve.
  Perhaps I may proceed at once to explain the proposals of the Bill. It extends to the United Kingdom; it is limited in scope; it will not affect the right of any individual to exercise his vote at any by-election where his name appears on the register. It will not be necessary for any plural voter to choose which qualification he may care to exercise prior to the General Election, and he will therefore be left the full advantage of selecting which

  1017
  of his plural votes he likes to register. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We hope by the introduction of a Franchise and Registration Bill before we go to the country to remove all duplication of votes, and our earnestness in that direction is proved in connection with the Bill which I myself introduced last year. We do not deal, as I say, with registration and franchise in this Bill. We do not subject the plural voter to any restriction, or place him in any more onerous condition in regard to his vote than the single voter. If there were any criticism in regard to the Bill of my right hon. Friend in 1906, and the Bill introduced by the Member for Accrington, it was that at any rate in this respect the plural voter was somewhat prejudiced. This Bill is really a one-Clause Bill. There is a second Clause, but the second Clause is "this Act may be cited the Plural Voting Act, 1913."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Any Schedules?
  Mr. PEASE: No Schedules.
  HON. MEMBERS: Any Preamble?
  Mr. PEASE: No, there is no Preamble. The operative Clause consists of three Sub-sections. The first prohibits the exercise of the plural vote by enacting that at a General Election a person shall not vote or ask for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency. The second Sub-section imposes a penalty on anyone who votes more than once at a General Election; and the third Sub-section defines a constituency and includes universities as well as county divisions and boroughs. The only other point, I think, on which the House ought to be informed before this Bill is introduced is as to the penalties which we impose. There seems to be three different penalties which might be applicable to offences of this kind. One was to make the offence a felony, with the penalty applicable to personation, which was a sentence of two years' hard labour without the option of a fine. That was the penalty imposed by the Unionist party in their Bill of 1888 in respect to anyone who was convicted, not in connection with a Parliamentary but a local election for county councils, and who voted twice in connection with any one borough that is in two separate wards, or who voted twice in two divisions for the same county council. We think that penalty unnecessarily severe, and we are not going to impose it. The penalty which we also disregard is the penalty attached to illegal practices. That
  1018
  would render an individual liable to a fine of £100 and to be incapacitated for five years from voting in the constituency in which the offence was committed. We do not think that really meets the case. We propose to adopt another penalty which is applicable by Section 6, Sub-section (1) of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and that would impose a maximum fine of £200 or a maximum period of two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labour. It would incapacitate an individual from holding any judicial or public office or voting in any election during a period of seven years. We have accepted the middle course of these three, and I hope the House wilt agree that the penalty is sufficiently severe and will be an effective deterrent in the case of anyone voting at a General Election more than once. The Bill will remove a long standing injustice, which is detrimental to the interests especially of the poorer and working classes in the community.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman invariably treats us on this side of the House with courtesy, and we always listen to his observations with pleasure and interest…[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I confess that when he is selected to do the kind of work which falls to his, duty to-day I am reminded of a political party in this House which not many years ago elected a new leader. Let no one be apprehensive that I am going to revive the discord of the Liberal League. I am dealing with an election which took place in connection with the party which now sits below the Gangway, and when it was pointed out that their new leader might possibly be criticised as lacking in some of the qualities of leadership, they replied, "Yes, but, at any rate, he is very respectable." [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] Surely after that description identity is not so difficult. I cannot but conjecture that some such criterion is adopted when the right hon. Gentleman is successively for two years put forward to defend a proposition which is so difficult to reconcile with what he advocated a year ago, and what he has advocated to-day. I remember him saying at the close of his speech a year ago:—
  "We think we have given birth to a very lusty child."
  The partiality of the parent was somewhat falsified by the event, but it is certainly very necessary to inquire how adequate is the justification for the substitution of the very shoddy changeling

  1019
  which has taken its place to-day. What did the right hon. Gentleman say a year ago? After hearing what he said the House will then appreciate how far from his own point of view the grievances he then stated were greater or less than those he complains of to-day. He said of the system he was going to correct by the important Bill he introduced a year ago:—
  "Our present registration system is based upon eleven different Parliamentary franchises, with at least nineteen variations of different kinds. No one knows, except a few electioneering experts, in this country when he may become qualified or how he is to become qualified."
  If that is true, then it was a real grievance, but is it a less grievance than the one you have set yourselves to-day to redress or is it a greater one? The right hon. Gentleman further said:—
  "If an individual goes into a constituency on the 17th of next month (July), he will not of course obtain a vote for this year. He will not obtain a vote during 1913, and he will not obtain a vote during 1914, but he will only go on the register on the 1st January, 1915."
  Those are great grievances—in fact, they are real grievances. They could have been dealt with in a comprehensive measure, which would have received great support in every part of the House, and I was allowed to announce, and did announce, on behalf of the Opposition when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, and when we did not know that that Bill was going to be abandoned, that we would give nothing but support to that part of the Bill. That was when everybody thought that the Bill was going to be pushed through, and at that time we said that no opposition to that part was to be apprehended from the Conservative party. It is now a subject of curiosity why these pressing needs have been abandoned in favour of a need which obviously is less pressing. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the extraordinary urgency of his proposals, and he said:—
  "The real strength of the House of Commons depends on the democracy behind Members of this House, and the views of the democracy depend upon the equal votes of the many."
  That is true. The right hon. Gentleman gave some further illustrations a year ago, and I will summarise them. He said that if any party really wanted to deal with admitted grievances they have a very much plainer grievance than any we are concerned with to-day. We have the fact that fourteen Irish Members, whose votes before to-day have been extremely useful to this Government, are exactly balanced in equality of voting strength by one
  1020
  Member of the House of Commons to-day. I should have thought that was a real anomaly, and one which was not less injurious to the exact representation of democracy in this House than the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman is now making. Fortunately we are not left to conjecture as to the reason for this substitution. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this was a long overdue measure of reform demanded by the interests of the people. He was more frank a year ago, and he was a little more particular in his definition. He then said:—
  "I am quite prepared to make the admission freely to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that by the abolition of the plural vote we do expect to gain on this side of the House."
  4.0 P.M.
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The hon. Member asks, "Why not?" But that observation appears to me to be both an irrelevant and apposite question, and my answer to it is that no one would complain if you would only honestly say what is true, what you know is true, and what we know is true, that you are introducing this Bill not with the slightest concern for the interests of the country, and not caring a brass farthing whether it makes this House a more exact representation of the democracy or not. The only reason you are introducing this Bill, and the only reason you have given up the idea of introducing the comprehensive Bill which you said was urgently demanded a year ago, is because this Bill loads the dice against you as a party. If that expression appears to anyone ridiculous, perhaps I might quote again from the right hon. Gentleman. He said a year ago that the effect of this in, I think, 260 constituencies would be to disfranchise one thousand persons who are at present exercising the vote, and he told us in the clearest possible manner that he expected the majority of those would be Unionist voters. Let us avoid the expression "loading the dice." [An HON. MEMBERS "Unloading."] That is not a very brilliant interruption; the hon. Gentleman has already been anticipated by some of his Friends. Let us avoid that expression, and let us content ourselves with saying, "Do not attempt other arguments; they impose upon nobody, either in this House or in the country. Tell us plainly, "We are determined at the next election that we will not appeal to the same constituents who sent us here at the last election.' Tell us that to do that under the Ten Minute Rule, adopting a

  1021
  principle which, whether it be good or whether it be bad, at least destroys the whole basis of voting in reference to localities which has always dominated our electoral system, is a proper step, and at least give us the justification that you are doing it because you believe that you will gain a party advantage by it and injure your opponents." When that full explanation is made, it might also be useful to notice that we have in the scheme under which I understand this plan is to be carried out perhaps the most illuminating and useful illustration of the principles of Home Rule up to date which has hitherto been furnished.
  It is proposed, I understand, that this Bill, if it becomes necessary in the vicissitudes of its Parliamentary career, shall become law under the terms of the Parliament Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think that is almost the first spark of enthusiasm which has been evinced on that side of the House while still smarting under the gross injustice done to them of not being able to extend the penalties to two years' imprisonment. If the Parliament Act is to be applied to this Bill, it will be two years, or nearly two years, before it can become law, and, unless something abnormal takes place, assuming the happy fortunes of the Home Rule Bill, it would appear to follow that before this Bill can become law the Government will once again require the support of those Irish Nationalist Members who, on the basis of the Home Rule Bill, will by that time be attending, or ought to be attending, to their own business in Ireland. At the very moment, in other words, when the principle of Home Rule is most publicly asserted on behalf
  of Ireland, you are going to inflict a measure of injury on your political opponents by the votes of those Members who, by every theory you held and declared at the last election, ought to be attending to the affairs of their own country. Let me say this in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we cannot have an Autumn Session this year, and that therefore it is not possible for him to deal with the other subjects of which he spoke: Is it not clear, whether you are in favour of an Autumn Session or not—and probably there are not many differences of opinion amongst us on that point—that the whole question is a competitive one between these different proposals? A Government which wanted to deal with this question with public sincerity would have dealt with the greatest anomaly and injustice, and nobody who reads the speech of the right hon. Gentleman a year ago, and who considers the proportionate space he gave to this subject and to the other subjects with which he dealt, will be under any false impression as to the anomaly, to which he then attached the greatest importance. The reason for that change is patent. You have abandoned the correction of all those great anomalies, because the only part of the whole scheme to which you attach the slightest importance is that part which will, as you believe, improve your prospects at the polls.
  Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a general Parliamentary election."
  The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 177.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [4.8 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Boland, John Pius

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Armitage, R.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Crean, Eugene

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dawes, J. A.

  Delany, William

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Doris, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Falconer, James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  French, Peter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rowlands, James

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Furness, Stephen

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

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

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Manfield, Harry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Sheehy, David

  Glanville, H. J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Middlebrook, William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Molloy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Munro, Robert

  Thomas, J. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Neilson, Francis

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wadsworth, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Waring, Walter

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hodge, John

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wing, Thomas

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

  Barnston, H.

  1024

  1025

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gretton, John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Blair, Reginald

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Boyton, James

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Butcher, John George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Campion, W. R.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cassel, Felix

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Royds, Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cave, George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, G. J.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerry, Earl of

  Snowden, P.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Keswick, Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry,

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lawson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Dalzlel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lyttelton. Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton, M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Falle, B. G.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Felt, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Winterton, Earl

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fleming Valentine

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Younger, Sir George

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  O'Grady, James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Burns, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Harold Baker, and the Solicitor-General. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 85.]

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES.
  Resolution reported.

  (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
  1026
  a further period of ally 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 deluctions on account of a temporary tax made within two months after the date of the

  1027
  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 read a second time.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I do not desire to move the Amendment standing in my name, as the point it raises was discussed last night, but I do wish to ask whether this Resolution might not be divided into two portions; that is to say, that Clauses (a) and (b) should be taken separately from the Clause designated (c). May I point out that the latter relates to the deductions made in respect of dividends and other annual payments, and comes within a quite different category to the provisions contained in Clauses (a) and (b). The last-named Clauses do, in a sense, form part of a coherent whole, and it is possible that while this House may he willing to pass a Resolution confined to Clauses (a) and (b), it might wish to treat (c) in a wholly different manner.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to the hon. Member to move to omit any one of the three Clauses. He can take the opinion of the House whether (a) should form part of the Resolution, or (b) or (e).
  Mr. POLLOCK: Last night the Closure was applied to the Resolution as a whole, and there was no opportunity given to divide it, although it was submitted that that procedure should be followed. Objection was taken because the suggestion had not been made earlier in the day, and that, the Closure having been applied, that was not the time to ask that the Resolution be separated. As we are now about to proceed to the Report stage, I ask your decision whether the Resolution cannot be treated as two separate portions, quite apart from the question whether individual Motions may be made to leave out (a), (b), or (c).
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wants two Closure Motions when one would be quite enough. It is always open for the hon. Member, if he disapproves of Section (a) to move that it be struck out and to take the opinion of the House on it, and if the House is against him he can move to strike out (b), and so on.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether you did not yourself rule, in 1905, in respect of the Resolution on the Redistribu-
  1028
  tion Bill, that it ought to be moved separately. Has not such a ruling been repeatedly given from the Chair?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That, of course, was a case in which only one Amendment was possible. In this case, as appears from the Paper, a number of Amendments are possible. On the Redistribution Resolution only one Amendment was possible, and that having been negatived the rest of the Resolution had to be swallowed at a gulp. That does not apply to this case.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It would apply if the Resolution were moved omitting all words after "that" at the beginning. It is perfectly possible to move an Amendment that would possibly decide the whole Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the proposal to-day. If the hon. Member will look at the Orders of the Day he will see there are two pages of Amendments on this Resolution.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I submit that it is not right to put two questions to the House in one question? I have taken your ruling on more than one occasion, and I think the result has been that if any hon. Member raises the point that two questions are embraced in the one the Chair usually allows the questions to be put separately.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If an hon. Member is prejudiced by the decision of the House in consequence of the Resolution being put in a particular way then it is open to divide the Motion. But no hon. Member will be prejudiced by passing this Resolution. It is only the foundation for the Bill that is to follow, and upon that Bill there will be every reasonable opportunity for hon. Members to strike out certain Clauses or to make Amendments. That is the great distinction, I think, between this Resolution and an ordinary Resolution, such as we get on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: If an Amendment to omit a Sub-section is moved would it have to be moved before the Amendments to Sub-section (a) are taken?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion is "that certain words stand part of the Resolution." That disposes of that question.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I propose to move to omit Sub-section (a). Is that in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not given notice of that. I must first call on hon. Members who have given notice.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Would that not make it impossible to carry out the suggestion which you have made and which I was following, that we should move the omission of either (a), (b), or (c), as the case may be?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the Amendments he will see that the hon. Member for East Birmingham, whose name I have called, has an Amendment which comes before Clause (a).
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg on behalf of my hon. Friend, the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) to move after the first 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." While we object to giving the Government power to impose taxation merely by a single Resolution in Committee of the House, we should not so much object to giving this power if an emergency arises. But it would have to be a temporary power, and should only be granted if the Government can advance good reasons for demanding the exceptional powers. I think one of the chief arguments in favour of this Amendment would be to provide against any emergency that might arise in the case of war. There might be a declaration of war by some European Power which might necessitate the immediate imposition of taxation and the proposals brought forward might lead to the taking of goods out of bond in order to escape the increased duties. It therefore would be necessary to take powers that the Resolution should come in force at once. Although I am myself against the Resolution—I do not approve of it as a whole—I must admit that there may be occasions when it may be necessary to give the Government powers which would not be given them under ordinary circumstances. By this Amendment provision is made for those exceptional cases. Of course, we shall later on endeavour to obtain the rejection of the whole Resolution, but pending that I am in favour of amending it in the manner now proposed. I see no reason why the Government should not
  1030
  accept the Amendment. If the real object of their Resolution is to give them power under certain circumstances—and that, as far as my recollection goes, was one of the arguments used in favour of it yesterday—then this Amendment will provide that the power shall only be used in exceptional circumstances in a very proper manner. We must guard against eventualities. I regret any attempt should be made by the Government to take such strong powers into their own hands as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks to obtain under this Resolution. I hope I am always willing to hear both sides of an argument, and I freely admit that there is something to be said for giving that power in a temporary emergency.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Amendment. Like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I am entirely averse to the novel scheme contained in this Resolution, and if the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) moves to omit paragraph (a) I shall certainly support him. Being opposed root and branch to the whole scheme of the Resolution, I propose to reserve what I have to say on that, and at present support its limited use to moments of national peril which the hon. Baronet proposes to accord to the Government. When this Amendment was moved yesterday by the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) there was a suggestion that it would be considered by the Government and possibly accepted. I ask the Attorney-General if he will tell us how far the Government are prepared to go in respect to this Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Not only was this Amendment moved last night and discussed, but after the promise made by the Attorney-General that he would introduce some Amendments in the form of the Bill, the Mover of the Amendment withdrew it. If he had been here I cannot help thinking that he would not have moved it at all, as he was depending upon the promise given by the Attorney-General that words would be introduced into the Bill. As to whether or not those words would be satisfactory, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment stated that he reserved the right, when we get to the Committee stage, to challenge the actual words put into the Bill. I must say that I think, after the promise which was given

  1031
  and the conditions under which the hon. Member withdrew the Amendment, it is going beyond the usual Parliamentary practice to move the same Amendment on the Report stage before the Bill is introduced. I can only repeat the arguments advanced last night I do not know what a "special Resolution" means. I do not know whether there is anything in the Standing Orders defining a "special Resolution." A special Resolution in company law has a defined statutory meaning, but a special Resolution under the Standing Orders of the House has no meaning at all.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite easy to leave out the word "special."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the Amendment at this stage. We have promised to introduce into the Bill something which will make it necessary to have a declaration that is intended by the House to make the Resolution apply immediately. I understood the Amendment was withdrawn last night on those terms. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman who moved it said that he was absolutely satisfied with the words suggested by the Attorney-General, but he did say that he would challenge them in Committee if they were not satisfactory.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that there was any arrangement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not go so far as that, but he did withdraw it on that promise, and he said that he would challenge the words later on if they were not satisfactory.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I was in the Committee at the time when this was discussed, and I remember exactly what the Attorney-General said. I think he will bear me out that this Amendment was withdrawn, but not upon a promise which bound either side. I think he made a communication to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham, in order specially to safeguard his position, to the effect that he was not bound by any particular promise. Equally the hon. Member for East Birmingham said that while he withdrew the Amendment it was not on terms which specially bound him. That is why the matter was not pressed to a Division. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that there were any terms.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I read the words which were used by the hon. Member for East Birmingham:—
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1913, col. 931.]
  Mr. POLLOCK: I agree that there was a communication between the Attorney-General and my hon. Friend which left both parties absolutely unbound. If the hon. Baronet desired to move the Amendment, it was open to him to do so, because it was not unreservedly withdrawn on terms.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask you, Sir whether, if my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) moves to omit paragraph (a) it will be possible to put the Question so as to safeguard the Amendments to paragraph (a) which are on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move to omit paragraph (a).
  I do so without regard to any of the Amendments, because in my view a proposal such as the Government are now bringing forward ought to be opposed at every possible stage by those who feel strongly its unconstitutional character. Certainly, within the Rules of the House, I shall take every opportunity of opposing the novel proposal introduced by the Government, which appears to upset all the fundamental principles of Parliamentary practice. The first point to which I wish to call the attention of the House is that, under paragraph (a), a Resolution passed by Committee of Ways and Means is to have statutory effect. Conceive what that really means. You are giving to this House, which already, in my opinion, has too large powers, since it has become a single Chamber, the power by mere Resolution, without any fair or just opportunity of discussion in detail, to give that Resolution the effect of a Statute. More particularly do I protest against that in respect to the question of finance. If there is one matter which this House ought to safeguard in the interests of those whom we represent, that is, the taxpayers, and if there is one duty which from time

  1033
  immemorial this House has particularly taken under its own care, it is the question of finance. At the present moment you first have a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. It was introduced, by-the-bye, not as an additional opportunity of placing a burden upon the taxpayer, but in order to protect him against any imposition being put upon him until he had had full notice. Further, the Resolution cannot be proposed except by a Member of the Government. The old idea is that as a demand has come from the Crown, therefore no private Member of this House is entitled to propose taxation, and it must be proposed by Ministers themselves. Next we have the Report stage, the introduction of the Budget and the Finance Bill. From my point of view, none of these safeguards can properly be disregarded if we are to fulfil our function of protecting the taxpayer against unfair or undue burdens. There is no single safeguard at the present time which we ought to forego if we are to carry out our public duty in this respect. There is no one more anxious than I for the honour, prestige, and privileges of this House. If we forego a great duty of this kind and neglect these duties we cannot complain if, in the public opinion, we lose the position we have held in the past, and which I am most anxious we should hold in the future. There is only one way in which this House can retain public confidence; that is by doing its duty and not shirking it, and, above all, by thoroughly investigating any proposed additional tax on the taxpayers in order that that tax may be threshed out and understood before it has statutory effect.
  There is another point from which I very much object to this Resolution. It is a case where officialism, represented in this case by the Treasury, is seeking to enforce its influence and powers against the legitimate rights of the House of Commons itself. This is a Treasury proposal. It is only justified because of the difficulties pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the collection of taxes. He says that it is only because of those difficulties that he justifies a revolutionary change of this kind, and that if it were not for that difficulty he, for one, would never come forward and propose in the House that a mere Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means should have statutory effect. Let me deal with that proposition for one moment. I think that the difficulty has been grossly ex-
  1034
  aggerated. So far as Income Tax is concerned there really need be no difficulty at all. It is not a case of forestalment; it is only a question of passing the Budget at such a convenient time that you take adequate powers before your old powers expire. That could be done by allowing the Income Tax to run for more than a year. In the old days it ran for two or three years. That is not necessary. You have only to allow the time for which you grant the Income Tax under statutory powers to be sufficiently long to get rid of any difficulty of this kind altogether. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to reply, if he can point out what is the difficulty in the collection of Income Tax by means of ordinary statutory powers if he took those statutory powers for a sufficient length of time? All you want to do is to get your new powers before your old powers have expired. One of my great objections to Resolutions of this kind is that if you once allow taxation to be carried out by a Resolution we have no guarantee whatever that the statutory power will not be postponed to some inconvenient time, when, in substance, we shall have no discussion at all.
  Let Me take the other illustration—I admit it is a very difficult one—as to forestalment. The difficulties in this respect have been grossly exaggerated. I will not go into the case of other countries, although we know that in other countries where they have a great many more duties than we have—countries where they have tariffs and Protection—they do not find the difficulty in the collection of their duties which has been suggested as regards the collection of duties in this country. I do not believe there is any other country where there is any provision for collecting taxes by what I call an unconstitutional method, because you cannot get your powers of collection regularised in the ordinary way. Of course, you will always have some element of forestalment. We have that as a matter of speculation. They will have it when they are seeking to alter tariffs in America; and you will have it when you are seeking to alter duties in this country. That can be dealt with without upsetting the whole constitutional practice of this House. It has been pointed out that you are dealing with goods in bond. What difficulty would there be in a provision of this kind? After a Resolution is passed, and apart from the Government collecting the tax, you might have a

  1035
  general Act under which the tax might be deducted in accordance with the terms of the duty which has been sanctioned in the Resolution, and afterwards, when you had obtained your statutory powers, you could make them retrospective to that extent. That is really an easy method by which you might deal with a matter of this kind, but it is an entirely different thing to suggest that because the Treasury have got a difficulty, which has been a difficulty, so far as it is a real difficulty, which, as we are told, has existed for fifty or sixty years, but has not become critical until the Budget had been unduly delayed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—because you have a difficulty of that kind which has now come to the front, you should upset the whole constitutional practice of this House, which not only makes us the guardians of the public purse, but makes it our duty to protect the taxpayer against any undue burdens upon him. I am not going back to Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights and matters of that kind, but, apart from our historical evolution, I want to make my point as clear as I can.
  It is still the main duty of this House to look after this question of finance, and if you once pass a proposal of this kind and enable a mere Resolution of this House to have statutory power, you have no guarantee whatever that you can have adequate discussion in the future as regards the details of any Finance Bill which may ever be brought forward. I feel most strongly upon this constitutional aspect of the question. I do not believe any hon. Member on the opposite side beyond the Front Bench disagrees with what I am saying, but they have a sort of expectation that the powers which will be given by this Resolution will not be pressed to their logical end. We must not rely on any supposition of that kind. We must take the powers as they are and see what the effect would be if they were put into force. For instance, it was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) last night, that, as regards putting powers of this kind into force, he would not do it in the case of a Tariff Reform scheme. I agree it would be a monstrous thing to do, but I am not going to guarantee that we might not have a Chancellor of the Exchequer, even on the Unionist side, who might think it was the right thing to do. He would say. "I am doing the right
  1036
  thing because the House has sanctioned it after full discussion." What is the answer to that? Take the case of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why is not he entitled, if he gets this power, to get his Resolution early in the year and then to put off any discussion of his Finance Bill until the date of August or September? Of course he will do it. It is human nature, and it is particularly human nature on the Treasury Bench, always to adopt the line of least resistance, and the line of least resistance is to take the official attitude and look on the House of Commons merely as an obstructive body. I object to that attitude altogether. We are the body who ought to determine questions of Finance, and not the Treasury. The Treasury is merely an executive body to carry out what we determine is right. I am afraid I have spoken rather warmly on this topic, because I feel warmly upon it. We are dealing with one of the primary liberties which is still left to us by means of the procedure of this House. We are constantly complaining of the power of the Government as against the power of the House itself, and yet when we get a proposal of this kind which goes to the fundamental basis of our liberty, we practically always have a party vote and a party discussion. In old days, when the House of Commons was at the zenith of its powers, people voted in order to protect the privileges and powers of the House of Commons irrespective of any party feeling, and unless we combine to do that again, gradually all our powers protecting the freedom of Debate and the supervision of Finance will be filched away from us, because officials can always find a good reason for stating that they want further powers as against our liberties. It is a question which goes to the whole basis of the liberties of this House, and for that reason, although I know the matter was not discussed in this form, but was discussed generally in Committee of Ways and Means, I move this Amendment and shall press it to a Division.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I rise to second the Amendment.
  I think my hon. and learned Friend has put his argument on the right ground. We on this side of the House have no desire or intention to do anything which would obstruct the Government in collecting the proper taxes for the year. I quite feel that it is desirable that some kind of

  1037
  machinery should be established to prevent any such dislocation of the financial arrangements as appear to have taken place during the current year. I think it could have been avoided, and I think the whole of it has arisen from the method in which the Chancellor has in the last few years delayed his Budget. The public has acquiesced for fifty or sixty years in the modus operandi of the collection of these taxes during the slack period after the end of the current year, because there was no particular hardship in the mode in which the Government carried on their financial business. In the old days financial business was the first business of the Session under all the great Chancellors of the Exchequer, but during the last two years the present Chancellor has deliberately and definitely abrogated that custom, and has placed his Budget towards the latter end of the Session. That has been too much for at least one member of the public, and I think it is essential to appreciate the distinction between mere acquiescence in a custom which does no harm to anyone and preserving the right of the public to object to the custom when hardships arose. The course which Mr. Gibson Bowles adopted in this case in order to test the right of the Government, I think, arose because of his general anger at the financial policy which the Government had adopted during the last few years. Mr. Bowles is a purist in matters of Parliamentary etiquette and procedure, and I take it his object was to emphasise the made in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has postponed the financial business of this country from month to month until we have been dealing with a Budget right in the latter end of the year. If this Resolution had been passed before it would have been impossible for any member of the public to bring these proceedings and force the Government to admit, as they now admit frankly, that that course of procedure would no longer be adopted, and that we should in future have Budgets introduced in a reasonable part of the year, namely, in April, as the House has been used to have them almost from time immemorial. That is one reason why the Government cannot rely upon the old custom, and I do not think they have any right to attempt to transmute that custom into an Act of Parliament as they are doing at present.
  But the main reason why I support my hon. and learned Friend is because this is definitely abrogating the privileges of the
  1038
  House of Commons. After all the constitutional question is the main question. It is not a question whether there is a few weeks' delay in the Income Tax, or whether there are a few instalments of a few hundreds of thousands of pounds in regard to Customs. I have no authority to do so, but I made a suggestion yesterday to get the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulties, and I still think he would have been wise if he had proposed it himself, namely, that he could pass an Income Tax Bill to deal with the particular difficulties raised in the case of Bowles versus the Bank of England—it could be passed in a very short time: it could be got through the House almost as a single-Clause Bill—then that the right hon. Gentleman should refer the whole of his difficulties to a Select Committee in order that there might be found a way out of the difficulty without such an unconstitutional method as is proposed in this Resolution. I can conceive it quite possible. My hon. and learned Friend suggested one method, and other methods were suggested yesterday by which all the financial difficulties might be got over without so tremendous an upset in the constitutional practice of this House as authorising the Committee of Ways and Means to pass an Act of Parliament, because that is really what the position comes to under this Resolution. If the Resolution is passed, and if a Bill is founded upon it, it would be possible for any Committee of Ways and Means to pass any Resolution they like dealing with finance which will have statutory force for whatever limited number of months the right hon. Gentleman may determine. The proposal yesterday was for six months. Really it seems to me that we who are sent here—and I speak not merely of the Opposition, but of all hon. Members—not merely to assist the Government in discussing the subject, our primary object in coming here is to stand up for the rights of the subject against the Crown. That is clearly the first reason why Parliaments were instituted, in order to gradually curb and fetter the strong, and in mediæval days the ever-growing power of the Crown. That is how all the liberties of the subject were gradually gained from the days of Magna Charta and of Ship Money and of the Bill of Rights and so forth against the Crown, and the right hon. Gentleman, of course, represents the Crown in this particular instance. He is actually, on behalf of the Crown, the taxing force in the land. All the rights and all the liberties which we

  1039
  have gained were gained through our control over finance. I think that is a proposition which hon. Members opposite will admit. The subject has never gained a right against the Crown except through finance, and it was always when the Crown wanted finance that it had to make terms with the House of Commons to give greater liberties to the subject.
  5.0 P.M.
  You may say, of course, those old days have quite passed and gone. I quite agree. The power of the Crown as a prerogative power has gone, but it is now exercised very strongly through the exercise of the prerogative by the Ministers of the Crown, and we are going to put into the hands of a body of men greater powers than our ancestors ever consented to give the Crown even in its strongest period. We never allowed the Crown to propose a Resolution in Ways and Means and give that the force of law. We said you must bring your Resolution in Ways and Means, report it to the House, then found on it a Bill which must go through First, Second, and Third Reading and Committee stages. We protected ourselves against the Crown in these financial matters. Now the Government comes along and says, "Because we are in a difficulty, we want you to give us, who now represent the same forces which the Crown used to represent, exactly the same powers which during all these centuries the Commons have fought to obtain out of the hands of the Crown." If we give them this power in regard to financial legislation—and, of course, finance is the most important subject—it is only another step further for the right hon. Gentleman, as he might have done in this Resolution—certainly one of his successors may include it in four or five years, and there would be nothing contrary to his principles in doing it—to get this House to pass a Resolution and a Bill giving the Resolution of the House on any subject statutory force for a limited period, or to give a Resolution of a Committee of Ways and Means statutory force with regard to the imposition of any new taxes in the whole world—far more burdensome than many Acts of Parliament which do not deal with taxation matters, and far more interference with the rights of the people. All this is to be done now under the provisions of this Liberal Government, the Government of freedom and democracy, by a simple Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. Why not go a step further? Why not pass an Act of
  1040
  Parliament now and get rid of the whole farce altogether, and say that for the future any Resolution on any subject whatever, proposed and carried either in Committee of Ways and Means or in Committee of the Whole House, shall have, for a limited period of six months, statutory force? You would get out of a great many of your difficulties by doing that. It would be only going a single step further than you are doing now. I do not think you could pass any Resolution affecting the rights of the people on a non-financial matter of so much importance as you could on a financial matter. I do not think you could interfere more with the rights of the people by a Non-financial Resolution than by any Financial Resolution brought in under the provisions of this Bill. If the House pass this Resolution, and if the Bill which is to be founded upon it comes into force, they will go far beyond the needs of the case. I have great respect for the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers at the Treasury, and I am perfectly certain that it is not beyond their wit to find a means of getting out of the difficulty without giving statutory authority to a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means. I do appeal to the House not to pass this Resolution, because, by passing it, they would surrender those great liberties which have been built up for the people in generations past, and upon which so much of the freedom of the country depends.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I generally find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) in the statements he makes on questions of constitutional practice, and, although I agree with him now so far as his observations were strictly confined to constitutional practice, I think in one particular he has not quite appreciated the meaning of the Resolution now before the House. He said he had no doubt that the powers given by this Resolution would not be pressed to their logical end.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: What I said was that I had no doubt the powers would not be pressed to their logical end, but I said also that they might be.
  Mr. McKENNA: In using that phrase the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that this Resolution of itself is

  1041
  operative and effective. It is the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded, and if this House were to enter in a Resolution into details, and put in all the safeguards and limitations which might be necessary to answer and meet the case put forward by hon. Members opposite, the only effect would be to limit discussion on the Bill in Committee long before the Bill came to be discussed. The Resolution is necessarily drawn in wide terms. It is quite a misunderstanding to suppose that because the Resolution is in wide terms the Bill will be equally wide. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House yesterday that he would accept any Amendment to the Bill—not to the Resolution—on any point wherein the Bill went beyond past usage.
  Sir A. CRIPPSwas understood to dissent.
  Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman doubt that? If he misunderstood the statement yesterday, my right hon. Friend states now that he is quite willing to abide by what he said.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I quite appreciate that.
  Mr. McKENNA: Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were directed to possibilities of what might happen. Although all he said might be germane to the Bill and might form ground for excellent Amendments, I respectfully submit that it ought not to form the subject of debate at this stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that this proposal upsets the whole of our constitutional practice. There is much virtue in the word "constitutional." Leave out the word "constitutional," and I do not think he will say that it upsets the whole of our practice. He will admit that this merely legalises and gives formal statutory effect to what has been the practice for sixty years in the case of the Income Tax, and for upwards of a hundred and fifty years with regard to Customs. Therefore it is only by the introduction of the word "constitutional" that the hon. and learned Member is in the smallest degree able to justify the somewhat strong language he used. Is it really in fact the upsetting of our constitutional practice? What does it do? The question is treated by the hon. and learned Member as if the Bill was really going to impose taxation by a Resolu-
  1042
  tion of this House. It will do no such thing. It will authorise the collection of taxation as if it had been imposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It has been, as I have pointed out, the practice for sixty years in the case of the Income Tax, and for longer than a hundred and fifty years in the case of Customs, to authorise the collection of taxes as if they had been duly passed by law on the passing of Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. All that the Bill proposes to do is to authorise the collection of taxes for a limited period as if they had been duly imposed by law, but within this limited period they must be duly imposed by law, or else the tax becomes nugatory and must be refunded. It does not really impose taxes. What it does is what I have said.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: It gives statutory effect to the imposition of taxes.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that this Resolution is merely a general statement, and if what he says now is true, it will be a proper subject for an Amendment to the Bill. What it does in effect is to authorise the collection of taxes as if they were legal, but they must be made legal. It has always been the practice when taxes were collected and not authorised by Statute for the amount of money collected to be returned to the taxpayers. I have so far touched on the constitutional theory, but, after all, in the House of Commons we have to have regard to the business interests of the community at large. We have not only to look after the Treasury and to see in the public interest that our finances are well managed and that the money is properly expended, but we have also in the collection of taxes to have regard to the great business interests of the country. I remember very well in the case of the delay in the collection of the Tea Tax owing to the delay in passing the Budget of 1909 very strong representations were made on behalf of the tea trade that the tax should be collected, although it was not legal. Why? For the simple reason that not to collect the tax was to give an enormous advantage in trade competition to those who had large stocks in bond at the expense of those who had no stocks in bond. What they said was, "We do not mind paying the tax so much, but what we do ask is that the moment the tax is known to be coming into force all should pay alike." Hon. Gentlemen now say, "Have a little delay." Yesterday I listened to the Debate, and one hon. Member—I think the

  1043
  hon. Member for Brentford—proposed that the tax should not be operative immediately, but that we should wait for the Report stage of the Resolution. What does that mean? It means that all the traders would take stocks out of bond at the old rate, and their competitors would have to compete with them when their articles were taxed at the higher rate. If the hon. Member consulted the trade of the country, he would find that that would be the last thing they would desire. Is there any real objection to the principle of this Resolution? It is said that no other country has adopted the same system as we have here. I know they have in some countries, but they have not in the United States. We all remember the effect on the introduction of the McKinley Tariff. We remember the effect on the tinplate trade in South Wales. Owing to the long delay in passing the tariff into law we were able to export to the United States enough tinplate to last, not for the first year of the new taxes, but for a considerable number of years. The result was that there was a complete cessation of imports of tinplates in the United States from South Wales at the high rate. Do hon. Members opposite wish us to suffer troubles of that kind? Parliament has always acted on the assumption…
  Sir F. BANBURY: Only for sixty years.
  Mr. McKENNA: Really the hon. Baronet is not correct. We have always acted on the assumption as regards Customs and as regards the Income Tax so long as we have had the Income Tax…
  Sir F. BANBURY: It was imposed in 1853.
  Mr. McKENNA: There was an Income Tax in 1815, but ever since we have had the modern Income Tax, as we now know it, we have always collected it on this principle. Parliament in its wisdom, with the opinion of the community behind it, has always acted in this way. Why should we change? You have to prove more than that it is contrary to some constitutional theory. I would remind the hon. Member for Brentford that what happened three hundred years ago as to the imposition of taxes is entirely out of date, having regard to modern practice. When he talks of this House having control over the Crown, he forgets that at that time, while the House had control over finance,
  1044
  it had no control over the Ministry. A vote of no confidence would not have turned out the Ministry in those days.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would not to-day.
  Mr. McKENNA: If you had a vote of no confidence passed to-day, the hon. Member would see quickly enough what would happen. The majority of the House of Commons have always been entitled to speak for the House. The majority have not only control over the Ministry in finance, but control over the Ministry in other ways, and immediately on a direct vote of censure being passed it would kill the Ministry. I come, in conclusion, to the specific point upon which the hon. Member laid stress with regard to the Income Tax. He asked, "Would it be necessary to have this power with regard to the Income Tax if that tax were imposed by law for a sufficient length of time?" I agree that it would not, but it would be far harder to induce this House to pass a law imposing the Income Tax for a longer period than it would be to induce the House to accept the proposal now before it. The great argument for not imposing the Income Tax for a longer period is that it has been a very productive tax on which to come to the House of Commons for money. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks said that there would be no difficulty with regard to Income Tax if it lasted beyond the year. So long as there is no change in that tax I agree with him, but suppose that there is a change in the rate, suppose that in the month of April, owing to a war, the rate was raised from 1s. to 2s., then the extra shilling could not be deducted by bankers. Supposing the old Income Tax ran on to October, and the new rate was imposed in the month of April, then between April and October bankers could not deduct Income Tax except at the old rate.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: You would pass your new Bill by that time.
  Mr. McKENNA: I ant dealing with the point of the hon. Member for South Bucks. The case is not met by saying, "Take the Income Tax for a sufficient length of time and you do not need power to collect at once." You do need power to collect at once all deductions at the source. On public grounds, on grounds of practical convenience, and on grounds of traders' interests, it is most desirable that this power should be given.
  Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman began by rather minimising the effects of this Resolution and by pointing out that it was only intended to lay the foundation of a Bill. That, of course, is true, but we are discussing in this Amendment not any question of detail, but the broad principle whether there ought to be taxation by Resolution of Committee or not. That was the only point which my hon. and learned Friend raised in his speech. The Resolution does sanction taxation by Resolution. It proposes that a Resolution for imposing taxation shall have statutory effect. It is not for collection, but for imposition. If you pass this Resolution or a Bill giving effect to it, you will have for the first time in this country taxation by Resolution. I look upon this as a very serious matter indeed. Too much has been made of the practice of the House during the last few generations, because it is one thing that there should be a practice not sanctioned by law but only continuing so long as no single member of the public objects to it, and it is quite another thing that that practice should be sanctioned by law. My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that this Bill would make a radical change in the Constitution of this country. Surely it is a serious matter to impose taxation by one Resolution of this House. You may get a hasty Vote in Committee. No doubt it must be a Vote asked for by the Government of the day, but still the Government of the day may snatch a Vote of this House when the House has not had time fully to consider the matter. These Committee Resolutions are, as we all know, not Resolutions even appearing on the Order Paper of the House. They are things which exist in writing, which are hastily read out at the end of the day, when it is impossible to criticise their terms, and it is a serious matter to provide that a Vote so passed shall impose taxation upon the subject. As an illustration, take a Single-Tax Resolution. The Government may propose what is, in effect, a Single-Tax Resolution, and one Vote of the House, hastily taken on a Resolution read from the Table, might impose such a tax as that upon the country at a time when the House might be so constituted that it would not for a moment, after full consideration, pass such a tax into law.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely that point was met when I indicated that I was
  1046
  prepared to accept an Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, which should confine the operation of this Resolution to Customs and Excise, and Income Tax.
  Mr. CASSEL: I got up to move the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that that is a fair interruption. I told the hon. and learned Member that I proposed to put it into the Bill. I think that he might have completed his interruption by stating that point.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman told me that he would accept the Amendment. When I got up to move it he moved the Closure.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. CAVE: At all events, what I was saying applies not only to a new tax of that kind, but applies to Customs and Excise Duties. Therefore my observations apply, although my illustration is rendered inapposite by what the right hon. Gentleman says. And the tax so imposed may last for months, and be collected for months at a time when it has never passed the House of Commons and never been embodied in any Bill. That is a very serious matter, and a novel matter altogether. I am not dealing with the distinction between the House and the Committee. That is another subject and an important one; but I am dealing only with the principle raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
  A Resolution such as is here referred to does not and cannot contain those conditions and those safeguards to the subject which are often contained in the Bill itself. The Resolution is worded in perfectly general terms, generally wider than the Bill, and carefully phrased so as to cover any possible extension of the words of the Bill, and the effect may be that a Resolution, if it has statutory effect, may impose upon the subject, during the period of suspension, that is the period between the Resolution and the passing of the Act, a burden greater than that which you intend to impose by the Bill itself. Let me as an illustration take the Land Taxes of a few years ago. Is it conceivable that the Resolutions for those Land Taxes could have been intended to have statutory effect during the many months during which the Bill was discussed? When the Bill

  1047
  was in Committee there was Amendment after Amendment proposed and accepted which safeguarded to some extent the subject in regard to these taxes, but the Resolutions contained no such safeguard, and the effect would have been that those wide Resolutions, the very terms of which we hardly remember, but which were, I am sure, very wide indeed, would have affected the subject during all the months, possibly over six months, between the passing of the Resolution in Committee and the passing of the Bill into law. That is what you are seeking to do by this Resolution, and the Bill to be founded upon it. It is a new thing. I am sure that it is a dangerous thing. I think that it is an unnecessary thing.
  It is said that the money collected can always he returned. It cannot always be returned. You cannot always find the man from whom you have taken taxes. If you collect a tax from tens of thousands of people, often in small sums, there will be a large percentage of cases in which you will never be able to find the man to repay the money to him, and all persons who have paid the tax will not take the necessary steps to recover the tax from the Government. Of course the Government will not look for the taxpayers. The taxpayer will have to make his claim. Even where you do return the tax, mere recoupment is not a full return. You have levied a tax from a man who is not responsible for it, and you do not put matters right by merely repaying without interest the sum which you have taken from him. The point made about forestalments has been dealt with fully. I will only say that as regards Income Tax it is no point at all, because it is clear to all of us that there is an easy remedy in that case. You have only to make your Income Tax year run not from the 5th April, but, say, from the 30th June, and pass your Budget before the 30th June, and that difficulty vanishes once for all. As regards Customs and Excise Duties, there is also an easy remedy there. Pass your Resolution in Committee one day and pass your Resolution on Report the next day. We have only got to deal with twenty-four hours during which forestalments may arise.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: That is very important.
  Mr. CAVE: That, of course, applies only to the distinction between the Committee
  1048
  and the House; but then, when you propose your Bill, make your duty retrospective, and you can easily find a way to levy or retain your duty during the passage of the Bill. I am quite sure that on all points there are other remedies available. I do not say for a moment that the Government ought to leave matters as they are. I quite recognise there is some remedy to be found. In the pre-Bowlesian days there was a general convention under which procedure not sanctioned by law was followed. That is now impossible. You must, I agree, find some remedy. The Government should take the House into their confidence and pass some temporary measure dealing only with the next few months, which is all they want, and in the meantime refer the whole question to a Committee of this House. I am quite sure that the discussion in the House has already shown that remedies may be found for dealing with this matter effectively without resort to what I think is the serious course embodied in this Resolution.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Home Secretary is so accustomed to forcibly feeding the country with revolutionary proposals that a large spoonful more or less does not appear to disturb him. He evidently thinks that he is supporting to-day a most innocent proposal and one in which there is really nothing of very great importance. He supports this as merely an enabling Resolution on which a Bill will ultimately be founded. From our point of view this is a thoroughly revolutionary proposal, and we are inclined to fight it on every possible point. If the Home Secretary is right, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to take advantage of the great width and breadth of this proposal and found a very wide measure on this Bill, then why does not he withdraw much of this Resolution from the House to-day? I do not think that the House itself does properly and adequately contemplate what has been done during the last few years to remove the proper safeguard from the taxpayer against arbitrary taxation by the Government. See how far we have travelled! When the present Government came into power no tax could be imposed upon the subject unless it was founded on a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. Then that Resolution was reported to the Whole House, and then a Bill founded on the Resolution was passed through its First and Second Reading, the

  1049

  Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading. That same Bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, where again it went through the process, at all events, of a very elaborate and full discussion on Second Reading. All these safeguards are for the protection of the taxpayer against the arbitrary conduct of any Government whatever. What is to be the position in future so far as the taxpayers are concerned, if this Resolution is passed and a Bill founded upon it? We all know that the taxpayer has been deprived of one safeguard at all events, and that is a full and elaborate discussion in the House of Lords of any fiscal measure. That has gone. The taxpayer now will be left in the pitiable position that he will be liable, on the old basis, to all the old taxes, and to any form of new taxation, by a mere Resolution passed in Committee of this House, without, any adequate discussion, or a discussion limited by the gag and guillotine.
  The collectors will be authorised to collect those taxes, and the taxpayer will not know anything about them until perhaps he has seen his morning's paper; and he may be wholly unaware that they have become the law of the land. Yet the Home Secretary says, "Why waste time on such a matter as this; it is only a very small measure to legalise what is the usage and custom." He went so far as to say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Bill, would not go one inch beyond the past usage and custom. Past usage and custom, I think, have been confined to two sets of taxes. It has been the usage and custom to collect the Income Tax after the Resolution has been passed in Committee of Ways and Means, without that Resolution being embodied in an Act of Parliament and legalised. That is the past usage as regards Income Tax. Is that all, as regards the Income Tax, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to see incorporated in this Bill? I understand it is. Let me say in reference to Income Tax that several speakers have suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer other ways of extricating himself from the difficulties in which he finds himself. I believe there is no exception to the principle I am going to assert to the House as now governing the usage and custom, namely, that they have only been allowed for the collection of such taxes as have been hitherto approved by this House in principle, probably after very full debate and discussion. Usage and custom have
  1050
  never authorised the collection of any new form of tax which has not been adequately discussed in this House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Sugar Duty.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is a duty which has been constantly debated in this House; it has formed the subject of many a long discussion. What I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that this Resolution as it is framed will enable that usage and custom to apply to any form of new taxation whatever, and however novel. I quote two instances. There was the famous Match Tax of Mr. Robert Lowe, and there was the Van and Wheel Tax of Lord Goschen. These were instances of what is called fresh and novel taxation which had never been fully considered or discussed in the House of Commons. If a Bill is founded on the terms of this Resolution it will be possible hereafter for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose all kinds of new taxation which has never been discussed, and of which no notice has ever been given to the taxpayer or to our constituents. The most novel forms of taxation may be imposed simply by one Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. I am quite ready to accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not mean to do that, and would not himself do it. But we are obliged to argue this case, not from the intentions of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer nor from the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; we have to argue it in regard to future Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we should not be doing our duty as the champions we ought to be of the liberties of the people, especially in matters of taxation, if we allowed wide powers such as these, to go into a Resolution out of which there may come an Act of Parliament carried by the serried phalanx of the Government, always brought up on critical occasions. From that point of view it would be possible to impose on this country novel taxes of almost every description.
  But I am bound to say, quite apart from novel taxation, that I will never be a willing party to giving these powers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to any Government even to collect authorised and existing taxes, or taxes of a temporary character. I would not be a party

  1051
  to that because it would be giving power, by simple Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, first of all, to impose Income Tax on everybody with an income of ever £2 a week—a matter which possibly might be a very proper subject for debate in this House; it would give power to any Government, by a single Resolution passed in this House, to alter the whole of the deductions and abatements connected with Income Tax; it would give power to graduate the Super-tax to any possible extent, even to taking away half a man's income, or the whole of it beyond a certain amount. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer deny that it would be perfectly possible under this Resolution for all these things to be done? If all these things can be done, then it is going far beyond the usage and practice which has hitherto prevailed under the Constitution. There is one thing alone which carries it beyond the usage and practice under present circumstances, and that is the mere fact that you make this usage statutory. That carries you far beyond the present usage and practice. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that it is a matter of convenience having taxes collected before they are due, but that is a very different thing from saying that those taxes may be collected as a matter of absolute right because they will become statutory under a Resolution.
  All kinds of inconveniences and awkwardnesses may occur. We do not know the limit of the period dining which the taxes are to remain statutory. I suggested yesterday that it was quite likely a Dissolution of Parliament might occur during the period of this limited statutory arrangement. What will be the result? All the taxes which have been collected during the period the statutory limit was running would be legal, but during the Dissolution the limit would have ceased, and the taxes could no longer be collected on a statutory basis, and I do not know that they could be collected at all. What would be the position of the taxpayer in that case? The Home Secretary just now said, "After all, if the House of Commons does not nut these taxes into a Bill and endorse them by passing the Bill, the money can be returned." Take the Van and Wheel Tax. If this Resolution had been operative at that time I have very little doubt that the Van and Wheel Tax would have been put into it, and three months afterwards the House of Com-
  1052
  mons might have come to the conclusion that it was a most unpopular tax, and therefore should not go into the Finance Act, so that it could not have been collected any longer. You say that the money can he returned. But the man who had paid the Van and Wheel Tax would charge it to the man who purchased the van and wheels from him. The man who has paid the duty puts it on the price of the taxed article which he sells to his various customers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not going into a Tariff Reform argument, though I should be quite ready to do so if it were in order. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is only an admission."] It is an admission which I could qualify if this were a Tariff Reform Debate. But, for the purpose of my argument, I think it is a thoroughly sound proposition that the tax would be passed on, wherever it could be passed, by the person who has paid it to the purchaser or consumer of the article. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that that is a very sound proposition. How could the money which had been collected from certain classes of taxpayers be returned? I am confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going far beyond anything which is necessary to extricate him from the difficulties in which he finds himself. There have been many suggestions made for meeting the present situation. I made one yesterday, to which I still attach very considerable importance, particularly as it affects the life of the Income Tax. My hon. Friend suggested that the Income Tax should be imposed for a longer period than twelve months. I believe that to be perfectly possible. The Home Secretary said it could not be applied to a state of things where the Income Tax was about to be increased, say, from 9d. to 1s., or from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 6d.
  I think the House ought to meet far earlier than it does, and that the Budget, and particularly that portion of the Budget dealing with such taxes, ought to be the very first business of the House. The discussions of that portion of the Budget might well be abbreviated, and if the Government wanted the money, particularly for war, I do not believe the House would put any obstacles in the way of their obtaining it. If the House met early the discussions could be abbreviated, and the Budget might be in two parts. You could incorporate in the Budget Bill such taxes as the Income Tax, and that, I believe, would almost completely obviate

  1053
  the difficulty. I am not sure it would even then be necessary to make the Income Tax payable right up to the 30th June. As regards the Customs and Excise, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet paid enough attention to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), in which he suggested that the duty might be made retrospective. I think those and other remedies ought to be tried before this House enters upon this most revolutionary of all revolutionary proposals. Whilst it is necessary to meet the present condition of things, and to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get out of the difficulty in which he finds himself, I am sure this House will be really regardless of the highest duties which it has to perform if it allows arbitrary powers to be given to this Government or any other Government. However well, and however wisely, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer might use those powers if he were to remain in his present office, those are powers which I never would entrust to any Government or any Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that we have exhausted the wit and wisdom of mankind, and the wit and wisdom of the Front Bench on either side, in seeking some other remedies of a more innocent character, and such as would not be fraught with very grave difficulties with which these suggested remedies are fraught.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that the terms of this Resolution do arouse a good deal of interest and of strong feeling on this side of the House. I should like to urge upon him once again the desirability of passing a temporary measure to deal solely with the case of temporary taxes for this year, and then to submit this Resolution and the Bill which may be founded upon it to a Select Committee in order that the matter may be thoroughly threshed out, and an appropriate Bill brought in to deal with the subject next year. I think he must realise that the actual terms of this Resolution do really go beyond what he himself intended. He has told us that the Government have no intention of going beyond the ordinary practice and custom. I fully appreciate that, but I would respectfully point out that he stoutly declined to accept any
  1054
  Amendment to this Resolution, because he said there would be opportunity during the discussion of the Bill to amend the Resolution if we desired. I think we should be glad if t he right hon. Gentleman would give us some definite assurance that we shall have the opportunity of really discussing all the points that may arise on this Resolution in Committee, because last night we were rudely shocked suddenly to discover the whole Resolution closured before more than two Amendments had been discussed. We naturally are afraid when this Resolution takes the form of a Bill, and when we arrive in the Committee stage, we may find the same rude application of the Closure applied to the passage of the Bill in that stage. I do therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that we shall have full opportunity of fair discussion on each one of the Sections of the Bill when it is set out. I do not for a moment suggest that we should be given the opportunity to seriously obstruct the passage of the Bill, but I do respectfully say that there ought to be full and ample opportunity for real and careful discussion on the actual terms of the Bill. Unless we get that assurance, surely the right hon. Gentleman might meet us some way and amend some of the objectionable features in the terms of the Resolution.
  A point on which a good many hon. Friends of mine lay stress is the first part of the Resolution in which it is laid down that a Resolution passed only in a Committee of Ways and Means shall have statutory effect for a limited period. I strongly object to the words "have statutory effect." It does seem to me to be a very tall order to lay down in black and white upon the Journals of this House that in future any Resolution which is only passed in Committee of Ways and Means is to have all the effects and powers of an Act of Parliament. Surely it would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point if those words were altered into such a phrase as "authorises the collection of the tax." It may not be a very large point, but there does seem to me to be a great deal of difference in saying that a Resolution shall have the same effect as an Act of Parliament, and saying that a Resolution shall authorise the collection of any tax for a short period. As regards the words "limited period," those could have a very wide interpretation, and I think the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the "limited period" should be defined. Could he not also alter the terms of his

  1055
  Resolution by taking out the words "limited period" and insert, say, a period of six months. That would give us the power of reducing the period to a period of three months if the House thought it desirable to do so. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further thought and consideration to the proposal of my hon. Friends to get over this difficulty by simply making the collection of the tax retrospective. I believe that the real difficulty arises chiefly in the collection of new Customs Duties. Ithink we all realise that if you are imposing a new Customs Tax, that it is very important that the payment of that, tax shall be due from the first day it is announced, so as not to give a preference to the large trader over the small trader, and not to give the opportunity to some firms to take out of bond a large amount of the particular article while the people who deal in it in a small way are not given the same opportunity and privilege.
  It is also in the interests of the trade itself to get the tax settled as quickly as possible, and to make the payment of it equal on all parties concerned. Cannot that he got over by saying that when a tax is imposed, it shall date back from the date when it is announced. I believe it is purely a matter of administration, and that the present Custom House, and Inland Revenue too, have all the machinery for carrying it out, and that they actually did so during the time of the 1909 Budget. I understand that then a large amount of spirit was cleared from bond on the understanding that the full amount of the tax should be paid. All I wish to suggest is that it is perfectly simple in future for the Government to announce the imposition of a new tax after four o'clock in the evening when the Customs is closed, and in the Bill to say when a new tax is announced it authorises the payment of that tax from the date on which the tax is announced, although the actual law which authorises the collection is not then actually passed into law. I contend it would be only a matter of administration, and I believe it would get over all the difficulty as to the large trader and the small trader, and also over the difficulty, which is a serious one, of the Treasury losing a large amount of revenue owing to the tax not being payable from the day it is first announced. I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will give a little more consideration to these proposals suggested from this side, and that
  1056
  he will also see his way to modify some of the far-reaching terms of his Resolution without prejudicing that which he intends to carry out, and which I think the House probably might be quite prepared to accept.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (who was very indistinctly heard): The hon. Gentleman has made a very reasonable speech and has appealed to the Government to modify the terms of the Resolution. I indicated generally to the House yesterday the kind of Amendment which the Government is prepared to accept. I said then and I still say that this is not the opportunity, the proper and appropriate opportunity, for discussing those details and limitations. It has been the practice of the House always to take a very wide enabling Resolution, in order not to unduly restrict the limits of debate when the Bill is introduced. Besides, there are many things which you cannot possibly foresee from a drafting point of view, and an injudicious word introduced in the course of a discussion of this kind might very seriously hamper and limit discussion in a way which both sides of the House would sincerely deprecate. Therefore I think it is very undesirable that Amendments should be adopted or introduced at this stage. Speaking yesterday, I said:
  "On this point, however. I wish to make a general observation. Hon. and right hon. C1entlemen opposite are lust 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 an enabling Resolution, drafted in the broadest terms to give full play in Committee of all moving Amendments, should be limited at this stage by all sorts of Amendments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1913, col. 840.]
  Later on I said, dealing with an Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel):—
  "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 haying it inserted here, because it is a serious departure from precedent."—[OFFICIAl REPORT, 7th April, 1913, col. 841.]
  Mr. CASSEL: After having said you would accept my Amendment, when I came to move it I was not given the chance of doing so.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to discuss that, but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well the conditions under which the Closure was moved. We discussed the matter at great

  1057
  length, and we were not allowed to come to the Amendments for reasons which the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We were only allowed to come to the first couple of Amendments. It is quite contrary to every precedent that a debate of this kind on an enabling Resolution should take even that length of time. I am sorry to have to say so, and of course we cannot discuss any application of the Closure either in Committee or in the House, but the hon. and learned Member has drawn that observation from me. I still say it is a great mistake, and a very serious departure from precedent, to move a series of detailed Amendments on an enabling Resolution and to treat it as if it were a Bill. The hon. Member who spoke last has illustrated what I mean. He suggested that the words "limited period" should be omitted, and that we should introduce, say, a number of months, giving a wide scope so as to enable the time afterwards to be reduced. I would have no objection at all to that Amendment, none, except that I think if you begin amending in that form you are not providing an enabling Resolution, but you are really fashioning a Bill which is not convenient. Enabling Resolutions have always been treated as a First Reading Debate. They are practically two First Reading Debates, one in Committee and one on the Report. Now there is an attempt to convert what has hitherto been a First Reading into the Committee and Report stage of the Bill itself.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman that that has obviously arisen because we are so accustomed to have the Closure on every passage of every Bill for the last few years that we recognise, unless we make use of every opportunity, in all probability we shall be cut out of the discussion of relevant points?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was a Member of a Parliament in which I think I was subjected to the Closure.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Never like this.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And the hon. Baronet opposite always voted steadily for the Closure then. I do not remember an occasion when he did not support the Closure on my right hon. Friend and myself; it always gave him the greatest satisfaction. If he can give any instance
  1058
  when an enabling Resolution of this kind was given more than two whole days I shall be very much surprised. If any attempt had been made to take two days for such a Resolution in that Parliament the Closure would have been applied ruthlessly and, I say now, properly. However, I do not mind indicating once more what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the Schedule of the Bill, still safeguarding myself by saying that I am referring to the Schedule. It is suggested that we should indicate an exact date. I have indicated that we propose to embody in the Bill substantially an Amendment already suggested in that direction. There is also the Amendment with regard to Customs and Excise and Income Tax, which I said I was prepared to accept, but would prefer to accept it in Committee on the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he looks at the precedents, will see that his Amendment is much too wide. I have indicated quite clearly that there is no idea of seeking powers beyond those which were asserted by the Executive before the Gibson Bowles decision. I will give an indication of what I mean. Take Licence Duties. Licence Duties mean Excise. They were never collected in the past until the Bill had been carried. We shall be perfectly prepared to accept any Amendment limiting the powers of the Executive in future as far as Licence Duties are concerned. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member, this is not the proper time for discussing it. It should come when we are dealing with the Bill itself.
  The hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) suggested that when it was proposed to levy under a Resolution there should be some special words inserted indicating that that was to be done. But in regard to increased Stamp Duties or increased Licence Duties, the Inland Revenue do not collect. That would be a departure from the precedents of the past. We are quite prepared to accept any Amendments to make it clear that we do not intend to go beyond that. But you cannot discuss questions of that sort on an enabling Resolution. If you did, you might introduce words which would seriously embarrass you when you came to the preparation of the Bill. It has been suggested that, under such a Resolution, we might levy the single tax. I pointed out yesterday that that would be impossible. The same remark applies to the Land Taxes. The right hon.

  1059
  Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said that this was the most revolutionary of all revolutionary proposals. I do not know what he means by that. If he means that it is a revolution to give statutory recognition to what he himself has called the general practice of this country for sixty years, that is a very new definition of a revolution.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It goes very far beyond that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman can show that our proposals go beyond anything which has been done in the last sixty years, I shall be perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment restricting them within those limits. Therefore they cannot be revolutionary, because a revolution means a change.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Bill may not be revolutionary, but I have not seen the Bill. I have to examine the Resolution, and I say that the Resolution is most revolutionary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Treasury, and he knows that Resolutions of this kind are always framed in much wider terms than the Bills which are based upon them. They are framed widely in order that the draftsman may not be embarrassed and hampered in the preparation of the Bill. I hope, after this explanation, the House will agree to the Resolution in order that the Bill may be introduced at once, because it is an urgent matter. Everybody acknowledges that something ought to be done. It is not only in the interests of the collection of taxes, but in the interests of the taxpayers as well. If bankers and others are not given statutory authority for these deductions, they will undoubtedly be placed in a very difficult, delicate, and embarrassing position. Here you have a practice which, although without statutory authority, was accepted by the community to such an extent that for sixty years no one thought it worth while to challenge it, and then it was Mr. Gibson Bowles who did so. I do not think you could possibly have a better argument as to the general convenience of the practice than the fact that it was accepted for at least two generations without challenge on the part of the community.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has developed a most extraordinary affection for precedent. He says that he can find no precedent for a Resolution having been debated at such great length as the one now before the House. My answer is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot find any Resolution in any way comparable to the one now before him. Therefore, if former Resolutions have not been debated at such great length, that is by no means an argument for saying that this most extraordinary Resolution should not be debated fully and carefully both in the Committee and in the House. The only argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for not accepting Amendments which have been proposed is that he is going to accept certain Amendments, but this is not the time at which they should be moved. I did not wish to interrupt the Home Secretary on that point, but I was perfectly well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if it could be shown that the Bill in any way went beyond the past usage of the House he would accept any Amendment to prevent it. The past usage in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the usage of sixty years. The past usage in my mind was the usage of the last three hundred or four hundred years, which, in my opinion, is very much more important. When we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer present on the Treasury Bench we are bound to take advantage of that fact to put our arguments before him and to press our Amendments. How do we know that when the Committee stage of the Bill is reached he will agree that we have shown reasons for our Amendments in reference to the usage even of sixty years? The right hon. Gentleman is a master of language, and he may say that the language which we have used to enforce those Amendments has not convinced him. Further, is the right hon. Gentleman going to stand or fall by such Amendments? Supposing hon. Gentlemen behind him say that they do not like those Amendments, and will not accept them, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? As my hon. Friend reminds me, we may find present only the Financial Secretary, who would not be able to accept Amendments without consultation with and the authority of his chief. All these circumstances tend to prove that when we have the right hon. Gentleman present we ought to

  1061
  insist on our Amendments being moved. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendments which have been proposed, in what way would he have been injured? He says he is going to accept some of these Amendments later. He would have shortened discussion, and he would have been in exactly the same position by accepting the Amendments now as by accepting them later; because if our Amendments had been accepted we could not possibly get up later and say that we did not like them! We would have been obliged to accept the Amendments which we had proposed; therefore the right hon. Gentleman would have lost absolutely nothing by having accepted these Amendments.
  There is, however, a habit in this House—I do not know that it is confined to right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side—it is a habit on both Front Benches—of putting off the evil day, of saying that there is a further stage, and that matters put forward will be considered later. They say we will not accept the Amendment now, but we do not shut the door upon it; we will consider it later. When the later time comes something has intervened in the meantime, and very specious excuses are made that the situation has changed, and that therefore the statement previously made can hardly stand. Under these circumstances, in connection with a Resolution of this very vital importance, I do not think that my hon. Friends—I am certain that I could not agree to do so myself—should do other than use every opportunity to either get the measure rejected or amended; and to get it amended now while we have the Chancellor opposite to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was not going to do anything which would in any way be unusual. My right hon. Friend, with an innocence at which I was rather surprised, said he did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would. I cannot go so far as my right hon. Friend. I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer under pressure might not do all sorts of things. I certainly should not pick out the right hon. Gentleman as a Minister to whom it is desirable to give exceptional powers or exceptional opportunities of imposing taxation. I note that my opinions are shared by hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side, than whom no one knows—[HON. MEMBERS. "No."] One hon. Member agreed…
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: No, I did not agree; I did not hear what the hon. Baronet said.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Well, the hon. Member who did hear what I said agreed. I think I have shown very clearly that we ought not to allow this proposal to go, and that we should endeavour either to have this Resolution rejected or amended. May I say to the Home Secretary that I think surely he was wrong when be said it was only a modified Income Tax which was in force before 1853? I have not been able to look the matter up, but my recollection is that when Mr. Pitt, in 1793, imposed the Income Tax it went up to over a shilling, and I am not sure that it was not two shillings.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say "modified" Income Tax. I said it was a modern one. Of course the hon. Baronet knows that it was a very high tax. I said under modern conditions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understood him to say "modified," but I do not know what difference there is between modern conditions and old conditions. My idea is that, whether under modern or old conditions, the Income Tax is always an extremely objectionable tax. Modern conditions do not make it any better. But I only rose to point out that we must not lose the opportunity we have at present. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," and when we have the right hon. Gentleman in our hand do not let us lose our opportunity.
  Mr. BUTCHER: We have listened to a speech of some duration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think I will be misstating the case when I say that hardly one word in that speech was directed to the Amendment really under discussion. What was that Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend? It challenges the principle that a Resolution of this House in Committee of Ways and Means shall have statutory effect for the purpose of the imposition of taxes. The Amendment, therefore, is not one dealing with details, or with possible Amendments in the Resolution; it is one which challenges the Resolution itself. We say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "What reason have you for establishing this far-reaching principle that a Resolution of the House in Committee of Ways and Means is to have the statutory effect of an Act of Parliament

  1063
  to impose taxes?" We shall be no doubt told, and with some show of reason, that it ought not to be possible that a large leakage of revenue should take place in regard to taxes under consideration, namely, the Income Tax, the Customs, and certain, though not all, of the Excise Taxes. We quite agree, and accept that view; but we say that it is possible to avoid the leakage without having recourse to this very drastic, and to adopt the language of my right hon. Friend, this revolutionary change proposed by the Government. What are the proposals that we make? We say that any possible leakage in regard to Income Tax could be met by any one of these proposals which have been made from these benches. As a matter of fact, no really serious reasons have been adduced against our proposals, because, supposing the tax is not collected at the source by deduction from dividend or interest, or whatever it may be, it can be collected under Schedule D. We have not had a word from the benches opposite to tell us why that process would involve any leakage.
  It is quite true that deduction at the source is probably more convenient, but there is no reason to suppose that any serious leakage would occur by collecting the tax under Schedule D. Therefore, as regards Income Tax, there is no reason for adopting this particular method. There are other methods less revolutionary which would do just as well for the collection of the Income Tax. Let me take the case of the Customs. Is there any reason why, when and if the House resolves upon a Customs Duty, it should not by statutory enactment be able to say to the persons importing the dutiable articles, "Before you take these articles out of band, you must give security for the payment of the tax. We will not force you to pay the tax until it is actually leviable under Act of Parliament, but you must give security for payment, so that if the tax becomes embodied in an Act of Parliament we will desire to enforce payment." There may be some reason against this course, but at the present moment I do not see any. If that would suffice for the purpose of the collection of taxes, would not a similar process suffice for the collection of the duties on Excise? For instance, on alcohol and beer and other consumable articles you say to the persons concerned, who would ultimately have to pay, "Give security for payment and
  1064
  you need not pay at once; if the Act passes imposing the duty, then pay." It seems to me that these proposals of ours are reasonable. At any rate we have had no answer from the Government Benches why these proposals would not be equally effective for the purpose of collecting the taxes with the method embodied in this Resolution. I should like to hear from the Chancellor why the alternative proposals we have made would not be at least equally good in the Government proposals, while certainly less revolutionary! The Chancellor confined himself to the question of what Amendments he would either now or at some future time accept. That is really no answer whatsoever to the Amendment of my hon and learned Friend. I trust before this Debate concludes that some Member of the Government will tell us why these alternative proposals would not be equally effective for the collection of taxes with the method proposed by the Government, while at the same time it is undoubted that they will not be of the revolutionary character proposed by the Government; therefore they would have advantages which certainly the Government Resolution has not.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary dwelt with some insistence on the fact that this was not the proper time to discuss details. That opportunity, they said, would arise when the Bill is brought in. That is our case. We say that the Resolution is not, and cannot be, the proper time to discuss this imposition of taxation, and that the proper mode of imposing taxation is by a Bill. It is quite true that the Resolution proposed to the House limits the tax to its collection; that is to say, that it imposes the obligation that the Bill shall not include any tax of a higher amount than that suggested in the Resolution. But it does not limit the tax in the downward direction. It is always possible in the Bill to reduce a tax mentioned in the Resolution. For that reason it seems to me that the passage of the Resolution becomes, in the interests of the people, of less importance than the passage of the Bill, because the Bill can always, after consideration of any injustices which may arise, fix the tax at a lower figure than that contemplated or passed in the Resolution. But if the Resolution is made operative in the imposition of a tax, then the case for safeguards is obviously serious. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I think the

  1065
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a great extent, base their contention to a very great degree on the suggestion that this proposed Resolution is to legalise the collection of taxes—that is to say, the collection of taxes as has been the custom for several years past. But if the Resolution is to legalise the collection of taxes only, why do you draft it in such a way as to legalise the imposition of taxes? There is not a word in the Resolution about collection. The Resolution states that the imposition of new taxes shall have statutory effect. If the Resolution is to make the imposition of taxes of statutory effect, what is the use of defending it by long arguments to show that it is necessary in the public interests that the collection of taxes should commence at the earliest possible moment?
  The Resolution does mention that there is a time limit—that is to say, that within some particular time to be mentioned, I understand, in the Bill, the Budget will have to be brought in. I cannot help thinking that once this principle that taxation shall be imposed by Resolution has been accepted that there will become a serious danger of that time limit being altered gradually and prolonged, so that the time between the passing of the Resolution and the passage of the Bill which will confirm that Resolution may gradually become continuously extended to such a point that it will be feasible, and very often will result, that the Budget habitually will be brought in later and later. We all know that if the Budget is brought in towards the close of the Session the finances of the country cannot, and will not, receive that amount of attention which this House ought to give to them. Let us come to the point of how far this Resolution is needed. To begin with, I say if it is merely necessary to legalise the collection of taxes a much less drastic Resolution could have been proposed which would have legalised the collection without legalising the imposition of taxation. The imposition of new taxes has been mentioned. Again, it has been intimated to us that the Resolution is merely, not to legalise the imposition of taxes, but only certain taxes, namely, I understand, Customs Duties, Excise, and Income Tax. If that is so, why not say so? Why not have a limitation in the Resolution? Why make the Resolution to extend to taxes which embrace a field we can hardly grasp at the moment? We cannot contemplate what possible taxes may come within its reach. If that is only intended, and if the
  1066
  suggestion is to apply to a certain number of limited taxes, why not say so in the Resolution, and remove all doubts from our minds. I admit it is regarded as a necessity in reference to Customs Duties, and that there is a great deal to be said for the imposition of Customs Duties at the earliest possible moment, because of the danger of forestalment. That aspect was considerably debated yesterday, but I think it has been exaggerated, and I very much doubt that the danger of forestalment is half as great as the Government says it is, but I admit there are dangers, though I do not see why this power to impose Income Tax by Resolution is necessary at all. It seems to me that the only thing necessary is to change the Income Tax date, to change the date at which Income Tax begins, and to take a reasonably late date from which the Income Tax should be imposed for the year, say, from July to July. Once that is done, once Income Tax is imposed from July to July, all the necessity for taxation by Resolution would be obviated. The only thing I desire to say on the general question is that it seems to me to be very imprudent and a very improper action for this House to pass the power of taxation into the hands of the Committee of Ways and Means. After all, in these matters of finance, this House now remains as the only authority. The other House has been precluded from interfering in taxation and from going into the question of finances. Surely, if that is so, it throws a far greater obligation on this House to see that the forms and processes by which financial measures, and especially taxes, are imposed should be retained in the power of the body of the House itself, and that this form should provide that all proposals for new taxation, or the alteration of old taxes, should receive adequate discussion and should not be imposed by any short cut, such as, I believe, would inevitably result from imposing taxes by Resolution.
  Mr. J. HOPE: No answer has been given, either in the Debates yesterday or to-day, to the suggestion urged by my Friends and myself as to why not do all you wish to do by putting a retrospective provision in the Bill when you bring it in. Surely that is not impossible, and I invite the Attorney-General to say something upon that point. Let us take the case of an existing Customs Duty on tea. In a case like that it is simplicity itself. If you take the case of tea when withdrawals take place, a certain amount of duty will

  1067
  be paid. You know who is withdrawing the tea, and why not take some deposit on the amount to be paid? In case of a Customs Duty, you know who the importer is; you can take a bond from him that he will pay the tax if necessary, and if he does not pay enough, you could have power by a general Customs Act to issue a general Order, so that you will get your taxes afterwards. That suggestion was made yesterday and it was repeated to-day, and I ask the Attorney-General to deal with it as no other Member of the Government has done.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: From the point of view of procedure I confess I am in a certain amount of agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to what is said as to the imposition by this Resolution. I think this is an occasion when matters of principle are more properly debated than matters of detail. This is a matter of principle and not a matter of detail at all, and it ought to be kept in mind by the House that Resolutions of this kind have been debated at great length in the past. I do not think that anyone would say we occupied too long in debating the enabling Resolution of the 1909 Budget. We debated an enabling Resolution on Home Rule, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the Government were a little more awake to the situation we would have debated it longer. Therefore I do not think anyone need object to debating the principle of an enabling Resolution, and especially an enabling Resolution of this character. Unfortunately I was not able to be here yesterday, but I informed myself of the course of the Debate, and the thing that struck me on reading yesterday's Debate and hearing to-day's Debate is this, that although this situation in respect to which this Resolution is required arises from an action of Mr. Bowles with regard to Income Tax, and although the question of Customs and Excise Duties was not before the Court, and I think was not decided by the Court, this Resolution which is moved by the Government is not defended at all from the point of view of Income Tax. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is perfectly easy to get over the Income Tax difficulty by changing the date of the year. All the difficulty is from the point of view of Customs and Excise, and this is rather remarkable considering the circumstances that called this Resolu-
  1068
  tion into being. On the question of Customs and Excise I think it is true that there is a difficulty, but I think it is possible to exaggerate the difficulty in respect of forestalments. On the other side you have a difficulty which is greater I think than the difficulty of forestalment.
  A tax may be passed in a Resolution of this House and yet this House may subsequently decline to confirm the Resolution at which it arrived. Now, if that is the case, and if it happens to be a tax on Customs, what will happen? Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward this year and proposed an Excise duty upon British-grown sugar. If this Resolution was passed the tax would run as from the date of that Resolution being introduced. Suppose the House afterwards, on reviewing the circumstances, came to the conclusion it was not desirable, the Government say you could repay it, but how are you going to repay it to the people? There is no one, no matter what view he takes on economic subjects—I noticed there was some amusement about the statement made by my hon. Friend that the consumer pays the tax—there is no economist ever heard or dreamt of who does not say that if you have a Customs Tax and an Excise Tax on the same article the wretched consumer has not to pay it. That is precisely the complaint we make against our existing fiscal system. Assuming this tax has been put on, how can the Government say you could repay the people? Supposing the grocer extracted a farthing in respect of the tax, how is that to be subsequently remedied? That is a very real danger, and I think you ought to set that against the risk of loss to the Treasury on forestalment. I think the risk of loss, owing to forestalments, has been rather exaggerated, and I think there has been rather a failure to discriminate between the different classes of forestalments. I have had a little to do with these cases in various business capacities of which I have had some experience, and I know a little of what is going on. The right hon. Gentleman, it is true, put the matter from the point of view of the Treasury, and put it very clearly, but that only applies to cases of increase in the existing Customs Duties. In the case of the imposition of a new Customs Duty, there is no question of someone having more in bond than somebody else; they all start from scratch, as it were
  Mr. McKENNA: The Bill does not apply to such cases.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not say that the Bill does, but the Resolution does.
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend said that the Bill would not apply in cases of new taxes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In that case I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is clearly a case where the argument would not apply. There remain other classes of cases, forestalments in cases of increase upon existing duties, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that at the present moment there is a very large amount of what I may call intelligent anticipation. People engaged in the sugar trade and in the tea trade have a pretty good idea of whether there is or is not going to be an increase, and when anybody in the trade thinks there is likely to be an increase he takes very good care to keep his bonded store up to the very limit of its capacity. If there is no increase, then he has to pay a little more for warehousing, and, of course, he is stocked up for rather a longer period than usual, but if there is the slightest risk of increased duty, everyone fills up to the utmost limit of their capacity, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather exaggerating the difficulty. What I cannot see is what is his objection in principle to the suggestion urged by my hon. Friends. I cannot see any objection in principle or in practice. Why not take the point in respect of these particular taxes which you propose by Resolution, but which are not yet confirmed by the House? There may be some objection, but we have not heard any objection in principle or in practice to-day from the Treasury Bench, and unless some such objection is taken and sustained by argument I venture to think there is no objection, and that that is the right principle which the Government ought to adopt.
  Mr. CASSEL: T had an opportunity of stating my general views upon the Resolution, and I shall certainly not repeat them, but the Home Secretary said the Bill was not applicable to new taxes. If that is so, there has been a gross breach of faith on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to what he said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, and I will tell him why. When an Amend-
  1070
  ment was moved to leave out new taxes from the Resolution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he refused to accept it because there ought to be an opportunity for discussion, and if that is riot in the Bill nobody can raise it, because no private Member can move anything which would increase the charge.
  Mr. McKENNA: If I said it was not in the Bill I corrected myself immediately afterwards. I said the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would not be in the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: In regard to this Bill I think we have been treated most unfairly, or we will be after a statement of that kind that there are not going to be new taxes in the Bill, which is a gross breach of faith.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not so.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman said so now.
  Mr. McKENNA: I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that this would not apply to new taxes. I did not say it would not be in the Bill as originally introduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would not apply.
  Mr. CASSEL: What the right hon. Gentleman said just now was that it would not be in the Bill. If he means that it will not be in the Act, how can he tell? When a Motion was made by an hon. Member on this side of the House to omit new taxes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "In stating certain objections earlier, I indicated the view of the Government on this particular Amendment. I do not think it would be fair to accept this Amendment, 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 were, were finally accepted, that they should be extended to new duties and new taxes. For that reason, and also for other reasons, I cannot see my way at this stage 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 might to be a farther opportunity for the house to consider that point later on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1913, col. 953.]
  I wish to enter my protest against the treatment which has been meted out to me. In his opening statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, with regard to my Amendments, he made a distinction between those he would accept in the Resolution and those he would accept in the Bill. When I came to move the first of those Amendments, which he said explicitly he would accept in the Resolution, he moved the Closure. With regard

  1071
  to my Amendment to introduce the words "of Customs, or Excise, or Income Tax" in the Resolution, he said:—
  "That Amendment I propose to accept, although should very much prefer to accept it on the Committee stage or embody it in the Bill to having it inserted here…"
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. and learned Member read on.
  Mr. CASSEL: Certainly I will:
  "because it is a serious departure from precedent."
  The right hon. Gentleman stated first that although he preferred the other course, he was willing to adopt the course of putting it into the Amendment, and I say he is going back upon his word by not consenting to put it in the Resolution. We ought to press our Amendment because we have no guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman may not take a similar course with regard to the Bill. With reference to my Amendment dealing with the time limit, I agree that he accepted that only in the sense of putting it into the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that I have not kept my word. Does he infer that if the discussion had gone on for two or three days, I was not bound to move the Closure?
  Mr. CASSEL: Will he promise now to accept those Amendments on the Report stage? I suggest that as a way in which he can carry out his word. Another of my Amendments which he distinguished as being acceptable in the Resolution as distinct from the Bill was the one with regard to two months, and he agreed to accept one month. He stated that my proposal would be putting a premium on late Budgets. He said that my twenty-one days' proposal was too short, and he agreed that two months was too long a period, and if I would agree to one month, instead of two months, he thought that would meet the case. He said that quite distinctly with regard to the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly agreed that, although the period I proposed was too short, he would accept one month. I had not the opportunity yesterday of stating my opinions, but I will accept his suggestion at once, and I want to know if he is going to carry out that suggestion. He can carry it out to-day by simply accepting it, and I invite him
  1072
  to carry out his pledge. I quite agree that the Resolution is necessarily more wide, but there are limits even to the terms of a Resolution. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer put upon the Table a Resolution to the effect that it is expedient that in future the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall have power to levy taxation in any manner he thinks fit, with or without the consent of the House of Commons, and then asked us to pass that Resolution because he was going to modify it in the Bill, would this House ever pass it? That would be ridiculous, and this Resolution is ridiculous on the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He admits that all he wants is the Customs and Excise, and this Resolution applies to every form of tax. It would apply to the payments under insurance and to the Sinking Fund.
  Why need we have this wide form of words? I agree it is unusual to have a discussion with regard to the limitation of these Resolutions, but this Resolution is so extraordinary and wide that it goes far beyond anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits to be necessary, and it is an unreasonable thing to put upon the Journals of the House of Commons. There is another Amendment which, unless it is accepted, it will be found impossible to frame the Bill in the way we desire. This is a point upon which I should like to take your ruling, Mr. Speaker. There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to leave out the words "The Committee of Ways and Means of." Supposing those words are left in the Resolution, it would be impossible to frame the Bill without inserting the words in the Bill. In my opinion they are very undesirable words to put in any Act of Parliament. The Committee of Ways and Means relates merely to the internal management and procedure of this House, but assuming the words were in the Resolution, it would be impossible to frame the Bill without inserting those words. If you put in merely the Resolution of this House, it might mean some other Committee or perhaps not any Committee at all, but if those words are in the Resolution then it would be impossible for us to narrow the Bill in such a way as to exclude the words "The Committee of Ways and Means of." I intended yesterday to say it was undesirable to have in an Act of Parliament words relating merely to the internal procedure of this House, which might

  1073

  be changed from time to time. The words "Committee of Ways and Means" are entirely unknown to the law, the only reference to an Act of Parliament being through a Resolution of the House and that is known to the law. If the words remain in the Resolution, I want to know whether it would not be taxing the subject differently if in the Bill you said by a Resolution of the House, because it would not follow that it would need to be set up in Committee of Ways and Means?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can agree with the hon. and learned Member. If in the Bill the words state "A Resolution of the House," that means it must have come from the Committee of Ways and Means first. The procedure of the House is that Money Resolutions of the House must go through Committee of Ways and Means before they can be reported to the House. With regard to the hon. and learned Member's statement that the term "Committee of Ways and Means" has never found expression in an Act of Parliament, I do not think he is quite right. If he will look at the Scottish Provisional Order Procedure Act he will find those words are there.
  Mr. CASSEL: If you say, Mr. Speaker, that we can still move in the Bill to leave out the words, "Committee of Ways and Means," that meets my particular point. There is another matter upon which I had not another opportunity of saying what I wished to say yesterday, and it related to the way in which the last paragraph is drafted. I do not know whether I should be in order in making any observations with regard to paragraph (c), but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep his word by accepting those Amendments in the Resolution which he said he would accept. With regard to those Amendments which he said he would accept in the Bill, I do not, of course, press him at this stage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to understand exactly what is to be in the Bill and what is not. I do not quite follow the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given from time to time. At one time he seems to say that no new taxes, or no tax which is new in character as well as in amount, can be imposed under this provision, and at another time he seems to say, simply Customs, Excise, and Income Tax.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to new taxes, I have promised that I would
  1074
  accept an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me. I stated that I would allow the new taxes to have an opportunity for further discussion on the Second Reading. The Bill would be reduced to the form in which it was introduced, with new taxes included, but the Government propose to accept the Amendment to leave out new taxes altogether, but not, of course, the variations of taxes, because we should stand by that, but with regard to absolutely new taxes, we propose to accept the Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman said he proposes to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, which confines the Resolution to Customs, Excise, and Income Tax, and that is quite a different proposal.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member made the suggestion that my proposal might lead to an increase in the Land Tax, and stated that if I accepted his Amendment that could not be done.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then I understand there is to be a limitation in regard to increasing any taxes, and there is to be an exclusion of new-taxes altogether? The discussion has recently turned on what Amendments are desirable either in the Resolution or in the Bill, but, strictly speaking, what my hon. Friend raised was the principle of the Resolution, and I confess I think it a pity that the Government have not addressed themselves more exclusively to the principle of the Resolution because it really is a very grave principle. When the Government say that we are debating this at unnecessary length, though it is quite fair to say this is a First Reading Debate, it is not unusual to take two days for the First Reading of an important Bill, and this is a Bill of great importance indeed, because it is one to substitute for a limited period a Parliamentary degree for a Bill. Observe how tremendously extensive are the powers. A Government and a majority might coerce the whole of a minority into accepting their proposal on whatever subject by coming down with a drastic penal tax which hit the majority hard, and carrying it through in a single night; and, if you include the extreme case, you also cover the more moderate cases. Supposing the Conservative party were resisting some Bill which they believed to be an attack

  1075
  on property, there would be nothing to prevent the Radical Government of the day coming down and proposing a 5s., 10s., or 20s. Income Tax, and carrying it in a Resolution, saying, "If you go on with your opposition to our Bill we shall enforce this tax, and you will be ruined." There would be nothing if the Home Rule Bill passed, and an altercation arose between the Irish Government and the English Government, to prevent the Government coming down here and putting a prohibitive duty on all cattle brought from Ireland to England. [HON. MEMBERS: "That would be a now tax."] Yes, that is quite true; it would be outside the Bill. But there would be nothing to stop them using any existing tax to injure the Irish Government as much as they could. There would be no difficulty in putting on any special increase of duty differentiating between one part of the Kingdom and another.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill would prevent that.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: No, this overrides the Irish Bill. This has statutory effect, and nothing in the Government of Ireland Bill can restrain it. It is specially provided in the Irish Bill that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is to be safeguarded, and this would be an exertion of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Therefore, there would be nothing to stand in your way. You could multiply instance after instance of extremely violent things which could be done by imposing taxation, and you are going to give the House of Commons power to do that in a single evening. I do not know whether prorogation would kill this power or not. That is an important point, because otherwise the Government might propound their tax and prorogue Parliament the next day, and nobody would be able to say anything for months together.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That would be an extension of usage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Certainly. Usage has always been the temporary exercise of
  unlawful power, and you extend usage when you make it statutory and legal. It was known or it was conjectured that in all probability if the matter were tried in the Courts the Government would be defeated. There is all the difference in the world between a statutory and legal power and a power allowed as a matter of usage and custom. Above all, I do think the Government ought to have met the two points to which their attention was drawn yesterday. The first was why we need to deal with this matter when foreign countries do not need to deal with it, and the other was that there is no safeguard that the Budget will not every year be crowded out to the very last days of the Session and carried through with no real Parliamentary control. The Government would always have an overwhelming answer against any criticism. They would always be able to say, "However well founded your criticism may be, it is too late now; we have not the time to recast our financial proposals." These are criticisms which go to the root of the Resolution, and I do not think it reasonable to ask us to pass the First Reading of the Bill unless you give us an answer on the principle and show us, first, that the thing is really necessary when it is not necesary in any other country; and, secondly, that you are going to safeguard us against the real dangers that threaten us. When you turn an elastic system into a fixed system, you must put in an additional safeguard. I think we have been abundantly justified in the protest that we have made. I do not think the Bill is likely to have an easy course through Parliament. It goes to the root of the liberties of the subject, it extends the power of the Government of the day into a new sphere, it sets a new precedent which is almost certain to be extended, and it marches one stage further in the direction of diminishing the power of the House and increasing the power of the Government.
  Question put, "That the words, 'a Resolution passed by,' stand part of the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 115.

  Division No. 32.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Adamson, William

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Armitage, Robert

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayward, Evan

  Phillips, John (Langford, S.)

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hodge, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Reddy, M.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hudson, Walter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Keating, M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  King, J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lardner, James C. R.

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Sheehy, David

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Leach, Charles

  Shortt, Edward

  Crooks, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Snowden, P.

  Delany, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Maclean, Donald

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sutherland, John E.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Doris, W.

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duffy, William J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomas, James Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wadsworth, John

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molloy, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Field, William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wardle, G. J.

  Furness, Stephen

  Muldoon, John

  Waring, Walter

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Munro, Robert

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gill, A. H.

  Needham, Christopher

  Webb, H.

  Ginnell, L.

  Neilson, Francis

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Malley, William

  Wing, Thomas

  Hancock, John George

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

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Shee, James John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  1078

  1079

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rawson, Cal. R. H.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyton, James

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Cave, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Faher, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Falls, Bertram Godfray

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Younger, Sir George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Hayes Fisher

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words, "the Committee of Ways and Means of."
  The effect of this Amendment would be that binding force would be given, not to a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, but to a Resolution of the House, which in most cases would be a Resolution to agree with the Resolution of the Committee. I want to point out to the House that the proposal that a Resolution of a mere Committee of the House shall have statutory effect, is entirely new its our law. No doubt it is provided by Statute that a Resolution of the House shall have a certain effect; for instance, in the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, a Resolution of the Whole House has an effect as regards Supply. So, too, the Customs Act of 1870 gives the Resolution of the House an effect as regards Ways and Means. Thus there is a precedent confined, as I proposed to confine it, to a Resolution of the House itself. There is no case where a Resolution of a mere Committee of Ways and Means has statutory effect so as to enable taxes to he levied. But let me deal with the difference in
  1080
  principle. The Committee of Ways and Means merely advises the House. The effect of the Committee Resolution is that "it is expedient" that a certain thing should be done. It is intended to be the foundation of a Bill. It is merely advisory. It never was intended to have operative effect. It is a preliminary to legislation. It is mere permission for a Bill to be brought in. I suggest that to enable a mere advisory step, passed in very general terms, to have the effect of law is not only novel but is an absolutely undesirable measure for this House to adopt.
  Then there is this consideration, that a decision in Committee may, of course, be reversed or varied by the House. It has been more than once. If the Committee Resolution is varied or rejected by the House, what effect has it? If the Resolution is not adopted by the House, or if it be rejected, it will nevertheless have had effect during the period intervening between the two stages. But what will be the effect of the Resolution of the Committee after it has been reversed? Nothing is said here about the Resolution dropping when rejected by the House. You have a mere provision that a Resolution in Com-

  1081
  mittee, a merely deliberative Resolution, shall have the effect of a Statute in imposing taxation. There may be a delay of weeks or months between the two events. You may have the mere Ways and Means Resolution operating for months, so as to authorise millions of pounds to be levied, and then the Resolution may be rejected or varied or dropped, so that the whole of the transactions which took place upon it will ultimately be found to be outside the law, and there will have to be a most elaborate process of recoupment. Then you will have to begin over again. I do not think hon. Members realise how searching the effect of such a Resolution as this is. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants taxation by Resolution it should be not by Resolution of the Committee merely, but by Resolution of the whole House. That would give, at all events, some little time for consideration. As I said previously, the terms of the Committee Resolution are very wide, and they are hardly known when it is passed in Committee. If it has to be passed by the whole House we shall have a chance of seeing it in print, and we shall have a little more time for considering its effect.
  As regards the only argument used in favour of the Resolution which has much weight—the argument of forestalling—I think there is very little in it from this particular point of view. I am not one of those who favour having the Report stage on the same day as the Resolution is passed in Committee. I think we ought to have a little more opportunity of knowing what the Committee have decided before the Report stage is taken. It has become a very common practice of the House for the Report stage to follow on the next day, so that there is at least an interval of twenty-four hours. In the case of an increase of duty, I do not think there would be any objection to the goods being retained in bond for twenty-four hours. They are now retained for a very much longer period. Further, if the Resolution were agreed to by the House on the following day, it could be made to take effect from the day it passed in Committee. The Bill would sanction that, and, this Amendment being accepted, the Resolution of the House itself would have statutory effect. To that I think there is less objection, although there is still a great deal of objection, than to giving that kind of statutory effect to a mere Resolution in Committee. The change
  1082
  may appear small, but it is important. It postulates some considered action, the action of the whole House, not of a Committee of the House, and I think the least that can be done is decide that a Resolution having statutory effect in taxing commodities shall at least have the sanction of the House itself, and not be a mere deliberative Resolution in Committee. I hope that, either to-day or later on in the Bill, the Government will accept the principle of this Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This point was debated at very great length yesterday in another form. The hon. and learned Member has very clearly stated his grounds for moving the Amendment, but there is one thing the hon. Gentleman overlooked, and that is that he is really proposing a departure from the precedents of the last 150 years, because the Treasury, the Inland Revenue, and the Customs and Excise have always acted on Resolutions in Ways and Means, and if you look at Sir Erskine May's book you will find he says:—
  "An anticipatory authority is imparted by usage to the Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means which impose or alter taxation."
  There is a very good reason why if you have got the Resolution in Ways and Means it should have immediate force. There is at least a whole day, and it might be two or three days, before your Resolution can be acted on if this Amendment be adopted. Meanwhile, dutiable commodities will have been cleared out of bond at a great rate. I am told, for instance, taking the increase of duty on spirits imposed in 1909, that in the course of a single day there might have been cleared goods to the value of anything between half a million and a million. That involves an increase of trouble to the officials. It is also inconvenient to the trade, and I am perfectly certain that, looking upon this as a purely business question, the trade would infinitely prefer the Resolution to come into operation immediately. It would be very much better for it. It has been the custom for at least 150 years, and it has been found to be convenient both to the trade and to the Exchequer. It would be a great mistake to depart from that in order to give further opportunities for forestalment of duty. Last night exaggerated importance seemed to me to be attached to the Report stage.

  1083
  The idea is that when you come to the Report stage the House decides, whereas in the other case it is only the decision of a Committee. That is rather a pedantic objection. After all, the Committee is a Committee of the Whole House. It is composed of the same Members. Every Member of the House may be present, and there is this additional advantage, that there is a much freer discussion, because Members can speak more than once. It is really a decision of the House, although it is called a decision of the Committee. The Report stage is an opportunity for revising rather than one for discussing the whole question over again. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), when Prime Minister, proposing in this House to eliminate the Report stage altogether, or to confine it merely to a revision of the Amendments made in Committee. There was a good deal to be said for that. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) last night spoke in favour of doing away with the Report stage altogether. I am not sure that that is not carrying it too far. I think there was a good deal to be said for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that the Report stage should not be opportunity for travelling over the whole of the ground again, but rather an opportunity for considering Amendments already made in Committee. If you give the country an opportunity to bring pressure upon the House of Commons, that means you must allow more than twenty-four hours to elapse. The few hours which elapse between Eleven o'clock one night and Three or Four o'clock the following afternoon, would not give anybody an opportunity of collecting the opinion of the electorate upon the question. There would have to be at least two or three weeks interval. In that time a good deal of material would be cleared out of bond, and it would make the tax perfectly futile, at any rate for that year.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Why not take a deposit?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What right would you have to take a deposit?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood my hon. Friend's proposal to be that the duty shall be retrospective to the date of the passing
  1084
  of the Resolution in Ways and Means, and that the Bill should provide for that. If that were carried out, I cannot see that any of the difficulties the Chancellor of the Exchequer points out would arise.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Suppose you make it retrospective, how are you to follow the suggestion made by the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) and demand a deposit? If you demand a deposit that presupposes that your Committee Resolution has some regular effect. In that matter there is very little between the hon. Gentleman and ourselves. I am not sure that I would not be prepared to consider that on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am not sure that the trade would prefer that method; on the whole I think they would prefer to pay for the commodities they took out. At any rate, there is very little between that and the proposal of the Government. It does mean that the Resolution would have some operative effect the moment it is carried, otherwise you cannot demand a deposit. You must have a right to demand a deposit. That is the proposal made now, I think, for the first time, and I should not like to reject it without further consideration. It is not the proposal which is before the House. The proposal before the House is that the Resolution should have no operative effect until agreed to by the House itself. That will really be a serious departure from the usage and custom which has been found to be so much to the convenience of the public, and I cannot accept it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The House will largely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a great deal in comparison between a single decision of the Committee of Ways and Means and a single decision of the House on Report stage. The proposal is not to substitute the one for the other. It is a question of one being additional to the other. If this Amendment is accepted, you will have both. It is obvious that a decision on Report must be preceded by a decision of Ways and Means, and it is not a question of comparing the relative authority of a decision in Ways and Means with that of the Whole House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It means waiting until you get your Report stage, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well, you could never get the Report stage of these Resolutions until some days after the Committee stage.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not dealing with that point, but, with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the comparative weight of a decision in Ways and Means and of a decision on Report. I say they are cumulative. When we come to look at the question as between the administrative importance and what I may call the political importance, we see that the latter is more important than the former. When we are dealing with a totally new legislative and statutory proposal we must have regard to the larger aspect of it, and by accepting this Amendment you do make quite certain that this House will not, by a majority on a mere snap vote on a single occasion, upon a proposal which is not properly known to any single Member in this House or to a single individual outside this House, exercise the power of imposing taxes upon the subject. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be a very great safeguard if it were supposed that the Report stage were to follow the Committee stage within one day. I agree that there would be no time for the country to consider the question, and that a week at least ought to elapse if public opinion is to have any real effect upon a proposal made in Committee and afterwards brought forward on Report. What we have to do now is to make the best of a bad business. It is not wholly satisfactory to the House or to the country even if the Amendment were accepted or not, but on the whole, taking into account the administrative side and also the constitutional side, I submit that on balance it would be an advantage to accept the Amendment on the distinct understanding that in the Bill which is to be founded upon this Resolution the duty would be made retrospective to the date of the passing of the original Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What about collection?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The difficulty of collection seems to be very much exaggerated. I speak with all deference on that point, but the right hon. Gentleman's expert advisers could deal with it. I do not see that there can be any great difficulty in collecting the duties. Why should there be any more difficulty than there was under the old arrangement? When a Resolution in Ways and Means was passed by general consent the duties were not paid for months. Now you would ask that the good sense of the community should
  1086
  do for a week or ten days what they have been previously in the habit of doing for months. There can be no insuperable difficulty about that. If there were, it would only be in certain minor cases, which would he very few and far between. The very small difficulties which might be created in regard to collection, provided the duty were made retrospective, would be a far less evil than that this House should assent to a tax being imposed on the whole of the subjects of the Crown by a mere single Resolution in a Committee of Ways and Means, without any single Member of the House knowing before the Resolution wet introduced what the nature of the new tax was to be. If the Amendment is accepted, and the Bill is founded upon that basis, so as to provide the greatest possible security for collection, it would be a very great advantage. I am glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to consider this matter very carefully.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question of deposit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It would be better to accept the Amendment subject to deposit than not at all. There was no difficulty in the old days with regard to deposit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Nobody knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the old days there was a general assumption that it was legal. It is true that after the prorogation it was known not to be legal. It was only assumed to be legal during the particular Session. In 1909, although we continued collection, we lost a considerable sum.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Would it be worth anybody's while to wait for a week after the Resolution was passed, when they knew they would have to pay? The risk is very small, and cannot be weighed in the balance against the very undesirable constitutional consequences of passing this Resolution without the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to grasp the argument of the Mover of the Amendment. I understood his object was to provide a safeguard against a mistake. If a Resolution of Ways and Means were carried by a very small majority, it might be necessary to test the real feeling of the House upon a second

  1087
  Resolution taken the next day or upon the Report stage. That would be a safeguard against a mistake being made. Very great care has been taken with regard to financial procedure in this House. There is no procedure in this House with regard to which greater pains have been taken to safeguard against mistakes. We all know that before the Budget Bill can be brought in we have to go through the procedure of passing Resolutions in Committee and on Report. Then the Finance Bill is introduced, and it has to go through all its stages. That has been done to guard against mistakes and to give the House a fair opportunity of correcting any mistake. I do not see any objection to the operative part of this proposal waiting until the
  Resolution has been confirmed on Report. You might have to wait perhaps only a day, and there would be no inconvenience if the operative part is dated back to the date of the Resolution passed in Ways and Means. If that is done, I do not see how any revenue can be lost. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider his decision not to accede to the request of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), but will accept it when the Bill is introduced.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 91.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Adamson, William

  Doris, W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Armitage, Robert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Falconer, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kelly, Edward

  Barnes, George N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Field, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  King, J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fiavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

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

  Boland, John Pius

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Leach, Charles

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lundon, T.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brace, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goldstone, Frank

  McGhee, Richard

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Guilaed, John Wiliam

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hackett, John

  M'Kean, John

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hancock, John George

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Manfield, Harry

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Marshall, Arthur H.

  Chapple, Dr. William A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Meagher, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clough, William

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Clynes, J. R.

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Collins. G. P. (Greenock)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molloy, M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mooney, John J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cowan, William Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, R.

  Crooks, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hodge, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Dawes, J. A.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  O'Dohorty, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Grady, James

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wadsworth, John

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Malley, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Waring, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Webb, H.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Shortt, Edward

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Reddy, M.

  Snowden, Philip

  Wing, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Redmond, Wiliam Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tennant, Harold John

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Thomas, J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bird, A.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mason, James P. (Windsor)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Falle, B. G.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel H. F.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'The Committee of Ways and Means of stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 34.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Buckmaster, Stanley O

  Adamson, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon, John

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Boland, John Pius

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armitage, Robert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Brace, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clough, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cowan, William Henry

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Reddy, Michael

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kelly, Edward

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  King, Joseph

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Doris, William

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

  Roch, Walter F.

  Duffy, William J.

  Leach, Charles

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

  Falconer, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sheehy, David

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shortt, Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Furness, Stephen

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Manfield, Harry

  Snowden, Philip

  Gill, A. H.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ginnell, L.

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomas, J. H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Molloy, M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gulland, John W.

  Mooney, John J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hackett, John

  Muldoon, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Munro, R.

  Wardie, G. J.

  Hancock, John George

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Waring, Walter

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Webb, H.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Havelock-Alan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Grady, James

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Wing, Thomas

  Hodge, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Shee, James John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Ben's and Mr. W. Jones.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cassel, Felix

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K

  Baird, J. L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Grant, J. A.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Barnston, Harry

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craig, E. (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Bird, A.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Boyton, J.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Kerry, Earl of

  1092

  1093

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

  Pollock, E. M.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Winterton, Earl

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

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

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

  Stanley, Han. G. F. (Preston)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Steel-Maitland, A, D.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Strauss. Arthur (Paddington, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cave and Sir H. Craik.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEclaimed "That the Main Question be now put."
  Main Question "That the House doth
  agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 86.

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES.

  [8.4 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falconer, James

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Adamson, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Leach, Charles

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Field, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Armitage, R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McGhee, Richard

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Furness, Stephen

  Maclean, Donald

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Barnes, George N.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ginnell, Laurence

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Glanville, H. J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

  Bentham, G. J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Boland, John Pius

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Middlebrook, William

  Brace, William

  Hackett, J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brady, P. J.

  Hail, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Burt, Rt. Hon, Thomas

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Bytes, Sir William Pollard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hodge, John

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Phillips, John (Langford, S.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Delany, William

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

  Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Doris, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Reddy, Michael

  Duffy, William J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  King, J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Smyth, Thomas F. Leitrim, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Snowden, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roch, Water F.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, J. H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, James

  Thorne, G. R. Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wadsworth, John

  Wing, Thomas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Sheehy, David

  Wardle, George J.

  Shortt, Edward

  Waring, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hewins, Wiliam Albert Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Boyton, J.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bud, Sir William James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, John George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Kebty-Fetcher, J. R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cave, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Everyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chaioner, Colonel R. G. W.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Cassel.

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Masterman, and Sir Rufus Isaacs. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

  PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Secretary if State to Discharge Prisoners Temporarily on Account of their Health.)
    (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that by reason of the condition of a prisoner's health it is undesirable to detain him in prison, but that, such condition of health being due in whole or in part to the prisoner's own conduct in prison, it is
    1096
    desirable that his release should be temporary and conditional only, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, by order authorises the temporary discharge of the prisoner for such period and subject to such conditions as may be stated in the order.
    (2) Any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the order of temporary discharge and shall return to prison at the expiration of the period stated in the order, or of such extended period as may be fixed by any subsequent order of the Secretary of State, and if the prisoner fails so to comply or return he may be arrested without warrant and taken back to prison.
    (3) Where a prisoner under sentence is discharged in pursuance of an order of temporary discharge the currency of the sentence shall be suspended from the day

    1097
    on which he is discharged from prison under the order to the day on which he is received back into prison, so that the former day shall be reckoned and the latter shall not be reckoned as part of the sentence.
    (4) Where an order of temporary discharge is made in the case of a prisoner not under sentence, the order shall contain conditions requiring the attendance of the prisoner at any further proceedings on his ease at which his presence may be required.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "the Secretary of State" ["If the Secretary of State is satisfied"] and to insert instead thereof the words "a judge of the High Court."
    The object of this Amendment is to take out of the power of the Secretary of State to decide whether this Bill shall apply to any prisoner in custody. I do not propose to take away the powers given by the Bill, but to transfer them to a judge of the High Court. I only propose that in the first instance a judge of the High Court, and not the Secretary of State, should decide whether this Bill should be applied to any given prisoner, and therefore, in the event of a judge deciding that the Bill was to be applied to the prisoner, the Secretary of State would carry out the provisions of the Bill in the manner provided in the Bill. It would be much better from every point of view that somebody who is in the independent position of a judge should have the responsibility of invoking this Bill if it becomes law. The position of the Home Secretary otherwise may conceivably be very invidious. This Bill does not apply only to suffragettes, but to everybody, and the Secretary of State in future may be in the position of being asked to release a political supporter or a political opponent, and pressure may be brought to bear upon him, for political reasons, that a prisoner should be given the privileges of this Act. It is much more desirable that that decision should be taken by some authority which would not be susceptible of political influence, and against whom no suspicion of political bias could possibly attach. Even as regards the present emergency of suffragettes, this Bill would place the Home Secretary in a very invidious position. The method which the campaign of militancy is following at present is to attack the persons of Cabinet Ministers. As long as militancy continues
    1098
    this method of political propaganda Cabinet Ministers will be always subject to attacks against their persons which will bring the perpetrators within the arm of the law, and the situation contemplated by this Bill is likely to arise in those cases. It would be very awkward for the Home Secretary to have to decide whether a prisoner who had been committing serious outrages against his person, or against his colleagues, and who had openly announced his intention of resuming those outrages the moment he was let out of prison, should or should not be let out of prison.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have had an opportunity of considering the Noble Lord's Amendment now, and I find that it would require a great deal more machinery, notice of which he has not either handed in or put upon the Paper. I understand that there is no machinery for converting a judge of the High Court into a prison authority. I do not think that this Amendment by itself could stand in the Bill, and I would like the Noble Lord to address himself to that point.
    Viscount WOLMER: All I am proposing is that if a judge of the High Courts should declare that he is satisfied by reason of the condition of the prisoner's health that it would be undesirable to retain him in prison and so on, it does not appear that any machinery is required for that.
    The CHAIRMAN: There would be machinery required as regards the person who is to make the application and the procedure on the application. I am not aware of any existing machinery which can be used for that purpose.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is no machinery to enable the Secretary of State to consider it. I do not see why it is more difficult to satisfy a judge of the High Court than it is to satisfy the Secretary of State. The application, I presume, would be an application at Chambers, or some application of that kind. There would be no difficulty more than there is at present when trying a prisoner for breach of prison discipline. If there is any difficulty it could be met in a moment by providing that there should be power to prescribe by rules. Whatever is machinery for the Secretary of State is machinery for a judge.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Secretary of State is now the prison authority. All the machinery necessary to satisfy me is the

    1099
    machinery which I now have to use in order to advise on the exercise of the prerogative.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That may or may not be an argument against the Amendment that it would be inconvenient to substitute a judge as the prison authority, but it cannot be said to be out of order to substitute a judge, one public official for another. There is no machinery provided in this Bill for the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, and I do not see why it is more necessary to have machinery for the satisfaction of a judge, who is one kind of public official, than for the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, who is another.
    Viscount WOLMER: I designedly left the matter as free as possible because I did not want to put any impediment in the way of making application to a judge. I simply lay down that the judge should pronounce himself satisfied in accordance with the terms of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point is that a judge is not a prison authority, and for a judge to be asked to give a certificate with regard to a prisoner's condition of health is surely quite a novel proposal. The proposal seems to me not reasonably complete enough to be put forward in Debate in Committee.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It would read, "If a judge of the High Courts is satisfied," and so on. There is no question of order as to whether a judge should be satisfied. The only question of order is if this makes sense. This makes perfect sense. A judge can be satisfied as easily as a Secretary of State can be satisfied. A judge will have to decide what is to satisfy him. If he is satisfied he will have to intimate his satisfaction in any way he thinks proper. There is no necessity for any machinery. A judge can be satisfied as much as any other human being.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: If the word "judge" were inserted, would not this, in cases where it was desirable that an order should be obtained, enable the prison authorities to make application to a judge just the same as is done by an application to the Home Secretary? I do not think that it would require rules for this purpose. I submit that all that would be necessary is that we should insert some Clause, if necessary, to provide that
    1100
    where application was made by the prison authorities, it should be made in Chambers to a judge.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point put by the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) is really a point of Order, because the Chair has to be satisfied that the Amendment is a reasonable one to put before the Committee. My difficulty is that you might in this way choose any individual or any functionary, and I think you want some more machinery to make it complete.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is not that a point of debate? The proposal I have made in this Amendment is one which appears to be perfectly comprehensible as it exists. If there is a drawback in the nature of that proposal is not that a matter for debate and further amendment in Committee? With all deference I venture to submit that this Amendment as it reads does express my meaning perfectly straightforwardly and comprehensibly, and can be understood by anybody.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is quite true that the Home Secretary is the prison authority, whatever that may mean. I do not know what it means, though it is familiar to me as a term of law. It may have some meaning that I am not aware of, but if it has that meaning there must be some other Act which enables the Home Secretary to judge of these matters, but that Act is not imported into this Bill, and has nothing to do with it at all. I am aware of the Judicature Act under which the judge in Chambers decides matters of this kind, and that could be easily imported into this Act. There is no machinery in the Bill at all to satisfy the Home Secretary, and it is left entirely at large. I do not think it is very good drafting, and it would have been better to have put in the words, "in the manner provided by the Prisons Act." I must respectfully say that what is sauce for the Home Secretary's goose is sauce for the High Court gander.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must confess that I have very considerable doubt in the matter, and as I have not had time to look into it fully I shall give the Noble Lord the benefit of that doubt.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am very grateful to you, Sir, and I had practically concluded my remarks when you called me to order. As to the details, if the Committee

    1101
    approve of the principle of my Amendment they can be settled afterwards. The only point I wish to make in this Amendment is that the person who has to decide this matter, if the Bill becomes an Act, ought to be a person who is not a politician, or responsible to this House; he ought to be an independent authority in the position of a judge, and one against whom no suspicion would lie, and upon whom no political pressure could be brought. It is for that reason I move my Amendment, and if the Home Secretary thinks that further regulations are necessary to give it proper force and make it work efficiently, I am perfectly willing that those regulations should be inserted. We contend here that the Home Secretary should not be put in the invidious position in which the Bill places him, of having to decide in the case of a person who may be a political supporter or political opponent; or the right hon. Gentleman himself personally, or his colleagues, might have been subjected to outrage, and therefore he should not be put in the position in which the Bill places him.
    Mr. McKENNA: I fully appreciate the point which the Noble Lord has put, and I am grateful to him for his desire to relieve me of a certain part of my responsibilities; but I would remind him that my responsibilities are already much more serious than apparently he has conceived. He has said quite truly that it is undesirable for any politician to have to decide whether a political supporter or politician should be given the privileges of this Act, and he thinks it is a pity that a politician, and not an independent authority, should be forced to give a decision whether this Act should be applied to a prisoner or not. Rightly or wrongly, there is upon me the responsibility at this moment of deciding this very question is much more important cases, in which I have to advise upon the exercise of the prerogative. I have the power to advise with regard to every prisoner in prison at this moment. The responsibility rests on the Home Secretary of advising the release of any prisoner, and I have that power already. All that is suggested now is that the Home Secretary should have the power, not merely of releasing a prisoner, but, in certain cases, of discharging the prisoner temporarily, where there is necessity for that decision arising from the prisoner's own acts. It would be really straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to insist on applying to a judge
    1102
    before the Home Secretary could exercise such a minor responsibility, when he has now the responsibility of advising the exercise of the Royal prerogative with regard to every prisoner in gaol.
    As the Home Secretary is now the authority, and has all the machinery and information already in his possession, and as he is—here I agree with the Noble Lord—responsible to Parliament for every act which he does, I really think the exercise of such a power as this ought to be placed in his hands, and ought not to be placed in the hands of the judge. This is not an ordinary exercise of judicial authority. The prisoner has been brought before the judge, and has been found guilty by the judge. That is the proper function for the judge to perform. But here we are only dealing with a question of prison discipline. All we are asking for is that the Secretary of State should have the power of dealing with prisoners who are refractory in a particular way. I think it would be very cumbersome to have to go before the judge, and in many cases it would defeat the whole object of the Bill where urgency is of extreme importance. The judge could only make an order on information supplied to him by the Home Secretary, and the order given would not affect the sentence, but would enable the prison discipline to be enforced by the Home Secretary, who is the prison authority. The Noble Lord admits that "prison authority" is a very well-known term and the Home Secretary is made the prison authority by particular Statutes. For these reasons I hope the Noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think the Home Secretary quite appreciates the effect of his own Bill. If the Committee will look at the first. Sub-section of this Clause they will understand better what it does mean and does not mean. It says, "Where a prisoner ought to be released on account of his health." But when the bad condition of his health has been caused by his conduct, partly or altogether, then he may be released conditionally. The effect of this Sub-section is to put a fetter on the prisoner's right of release in consequence of his state of health. At the present moment it is conceded, or at any rate it is a matter of practice, that when it is dangerous to a prisoner to be kept in prison he must be released. I state with great confidence, it is his light, and

    1103
    surely there are a large number of cases in which quite apart from suffragettes, that has been done. What is proposed here is that where that condition has been caused by his own act then he is to be released not altogether but conditionally. The question that will come before the Home Secretary, admitting that the prisoner's health is in such condition that he ought to be released, is whether or not it was caused by his own conduct. That seems to me to be in the nature of charging the prisoner with the offence of causing an injury to his health by his own conduct, and that is a matter which seems to me primâ facie more fitted for the decision of the judge than of a Home Secretary. The real effect of the Clause seems to me to put a fetter on the release, and not to make it easier to release the prisoner, but to make it easier to release the prisoner conditionally instead of absolutely. That seems to me to be a matter eminently for judicial inquiry which ought to be determined on judicial grounds, and the question is whether the Home Secretary is on the whole the best person to exercise what is a judicial function.
    I quite admit there is a good deal to be said on both sides, but everybody will agree that the Home Secretary is not a good judicial officer, whatever he may be as a prison authority. In many cases he has had no legal training at all, and I suppose in no case has he had any judicial training; and, therefore, as a judicial person I think everybody would agree that he is not a satisfactory person. It is for that reason that Parliament quite recently passed a Bill establishing the Appeal Court in order to relieve him of some of his judicial functions. That was one of the great reasons which was advanced by the Ministry of the day for that measure. The one argument which the Home Secretary advanced which impressed me was the question of urgency. I do see there is a difficulty there, but it might be that to get hold of a judge would take no longer than to get hold of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must remember that a judge has constantly to deal with very urgent applications, such as applications for injunctions where some immediate danger is threatened, and cases of that kind are dealt with in the course of an hour in appropriate instances. I should have thought myself there would not be much difficulty in invoking the judicial
    1104
    power in a proper manner, and to get a decision from a judge as quickly as from the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is quite as likely to be away as a judge, and I think even more likely. Therefore, on the whole, I should have thought this was a good Amendment, but I do not know whether it is worth while putting the House to the trouble of a Division on a matter of that kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I support this Amendment for the reason that in my opinion it is most undesirable that the Secretary of State should be the determining judge in matters of this kind. As the law stands to-day I understand that if a prisoner deliberately refused to take food and died without forcible feeding that in that case the Home Secretary would be liable to be tried by indictment, but that if he had forcibly fed the prisoner no responsibility rested on him. That is a most unsatisfactory position in which to place the Home Secretary. As the Mover of the Amendment pointed out, many outrages, particularly by militant suffragettes, are either on the person or houses or property of Ministers, and it seems to me to be wholly undesirable that the Home Secretary should have the power of determining the imprisonment for offences committed against one of his own colleagues. This Bill has been properly termed "The Cat and Mouse Bill." I entirely dissent from it, but in my opinion it is preferable to have a judge in place of the Secretary of State, as he will not be so likely to be influenced by the sloppy sentimentalism which is so apparent in this House, but which is not, in my opinion, apparent in the country. The country would much prefer that a judge of the High Court should have the deciding of this question, which, after all, is not one of administration, because it is a case of a deliberate attempt on the part of the prisoner to escape the punishment of the Court and sentence of the judge by a conspiracy entered into with the sole object of getting released from prison. Therefore I should have thought that the Home Secretary himself would have preferred that this question should have been removed from his decision, because in my opinion, the whole attitude is an impossible one, but as the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill, the only question is to strengthen it, and I believe it would be strengthened by the Amendment.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I desire to speak in opposition to the Amendment. I apprehend that the present prerogative of releasing prisoners in ill-health is in no way affected by this Bill, and that the Bill only applies to persons whose health suffers through direct conduct of their own. Such being the case it appears to me to be a question of facts and not of law, and a matter for a doctor rather than for a judge of the High Court to determine. Furthermore, I am of opinion that it is much more preferable that the administration of this matter when it becomes law, should be in the hands of the Home Secretary, because of the fact that this House is competent to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, whereas, of course, we have no opportunity whatever of passing any observations upon the conduct of the judges. Again, I think, that this proposal would be most unfair, perhaps even to the prisoners, because I can conceive that during the long vacation it would be extremely difficult, or quite impossible, to get a judge. The legal gentleman will help me in this matter.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Judges are always accessible.
    Viscount WOLMER: And the Home Secretary is not.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I believe that the Home Secretary is always within reach, or that it is possible to get into communication with him. I certainly do not think that this is a matter that ought to be argued before a judge of the High Courts; it is essentially a question of administration upon matters of fact, and not upon points of legal determination. For the strong reason that it always remains in the competency of the House of Commons to criticise the action of the Home Secretary, I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: As far as the argument that the Home Secretary is always available goes, it occurs to me that during one of the most important crises which have arisen since I have been a Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary was on the high seas, and the Secretary of State for War had to deal with the matter. I refer to the incident in Newport, Monmouthshire. A judge of the High Court, is, in the nature of things, always available to receive urgent applications in Chambers. Therefore there seems to be no argument in favour of the Home Secretary
    1106
    on that ground. Nevertheless, I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. I cannot see that there would be any advantage in so serious a departure from procedure as the placing of a matter of prison discipline under the cognisance of a judge of the High Court. Having once passed sentence, the judge has no further concern with the prisoner. I understand that the Home Secretary has taken the opinion of the Law Officers, and has been told that he must endeavour to keep these prisoners alive. I am not sure how that stands; but the law was once laid down by the poet in the words:—
    "Thou shalt not kill, but need'st not strive
    Officiously to keep alive."
    I believe that as regards these prisoners the Home Secretary is bound "officiously to keep alive," although possibly his intervention is too tardy and the prisoners are not allowed a fair chance to take food, which they probably would do in time. However that may be, the point here is simply whether the Home Secretary or a judge of the High Court is the proper authority to deal with a prisoner who hunger strikes. It is inconceivable to me that anybody who has had experience of prison management can for a moment contemplate taking a matter of this kind out of the hands of the Executive and putting it back into the hands of the Judiciary. It is not a judicial question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does it not arise from a conspiracy to defeat the sentence which the judge has awarded?
    Sir J. D. REES: I quite agree, but that does not make any difference as regards the proper authority to deal with it. It is a matter for the Executive. When once a judge has sentenced a prisoner he has no further concern with him or her. Take another aspect of the case, in which the hon. Baronet is particularly interested. I remember how stoutly he stood up—although unfortunately he afterwards gave way—against the proposal to increase the number of judges. I was entirely with him. But if judges are to manage prisons and prisoners as well as to sentence prisoners, there will be no end to their duties, and more and more judges will be required. I have not heard a single argument why this function should be discharged by anybody but the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament for the exercise of the prerogative. As an executive official, the Home Secretary recommends the exercise of the prerogative,

    1107
    which is not subject to any rules or law. It seems to be incredible that it should be proposed that a judge should recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and I hope my Noble Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: The Amendment is based on two grounds: first, that of relieving the Home Secretary of an invidious duty, and, secondly, that a more efficient and appropriate official will be found in a judge of the High Court. So far as the first ground is concerned, the Home Secretary has indicated his entire willingness to discharge the duty, so that nothing more need be said on that. As far as the second ground is concerned, this being purely an administrative and not a judicial act, the main question being as to the state of the prisoner's health and whether it requires his or her release, I think that the duty can be more properly performed by the Home Secretary on report made to him than by a judge of the High Court. I do not think that any analogous function is performed at present by a High Court judge. The nearest analogy is provided by the Penal Servitude Acts, and there the Home Secretary is the person who exercises this discretion. I do not follow the Noble Lord as to the procedure which would be necessary. Is there to be evidence on both sides placed before the High Court judge? Are there to be counsel? Is there to be an appeal or is the judgment to be final? All these questions simply emphasise the necessity of embodying machinery in the Bill if effect is to be given to the proposal. On the question of urgency I agree with what has been said; but that again emphasises the necessity of setting un machinery to ensure that the matter should come before a Judge in Chambers, who should deal with it promptly. That again is unprovided for in any part of the Bill. Therefore I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "State" ["If the Secretary of State is satisfied"] to insert the words "or the governor of any prison authorised by the Secretary of State with reference to a particular prisoner."
    1108
    The object of this Amendment is to meet the question of urgency to which reference has already been made. It seems to me quite possible that, supposing a prisoner hunger-strikes, a period may and probably would arise when the condition of the prisoner, hitherto without danger, would suddenly become dangerous, owing, for instance, to the condition of the heart. That might occur at the week-end, when even the Home Secretary might be away, and by the time the Home Secretary had been found, an application made, and an order issued, the prisoner might be dead. Therefore what I suggest, is that under circumstances of that kind, where the report has already reached the Home Secretary to the effect that such a collapse might occur, he should have the power to authorise the governor of the prison to issue the order of release—safeguarding it by the subsequent Amendment. The governor of the prison should not have power to make such an order unless specifically authorised by the Home Secretary in reference to that particular prisoner. I think it is probable that the Home Secretary would more commonly adopt the form of forwarding to the governor directions that if he was satisfied during his (the Home Secretary's) absence that the conditions were such that it was desirable that an order should be made then and there, that the order should be made. If this Bill is to be made operative at all and to deal with urgent cases such as are contemplated, I think some such power will have to be given to the governor of the prison. The other part of the Amendment, which is one of perhaps rather larger importance, is this: As the Bill stands at present it reads:—
    "If the Secretary of State is satisfied that by reason of the condition of a prisoner's health it is undesirable …"
    The suggestion that I make, if accepted, would make the Bill read in this way:—
    "If the Secretary of State is satisfied … that continued detention will endanger a prisoner's life, or seriously and permanently affect his health, and that it is therefore …"
    Then the other parts of the Section would read on. It must be pointed out, as already stated by the Noble Lord who moved the last Amendment, that this is a Bill which, although introduced to meet the necessities of a particular class, is a Bill which deals with all prisoners of whatever class and whatever sex for all time. I confess to a dread that unless it is a

    1109
    little more accurately framed than at the present time that you will have, as we often have in our legislation, a Bill framed for one particular object utilised in years to come, when that object has been altogether forgotten, for a totally different…
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, will be well advised to take the second Amendment on the Paper separately. It does not appear to be necessarily consequential on the first one. I can only put one question at a time. If he will allow me to put the first one and get that disposed of, then we can go on to the second one.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am very much obliged, and I entirely agree with what you say. I started my observations by pointing out to you and the Committee that probably owing to my bad drafting two entirely distinct Amendments have become mixed on the Paper. That means that I will defer any remarks on the second point, and as I have said what I had to say on the first, I beg to move.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: I fully appreciate the desire of the hon. and learned Member, but I do not think that the words are required in order to effect the object he has in mind. The words are equally objectionable on another ground. You are asking that any governor authorised by the Secretary of State should release a particular prisoner if he is satisfied, and so on. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to recognise that these words would to a certain extent impose a duty upon the governor where the Secretary of State is responsible. The Secretary of State and the governor are placed as alternatives. The assumption, therefore, would be that there might be cases in which the Secretary of State would not be responsible. He might come to the House of Commons and say, "I authorised the governor in regard to that particular prisoner to be careful, and if he was satisfied to release him. I do not know the circumstances." It is desirable in every case that the Secretary of State should be responsible in this House with regard to the release of every prisoner. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. In practice the object is really met. In practice what would happen would be, supposing the case of a prisoner about whom there is anxiety, I would be fully apprised of the circumstances, and would authorise the
    1110
    governor to do what was desirable. But the authorisation would be mine and the responsibility would be mine, and I should have to answer to Parliament for the act of the governor. I do not think it is necessary, therefore, to introduce the governor here in order to effect the very proper object which the hon. Gentleman has in view.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There is one very much stronger reason than that stated by the Home Secretary why this Amendment should not be accepted. It is stated that the Amendment would enable the prisoner to obtain a speedy release when the Home Secretary might be absent. That is a reason which is conclusive to my mind why the Amendment should not be accepted. If prisoners do not take their food, they should not have an opportunity of getting off earlier than they otherwise would. It is clearly undesirable in my opinion that they should have a further chance of escape. It is a simple question to my mind that where people deliberately enter into a conspiracy to defeat the law they should do so at their own risk. If they go on hunger strike, the law should be more stringent.
    Sir J. D. REES: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment—for two reasons. The first is that it must be expected to some extent to reduce the responsibility of the Secretary of State which should be maintained to the utmost degree. He has great responsibility and is immediately responsible to Parliament. I will oppose any Amendment or change whatsoever which will relieve him in the slightest degree of any responsibility that is his. There is one other reason. I object to this or any power in this respect being given to the governors of gaols. Governors of gaols, contrary to what might be supposed, are really feeble and timid folk. They dread responsibility. Imagine the feelings of an ordinary governor of a gaol confronted by a Mrs. Pankhurst, with crowds of people about the country willing to commit abominable outrages to show their sympathy with her? I do not think it is quite fair, under these circumstances, to put upon the governor of a gaol any responsibility or any new function whatsoever under this Act. Let it all remain on the devoted head of the Secretary of State. To do him justice, though I have frequently complained of his leniency to what are miscalled political prisoners, I will say on the present occasion he has stuck to his guns, and I mean to support him.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "by reason of the condition of a prisoner's health," and to insert instead thereof the words, "continued detention will endanger a prisoner's life or seriously and permanently affect his health and that it is therefore."
    I wish to point out that what I think is of great importance in this Bill is this. It deals with all prisoners for all time to come, and therefore it is a Bill which we are bound to consider in the interests of the community, and not only in reference to the particular contingency for which it is being passed. I suggest that the words of the Sub-section as they stand are altogether too wide. Just think of the power you are giving to the Secretary of State if this Bill passes in this form. He has merely to determine that the condition of a prisoner's health is such that it is undesirable to detain him any further in prison without any guide in the Bill as to what the condition of health is which the prisoner must have reached before his release. Without any standard to act upon he is to exercise his own unfettered discretion as to whether the condition of the prisoner's health is such that it is undesirable to detain him any further in prison. I suggest that is much too great a power to give to any officer with reference to prisoners who after all have broken the law and have been convicted, after trial, and have been sentenced by a judge. I propose to insert words which at any rate contain some limitation upon the powers of the Secretary of State, and which will confine them to cases in which he is satisfied—whether or not he is properly satisfied is a matter for his honour—that the continued detention will interfere with the prisoner's life or will seriously affect his health.
    Let us see if these words are inserted the conditions that will arise. I do not lay great emphasis on the statement, but I repeat that it will be a great temptation to the Home Secretary, if political pressure is brought to bear on him, to come to this very easily arrived at conclusion, that the condition of a prisoner's health is such that it is undesirable to keep him further in prison. It might be that some future Government will be called into being which depends upon its remaining in office upon the support of some section of the House of Commons. It might be
    1112
    that at some future date the House of Commons is sufficiently wise or unwise to give votes to all sorts of women. At some future date there might be a suffragist party which will be able to bring pressure to bear upon the Home Secretary, and although one would not say so of this Home Secretary, there might be a Home Secretary who would yield to such pressure and who would come to the conclusion that the condition of a prisoner's health was such that it was undesirable to detain him any longer in prison. How are you to criticise him? He may say, "The powers of this Act are so wide that I arrived at the conclusion, after consulting the doctor, that it was unwise to detain the prisoner longer. The doctor may have given me no particular reasons that I could repeat to the House, but I am given discretion under the Act, and I exercised it." That is one of the drawbacks and one of the dangers that occurs to me. There are others. Supposing you get a Home Secretary, for instance, who has a fad with reference to contagious diseases, and some prisoner not necessarily a suffragist, some prisoner entirely apart from the present agitation, gets an infectious complaint of some sort. The Home Secretary will be able to say, "I think that prisoner ought to be discharged and sent to some public institution, or sent home to be nursed, and he ought to be taken out of the purview of the prison authorities altogether," and infirmaries and the various institutions provided for persons in prison may be entirely ignored by the Secretary of State, and under the wide terms of this Bill he may exercise any particular fad he may have at the time, and may release the prisoner suffering from an infectious complaint, or suffering from any kind of illness that he may think undesirable for the rest of the prison inhabitants.
    But beyond that there is this further matter and I say this as one who, although sympathising to a great extent with the aims of the suffragists, very much deplores the recent methods which they have adopted. I think if you will leave the Bill in this form you will largely take away the deterrent effect, such as it is, that punishment now has. If a woman—and I am dealing now with this as a Bill proposed to meet this particulur emergency—contemplates committing an offence against the law by breaking windows, or committing arson, or any offence of that kind, there are, I venture to suggest, only two things in the punishment that will

    1113
    subsequently overtake her, that will have any fear for her at all. One is the possibly prolonged period of imprisonment and the consequent removal from the activities she has adopted, and the other is forcible feeding. If you are going to give such a wide discretion as this to the Home Secretary, it seems to me you are likely to stultify your act from beginning to end. What will happen? The woman will go into prison, starve herself for forty-eight hours, and just as she is reaching the time when forcible feeding is to be imposed, she will be released. As this Bill stands she is apparently to be released without any supervision. She is to be sent home for some period detailed in the Order, without any responsibility to report herself. Supposing the doctor says she will take a week to recover, she will go home for a week, and if I know anything of feminine character, she will recover after three days, and after three days she will start breaking windows and setting houses on fire, and she will not care twopence for the only deterrent the Bill now contains. When she comes back to prison she will starve herself for forty-eight hours again and again she will be released, and she will commit a few more crimes. I venture to suggest to the Home Secretary that this is a danger, and that in that respect the Bill requires to be strengthened. I do not think the words of the Amendment are sufficiently strong, and I have a subsequent Amendment to meet that, but they are a step in the right direction. It seems to me to be wrong to leave unfettered discretion to the Home Secretary to release anybody upon medical grounds when the condition of health is such as he thinks it is undesirable to detain them any longer, and, at any rate, you ought to limit his discretion to cases where real danger arises from keeping them longer in prison.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Member has misconstrued the purpose of the first three lines of this Clause. His argument is that the Home Secretary ought never to have such unrestricted powers of release as are granted under this Bill. My answer is that the Home Secretary has got all those powers now.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: On licence.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I can release without any reasons and without any suggestion that the prisoner is in ill-health or has done anything. I have unrestricted
    1114
    power to advise the release of any prisoner, and this Bill gives me no powers in that direction in excess of what I possess. The hon. and learned Member's arguments are directed not against this Bill so much as against the present constitutional powers which the Home Secretary has of advising the exercise of the Royal prerogative. The hon. and learned Member suggests a limitation of the exercise of that prerogative, which he says should not be exercised unless the prisoner's life would be in danger.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Under the new procedure set up by this Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: But the power is not confined to that.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Under my Amendment it is confined to the power to be exercised under this Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is adopted the Clause will read:—
    "If the Secretary of State is satisfied that continued detention will endanger a prisoner's life, or seriously and permanently affect his health, and that it is therefore undesirable to detain the prisoner."
    I do not agree with what was stated by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) that any prisoner has a right to be released on grounds of ill-health. The prerogative is not always exercised in the case of ill-health, because every case has to be considered on its merits, and the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament in every case in which he exercises this prerogative. The power of advising the exercise of this prerogative is unlimited, but the control of that power lies in the House of Commons. I think the powers of the House of Commons in this matter are very considerable, because the Home Secretary knows that he is liable to criticism and censure for every act he undertakes, and I do not think there is any Minister who is so much subjected to criticism in this House as the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The hon. and learned Member opposite must remember that, having unrestricted power at the present time to advise release in all circumstances, this Amendment only proposes to restrict the power, not of release in case of illness, but in case of temporary discharge only, because the sentence remains effective, and the prisoner is under

    1115
    the same liability to complete the whole of the sentence. The Amendment would leave the Home Secretary perfectly free to release any prisoner in any circumstances. The hon. and learned Member says if the Home Secretary has the tremendous power of releasing any prisoner, and if you propose to discharge a prisoner temporarily when he would be liable to complete the whole of the sentence, then the discretion of the Secretary of State must be limited to cases where the prisoners' health is such that death is likely to ensue by continued detention.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that power is very sparingly exercised because it involves a reversal of the decision of the Court, but this is a power which the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be exercising daily.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no. I look upon hunger strikes as of a very temporary nature, and I do not think I shall have to exercise this power very often after the Bill has passed. I think one of the effects of the Bill will be to shorten the life of hunger strikes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Shorten the life of hunger strikers!
    Mr. McKENNA: I said no such thing. I said "strikes," and that is a very different matter. I do not wish to shorten the life of any hunger striker.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not catch the word.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope, after this explanation, the hon. and learned Member opposite will not think it necessary to press his Amendment. I understand that he is anxious to see the law enforced, and to see prisoners undergo their sentences. At the present time I cannot make these prisoners undergo their sentences without serious risk of death, and I want to have power to enable me to compel a prisoner to undergo the sentence, and I want that power in all cases in which the prisoner adopts the system of the hunger strike. At the present moment, although I have power to release, I cannot release a prisoner without a pardon, and I have to discharge them for good. I want the power of releasing a prisoner without a pardon with the sentence remaining alive. If the hon. and learned Member desires to
    1116
    see sentences enforced, clearly it is desirable that I should have this power without being forced to discharge the prisoner. When I am satisfied that a prisoner ought to be discharged, I shall have to exercise one or other of two powers. I must either discharge the prisoner under the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, or discharge her under this Bill. As I have unrestricted power of discharge under the prerogative of mercy, every restriction which the hon. Member imposes upon my power under this Bill forces me back upon the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and really defeats the object which he has in view. I must adopt one or other of two courses, and by limiting me in one course he forces me to adopt the other which he does not wish me to adopt. I hope therefore he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: When I read the Amendment and listened to the greater part of the speech of my hon. Friend who supported it, I rather came to the conclusion that there was not very much in it, but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman I have changed my opinion altogether. I think his opposition to the Amendment was weak to the last degree. He said that he had the opportunity of advising His Majesty to exercise the power of the Crown to release a prisoner if he thought the prerogative of mercy ought to be exercised. That has got nothing whatever to do either with the Bill or with the Amendment. No one denies that the Home Secretary has the power to advise the Crown to exercise the immemorial right of the prerogative of mercy and to release a prisoner. The question before us has nothing whatever to do with the prerogative of mercy. It is whether or not we can arrive at an arrangement which will prevent certain misguided women from evading the sentence which the law has justly passed upon them. The Home Secretary's defence may be boiled down to this. At the present moment I have the power of advising the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy. That prerogative ought not to be exercised in this particular instance, but, unless I have some power of this sort, I shall be compelled to exercise the prerogative of mercy. That, so far as I could see, was the whole argument advanced against, the Amendment. The Amendment to my mind, as a layman, differs very little from the words of the Bill. I think I see the point, but I do not really know that there is very much in it.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I did not bring the point home to the lay mind of the hon. Baronet. I suggest that the condition of health which the Home Secretary is to be entitled to take into consideration is that condition of health which has reached the point that it endangers the prisoner's life or will permanently affect her future health.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I think there is something to be said for the Amendment, and, if he goes to a Division, I shall support him.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am really amazed at the reply of the Home Secretary. He says that this Bill is going to shorten the life of the hunger strike. He says that when he is armed with the provisions of this Bill, the good common sense of English women will put an end to the strike. If he thinks that, he must indeed be a Simple Simon. It is incredible to me that anyone with the most remote idea of common sense can believe that the immediate effect of this Bill will not be that women who to-day have not gone to prison will do so not by scores, but by hundreds. They will say, "We will see what is going to be done to us under this ridiculous cat-and-mouse Bill." The right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to be this: "I am responsible to this House, and, if I do not release a prisoner early enough, the House will judge my action. Everybody knows that there is no judgment of the House of Commons to-day taken on any question. It is taken by the party Whips, quite irrespective of the merits of the question that may be before the House. My hon. Friends sitting on these benches are beginning to realise that now. The Mover of the Amendment said that a future Home Secretary might yield to political pressure, and he thought it desirable that there should be some words inserted in the Clause to make it quite clear that prisoners were not to be released if their health was merely in danger. I should have been inclined to have said that the Home Secretary has already yielded to pressure, not perhaps from the House where he has the party Whip behind him, but to the idea that the country is in favour of the proposals which he and the hon. Member for Nottingham, who is such a strong defender of them, now seek under this ridiculous Bill to make law. If I had my way I would hang anybody who was convicted of throwing a bomb or of being in
    1118
    possession of a bomb, whoever it was, whether their life was in danger or not, because the possession of bombs is in itself a crime against innocent people, and to let out prisoners who have committed a crime of that kind simply because they are in a poor state of health is to my mind perfectly outrageous. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a poor stick with which to beat the opponents of the Bill, but I suppose one must use the sticks available for the purpose. With regard to the aims of the suffragist to which the hon. Member referred…
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot upon this Amendment allow a speech against the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I knew I was travelling somewhat wide of the Bill, but I was replying to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member who said he was a sympathiser with…
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I knew I was out of order, but I wanted to take up as much time as I am legally entitled to as an opponent of the Bill. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will give the opponents of the measure some support in the various Amendments that they are going to move, so that we shall at any rate give the Government the trouble of marching round the Lobbies.
    Mr. PETO: I desire to call the attention of the Committee to one or two points in the speech of the Home Secretary to which no reference has been made. The right hon. Gentleman said there were only two courses open to him—that he had to act in the direction of using his power in regard to the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and to let a prisoner go without recall, or he had to adopt the alternative provided by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman entirely left out of account a third course which is certainly within his power, and that is to let the law take its course. The earlier part of his speech was devoted to showing that such a Bill is wholly unnecessary because the Home Secretary already has such enormous powers. He appeared to argue that the powers he will get under this Bill are comparatively trivial, and he insisted that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was a limiting Amendment. But it is limiting

    1119
    merely in this sense, that it indicates the circumstances under which this third course is to be opened up to the Home Secretary. In his defence of the exact wards in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman put before the Committee an entire misstatement of the basic facts as they exist. He has now undoubtedly two courses open to him, and when this Bill becomes law he will have three, and he stated most emphatically that if he accepted the Amendment he would be doing something to limit one of the two courses which he maintained would still be open to him. That is not my view of the Amendment. He will either allow the law to run its course or he will exercise his power of the Royal prerogative and liberate the prisoner, or he will use the powers under this Bill.
    If he adopts the last course, under what circumstances are the new powers to be brought into play? That is the whole point in the Amendment before the Committee, and surely we are entitled to argue that if this new procedure is necessary it should only be exercised under circumstances which show that the further detention of the prisoner would be dangerous to the life of that prisoner. Otherwise the existing law is good enough and there is no need for this Bill. It must only be in cases of positive danger to life that these powers should be exercised. I do not agree with this Bill at all. Like the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), I do not desire to see it become law. But one thing I see perfectly clearly, and that is that the exercise of these new powers to let out prisoners of this kind on ticket-of-leave whenever there is a hunger strike, lasting twenty-four or forty-eight hours, as the case may be, would involve an enormous expenditure of public money in connection with the police. I am therefore in favour of any Amendment which will limit these powers, so that this waste of public money in watching women whom it will be perfectly impossible to keep track of shall be limited to as few cases as possible, and the powers shall only be used in those cases where the hunger strike is carried to such a point as to be absolutely dangerous to life. On that ground I oppose the Bill entirely. I am more than ever of opinion that this Amendment ought to be carried because of the speech of the Home Secretary. Like the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I was not very clear about the
    1120
    value of this particular Amendment until I heard the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the wording of the Bill. Having heard it, I am perfectly convinced not only on the general grounds, but because the Amendment would limit the operation of this Bill to real cases of difficulty where there might be some excuse for fresh legislation. I shall, therefore, strongly support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. CAWLEY: I wish to point out the undesirability of pressing this Amendment to a Division. There are two reasons why the words are not so adequate as those contained in the Bill. It is not desirable to state to what condition of health a prisoner must be reduced before being let out. I think the words of the Bill, "By reason of the condition of a prisoner's health it is undesirable to retain him in prison," are about as full as one can possibly desire. There must be a certain amount of discretion in the hands of the person who is to exercise this power. You will have to put on him the duty of deciding if the prisoner's life is in danger or if his condition is such as to justify fears of serious permanent injury to health. My second point is that it is not continued detention that is going to endanger a prisoner's life; it is the action of the prisoner in starving himself, and detention might continue for ever if the prisoner would only take food. The words of the Amendment are not adequate, and, seeing that the words of the Bill leave a certain amount of latitude to the person who is to exercise the power of release, I submit that they are adequate and that it is hardly worth while pressing this Amendment to a Division.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) said there was very little in the Amendment. I think there is a great deal in it, and with what there is in it I heartily disagree. The effect of it, as it occurs to me, has not been stated to the Committee. I ask the Committee how this matter stands. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams) would give the Home Secretary power to release a prisoner whenever continued detention would seriously or permanently affect the prisoner's health. That would encourage the Home Secretary to let loose almost every prisoner in gaol, for there are very few prisoners whose health is not seriously or permanently affected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] No doubt there are hardened

    1121
    offenders in the minds of hon. Members, but there are others, and the majority suffer in health. If these words were inserted it would give the Home Secretary power to release prisoners habitually because they were likely to be injured by continued detention in gaol. That would be a serious matter in itself, and is sufficient to make it necessary to oppose the Amendment. The hon. Baronet said that the Home Secretary's speech had no connection with the Bill. I submit that it had. If his powers under this Bill are to be restricted as desired by these Amendments, he will have to fall back on his undoubted power to give an absolutely unconditional release. I believe he wants to be endowed with statutory power to deal with these particular people, and not to use his power of recommending unconditional release. For these reasons I suggest that it is extremely desirable that no support should be given to the Amendment.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There is one aspect of the question to which reference has not yet been made, which seems to be of moment, especially for the Home Secretary. The Bill as it stands proposes that the prisoners shall be conditionally released if the Home Secretary is satisfied that the condition of the prisoner's health renders that course necessary. The Amendment seeks to define more clearly the conditions under which the Home Secretary would be justified in taking that course. We are told that the reason why he insists upon forcing food upon the women who do not want to take it is that if the woman prisoner under these conditions were to die, he would be held responsible for the death. His argument was that the law imposed upon him the obligation of seeing that these women do not die, and that the Law Courts have held that he is bound to prevent prisoners dying from starvation, therefore forcible feeding is justified. The point I wish to put to him is this: the law at the present time on that point is very indefinite. Suppose this Bill becomes law, and the Home Secretary, owing to an error in judgment, keeps one of these prisoners so long in prison that she actually dies, what is then going to be his position?
    Sir F. BANBURY: He will have done his duty.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Would he not then become liable to be tried for homicide. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that this arises on this Amendment. The question is a verbal one; whether one set of words should be inserted here or another.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am in the position of being opposed to both sets of words. I am putting the point that the Clause, as drafted or as amended, would actually put the Home Secretary in the position where an error of judgment might lead to his being tried for homicide. There is no such danger at the present moment. I ask him, before we decide upon the words in the Clause as it stands or upon the Amendment, whether he has considered that point, and whether he is prepared to take the risk?
    The CHAIRMAN: I could not allow the Home Secretary to answer that question, because it would not be in order for him to do so.
    Mr. BOOTH: If the Amendment goes to a Division, I think I must vote for it, but not because of anything that has happened during the discussion. I could not follow the speech of the hon. Member for the Heywood Division (Mr. H. T. Cawley), who judged the Amendment as applied solely to offending people. I understand the Home Secretary did the same. It is monstrously unjust to think this only applies to people who have to be forcibly fed. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment said he had chiefly in mind that this would be a permanent Act, and would apply to all classes of the community, and to a totally different class of offenders to those we call suffragette offenders. I do not regard this Bill as of the slightest value as it is applied to suffragettes, but as it does apply to the general community these Amendments become important, particularly this one. I ask the Committee to forget the largely irrelevant matter of forcible feeding, which is not mentioned in the Bill, and to examine it as they would like it to apply to people guilty of other offences for the next generation or two generations. It seems to me a wrong thing, owing to temporary pressure—which to my mind is the result of weak administration—to put into our permanent criminal law Amendments of this kind. The only arguments brought forward have arisen upon this one issue. I submit that is misleading the Committee. I want to guard the ordinary average prisoner against unfair usage under this Bill, and I appeal to the House not to be

    1123
    misled by the Front Bench or by even some of my own fellow Liberals around me who will persist in arguing every Amendment solely as if it would apply to offending women. To me the larger question is much more important. I have an Amendment down which raises it in a clear manner when we come to the word "conduct," where I have given notice to substitute the word "misconduct," so as to see whether these arguments are really genuine or not.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I wish to give the reasons why I shall support the Amendment. It appears to me that some of the speeches we have heard have rather darkened counsel, and I think it is a very short point which is before us. A good deal of confusion appears to have been introduced by the Home Secretary himself when at an earlier stage he quite irrelevantly, as I thought, brought in the question of the exercise of the Royal prerogative upon the advice of the Home Secretary. That has, as far as I can see, nothing whatever to do with the matter. The short point before us seems to me to be this: The Home Office is asking for powers from Parliament for introducing a new method of prison regulation. That demand has been brought about on
    account of the position taken up by the suffragettes, though it is quite true that the Bill is not by any means confined to these particular offenders. The whole question appears to me to be this: If these powers are to be granted to the Home Secretary of releasing prisoners from time to time, and temporarily bringing them back to complete their sentence, is that power to be given only in cases of serious illness, illness amounting to danger to life or permanent injury to health, or is it to be exercisable entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary, so that it will be open to him to let a prisoner out if he or she has a cold in the head? If these powers are to be granted they ought to be limited, as this Amendment would limit them, to really serious cases where the further detention of the prisoner would result, owing to the prisoner's own action, in one of two things, either actually in the death of the prisoner or in serious and permanent injury to her health; and it is because I think the exercise of the powers ought to be so restricted that I shall support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 36.]

    AYES.

    [9.58 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Adamson, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hackett, John

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hancock, J. G.

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

    Crooks, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Armitage, Robert

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Doris, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Falconer, James

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hodge, John

    Brace, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hogge, James Myles

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Field, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Furness, Stephen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Glanville, H. J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Clough, William

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Grady, James

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Malley, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    King, J.

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Tennant, Harold John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    McGhee, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, South)

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wadsworth, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Reddy, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Waring, Walter

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Webb, H.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Molloy, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Muldoon, John

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Munro, R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Shortt, Edward

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Simon, Rt. Mon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheree)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Fell, Arthur

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barrie, H. T.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boyton, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Butcher, John George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Cassel, Felix

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Cave, George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Newman, John R. P.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hume-Williams and Mr. Grant.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "conduct" ["prisoner's own conduct in prison"], and to insert instead thereof the words "wilful misconduct."
    I do not need to say very much in support of this Amendment, for fortunately my speech was made for me by the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary, and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    1126
    They proved my case, and therefore they will see that my Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment carrying out the purpose of those who introduced the measure. It is made necessary because the Clause as it stands does not apply to suffragists or to people who are forcibly fed at all. It refers to anyone suffering in health because of his own conduct. An elderly man might fall down accidentally, or hurt himself in some other way, but that would bring him within the scope of

    1127
    the Bill, for his ill-health would be due to his own conduct. It may easily be that in future a prisoner, for the purpose of drawing attention to his treatment—some ill-treatment or insufficiency of attention being paid to him, quite apart from any suffragist policy—might decide to take some step in order that the notice of the governor or someone might be called to the matter. These things have happened before. I hope they will never happen again. The words in the Sub-section at present, "the prisoner's own conduct," might refer to cases of accident, such as slipping on the floor and becoming unconscious, or the breaking of an arm, in order that an official should visit his cell and hear his complaint. When we remember that some of the gentlemen learned in the law have stated that we are legislating for all time, one can easily see that we should not allow the legislation for the temporary difficulty with which we are dealing to cover such cases. My Amendment can only be considered as a drafting Amendment by those who supported the Second Reading of the Bill. The speeches that were made on that occasion do not fit in with the Clause as it stands at all, but they would fit in with the Amendment I am now proposing. The hon. Member for Gravesend, in arguing the question, spoke as if we were dealing with people who were committing a fresh crime. I submit that they cannot commit a fresh crime in prison without being guilty of wilful misconduct. The Under-Secretary, answering an interruption of mine on this point, did not, I think, do me justice. The hon. Gentleman said:—
    "It is quite true that the sentence has not been extended by a moment as far as the period in prison is concerned, and although it, is quite tine that it is a hardship upon the prisoner that the sentence is divided into eight portions, still that is not a sentence inflicted by the judge upon the prisoner, but a sentence inflicted by the prisoner on herself or himself."
    I submit, therefore, that he had in contemplation wilful misconduct in prison. My interruption, "That is not in the Bill," was put down to "An hon. Member." I do not complain of that. The Under-Secretary went on to say:—
    "I think that the hon. Member is so busy with other matters contemplating legislation of the future that he cannot devote the attention that is desirable to the legislation of the present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1913, col. 454.]
    It was because I have studied the Bill that I meant to point out he was assuming that totally different words were in the Bill. He was assuming that Sub-section (1) ap-
    1128
    plied to a prisoner's wilful misconduct, and on that assumption he was correct in what he said. The Home Secretary, on the Second Reading of the measure, said:—.
    "The power to grant a licence asked for in this Bill is not to reward misconduct, but to enable me to deal with bad conduct. Consequently it would not he proper in the case of such a licence, when the prisoner was let out of prison through misconduct, that the remaining period of the sentence should run out unless he committed some new offence. I propose that a person licensed out of prison on account of misconduct shall remain liable to serve the rest of his sentence."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd April, 1913, col. 498.]
    Clearly the Home Secretary had in view that this Bill only applies to persons guilty of minsconduct, and I submit that, if that be so, he ought to accept my Amendment as an improvement. He also spoke in these terms:—
    "I ask the House to give me power to meet a case such as that—to enable me to say to the prisoner, 'If through misconduct we cannot retain you any longer in prison, you shall be licensed out.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April. 1913, col. 409.]
    Therefore, I submit that if the speeches were genuinely meant, and we must conclude that they were, and if the speeches which have been made to-day were meant to inform the House of the nature of the Bill, there should be no difficulty in accepting my Amendment which says that the ill-health must be owing to the prisoner's own wilful misconduct.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend with some certainty, having had the advantage of the highest legal advice on the point, that the words of the Bill as they stand will not lead to any such consequences as those which he mentions. There is a legal maxim, I am informed, to the following effect: Proxima, non remota, causes spectetur—that the immediate and not the remote cause is to be regarded—and in the case of accidents such as my hon. Friend has referred to, the legal maxim would apply, because there the prisoner's conduct would not be the immediate but the remote cause, and consequently would not be regarded. As my hon. Friend has said, this is nothing more than a verbal Amendment, but it is a verbal Amendment which would not clarify or render the Bill better than it is now, but would add materially to the difficulty of administering it. It is always undesirable, where avoidable, to add epithets. If you put in the words "wilful misconduct" you have got to prove "wilful misconduct," and it is very undesirable to say that any particular kind of conduct is wilful misconduct. When dealing with the particular case of a person who is starving, be it man or woman, we recognise that it

    1129
    is conduct of some kind or another, but it is not at all necessary to show that the act of starvation itself is wilful misconduct. There are circumstances in which persons might claim that a refusal to take food was not wilful misconduct at all, and persons might claim that it was an act of heroism. Why should we in the enforcement of this Bill place ourselves under the necessity of having to prove wilful misconduct when all that we desire, or that the House, in accepting the Second Reading, thought it necessary that we should do was to regard the particular kind of conduct? On this matter I have obtained the best possible legal advice and…
    Captain CRAIG: Whose?
    Mr. McKENNA: The advice of the Attorney-General, and if the hon. and gallant Member desires I can send for the right hon. Gentleman to explain the matter. But as this Amendment is nothing more than a verbal Amendment, I trust that my hon. Friend will not press it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the effect of his Amendment would be that the prisoner would not be able to be released from prison unless guilty of wilful misconduct? I rather think that we ought to have the opinion of the Law Officer of the Crown. The Secretary of State said that he would send for the Attorney-General if the hon. Member opposite desired to have the benefit of his advice on this important Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will reply at greater length to the arguments advanced by the Home Secretary, and we might have the advice of one of the Law Officers of the Crown in order to go more fully into the question.
    Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has just been giving us a lesson in how unnecessary it is to put in mere verbiage, or words qualifying the effect of this Sub-section. I wish to ask why the word "own" should be put in—"wholly or in part the prisoner's 'own' conduct." After what the right hon. Gentleman has been telling us it seems rather a remarkable word to use. Is it suggested that someone outside the prison may be mistaken for the prisoner dealt with by the Sub-section? If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member because it seems to add to the difficulty of construing the word "conduct" or "misconduct" of the prisoner, then
    1130
    his objection is equally applicable to the use of the word "own"—where the prisoner's "own" conduct in prison was spell that he found it necessary to release him. It is unnecessary to use the words "prisoner's own conduct," because the use of the word "own" seems to cast some doubt on the matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why it is necessary to use the word "own." As the Government have shown how very ready they are to get out of a difficulty by any possible means, I would suggest to them that they ought to accept half the hon. Member's Amendment, and when it comes to a vote…
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is already before the Committee, and we cannot go back on that.
    Captain CRAIG: If you had not taken me up quite so quickly, Sir, I think you would have recognised that I am perfectly in order. If the Government vote "That the words stand part," and then vote to leave out the word "own," then when it comes to inserting the words proposed by the hon. Member, they could vote against them, and that I think would be the sensible way to deal with the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As I understood the Amendment put from the Chair, it was that the words "own conduct" be left out.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment I have put from the Chair is to leave out the words "own conduct," and to insert the words "wilful misconduct."
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is what I thought. It will be in order for me to move an Amendment to the Amendment, that is to say, to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the word "own."
    Mr. BOOTH: "Wilful."
    Sir F. BANBURY: By leaving out "wilful mis."
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Baronet is a little mixed. He cannot propose to leave out the words until the words to be inserted become the substantive Question. They are not that yet; perhaps they may be so in a moment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think I will simply ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think the Home Secretary was not justified in saying that I advocated a verbal

    1131
    Amendment. I never used any such phrase. I always remember what I have said. What I said was that if the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading was correct then my Amendment was simply a drafting Amendment, but as the Home Secretary did not mean what he said on Second Reading, then, of course, my Amendment assumed rather larger proportions. In spite of that I will ask leave to withdraw. As to the verbiage I can only offer in explanation the company I have been keeping upstairs.
    The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw?
    Mr. BOOTH: I ask leave to withdraw, but I have the right to speak whether I ask leave to withdraw or not.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "own" ["prisoner's own conduct."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I have rather serious doubts whether I ought to accept this, but if it is merely for the purpose of putting a question…
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to add anything as my hon. and gallant Friend has advanced the arguments.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Ellis Griffith): This is a very serious Amendment. The word "own" is a word of emphasis here. For instance, if I saw the hon. Baronet carrying an umbrella I might say, "He has his umbrella," while if I had doubts I would say, "Is it his own umbrella." I see the hon. Baronet shakes his head—it would not be.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not do it.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This makes no difference.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Why not accept the Amendment then?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The burden of proof is on the one who desires change. That is the Conservative attitude, and it is our attitude on this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and gallant Friend has advanced the reason.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I heard the speech, but I did not hear the reason. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman and
    1132
    the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We will after that.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There is no misapprehension as to the meaning of the words. If I may say so, perhaps we might leave this and pass to the more important Amendments.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The Under-Secretary has really made a very powerful argument in favour of the Amendment. It is quite right to say, "His own umbrella," because there might be doubts about an umbrella; but it is silly to say, "His own conduct," as the conduct could only be that of the person concerned.
    Mr. H. SMITH: The Under-Secretary said that the omission of the word "own" makes no difference, and added that the burden of proof was on those who desired to remove the word. The Under-Secretary is a lawyer, and I submit to him it is rudimentary knowledge to any lawyer that no word ought to be kept in an Act of Parliament unless it has a specific meaning. Surely it is invariably for those who put words in a Bill to justify the inclusion of the words. It is impossible to throw the burden of proof upon those who criticise them, when the words cannot be defended by those who are responsible for the Bill. I submit that the Under-Secretary has fully justified the Amendment, which I hope will be supported, because, by the admission of the hon. Gentleman himself, the word proposed to be left out has no importance.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It must be agreed that this word is superfluous; it merely makes the Bill longer than it need be. I object to Acts of Parliament containing unnecessary words. People who have to construe Statutes want them to be made as clear as possible. Therefore I think that this word should be omitted. The Under-Secretary has indirectly accused the hon. Baronet of "pinching" somebody's umbrella…
    The CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is a serious one, I think it should be treated as such.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Amendment is a serious one, as is every Amendment moved in the House of Commons, and if the hon. Baronet goes to a Division I shall support him.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There appear to be two words under criticism—"own"

    1133
    and "conduct." The word "own" is totally unnecessary, because it cannot be somebody else's conduct; and "conduct" really means "misconduct." Therefore both are wrong.
    Question put, "That the word 'own' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [10.33 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Adamson, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Gulland, John William

    O'Grady, James

    Armitage, Robert

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hackett, John

    O'Malley, William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hancock, John George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Shee, James John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Barnes, George N.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hayward, Evan

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Higham, John Sharp

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hodge, John

    Reddy, Michael

    Brace, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hudson, Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Chapple, Dr William Alien

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rowlands, James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clough, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Clynes, John R.

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

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Sheehy, David

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Shortt, Edward

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Crooks, William

    King, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sutherland, John E.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Delany, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    McGhee, Richard

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Doris, William

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

    Thomas, James Henry

    Duffy, William J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Wadsworth, John

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Meagher, Michael

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Falconer, James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Middlebrook, William

    Waring, Walter

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Malloy, Michael

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molteno, Percy Alpert

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Field, William

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Furness Stephen

    Munro, Robert

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    George, Rt. Hon D. Lloyd

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Wing, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Guest and Mr. Webb.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Grant, James Augustus

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bird, Alfred

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyton, James

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Snowden, Philip

    Butcher, John George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campion, W. R.

    Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newman, John R. P.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Captain Craig.

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "prisoner" ["the temporary discharge of such prisoner for such period"], to insert the words "on licence."
    The object of the Amendment is that the prisoner shall be released upon licence, and that the licence should state the terms on which the release is granted, and accordingly in a later Amendment I propose to apply a Schedule with the terms specified in it. If the Home Secretary states that he intends to set forth the conditions, and that it should not merely be dependent upon his discretion, that would meet the object I have in bringing forward this Amendment. I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I will for the moment content myself by asking the Home Secretary what he intends to do.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member did raise this question on Second Reading in a very forcible speech, and I observed he was supported at the time in the views he expressed on both sides of the House, and therefore, in anticipation of an Amendment being placed upon the Paper, I have prepared a form of licence which it is proposed to use when this Bill becomes law. In order that the Committee may be fully apprised what the condi-
    1136
    tions are that we have in view as the conditions upon which a prisoner should be temporarily discharged, I will read them to the House; they are extremely short:—
    (1) The prisoner shall return to the above-mentioned prison on the …day of … 19 …;
    That is to say, the days are prescribed.
    (2) The period of temporary discharge granted by this Order may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be extended on a representation by the prisoner that the state of her health renders her unfit to return to prison. If such representation be made, the prisoner shall submit herself, if so required, for medical examination by the Medical Officer of the above-mentioned prison, or other registered medical practitioner appointed by the Secretary of State.
    I have drawn this up in the particular form of licence I am likely to have to issue immediately. The second condition is one enabling an extension to be made at the request of the prisoner, and it does not give the Home Secretary power to extend the period. I think that meets the argument that the Home Secretary would have power to keep the period of imprisonment always open…
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Why Is it limited to women?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not limited to women, but I am reading the licence in the precise form I propose to issue it.
    (3) The prisoner shall notify to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the place of residence to which she goes on her discharge. She shall not change her residence without giving one clear day's previous notice

    1137
    in writing to the Commissioner, specifying the residence to which she is going, and she shall not be temporarily absent from her residence for more than twelve hours without giving a like notice.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What happens if she does not do so?
    Mr. McKENNA: That condition is simply to enable the police to have notice of where she is living.
    (4) She shall abstain from any violation of the law.
    That may not be obeyed. Those are the conditions, and the only conditions which we propose to insert in the licence, and I think the Committee will agree that limiting the licence to those terms gets rid of a great deal of the opposition raised on the Second Reading. Now I turn to the conditions actually included in the Schedule of the hon. and learned Member.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it refers to a later Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: It is true that it is in a sense a later Amendment, but these Amendments really all hang together, and all depend upon the principle which I tried to lay down—that they should be allowed to leave the prison on licence.
    The CHAIRMAN: On the understanding that the other Amendment is to be treated as consequential to this one, the discussion may proceed.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has introduced the licence, and, consequently, I understood him to mean that he wished to raise the conditions of the licence. The Committee will observe that these conditions are not punitive. They are issued under the conditions of temporary release, and do not add to the punishment of the offender. The offender remains liable to undergo imprisonment for the whole term, but when the prisoner is out of prison I do not add any new punishment. The whole of these conditions are strictly limited to all that is necessary to enforce the order of release, and secure that the prisoner will be brought back or that the Commissioner will be informed where the prisoner is in order that she may be brought back at the expiration of the terms of release. Now the Noble Lord says, "Supposing the prisoner does not conform to the conditions?" Very well, then the licence is ipso facto cancelled. The prisoner is liable to be brought back to prison at once before the expiration of the period of temporary discharge; the prisoner has to go straight back to prison.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: We are where we started.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, not quite.
    Mr. H. SMITH: Will you forcibly feed her?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope not.
    Mr. H. SMITH: Will you, if necessary?
    Mr. McKENNA: If it were necessary to feed a prisoner forcibly, of course I should do so. I am not deprived under this Bill of the power of forcibly feeding her, but I should only exercise that power where it was necessary to do so. I should in the first instance rely upon the power to discharge temporarily, and I am bound to say, after some examination of the facts that I think the power would be effective.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Supposing the prisoner were still in a state of collapse?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the prisoner were still in a state of collapse, she could not escape, and, if she were in a healthy condition and able to escape, the police would know where she was taken in the first instance, and the particular house which she might not leave as a place of residence except after notice.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Police picketting the house!
    Mr. McKENNA: It is quite possible. I want to enforce the law, and I am not alarmed by any statement that the police will be picketting the house. I shall do my utmost to enforce the law. I want, if I can, to enforce it without forcible feeding, and without undergoing the risk of somebody else's life, a risk which certain hon. Gentlemen are so anxious that I should vicariously take, but I shall by picketting the house if necessary be able to watch a prisoner and secure that she is brought to prison, and, should it ultimately be necessary, I may have to forcibly feed her. I shall endeavour to use the powers under this Bill to avoid forcible feeding. Those are the conditions, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will think that they are adequate without being unduly drastic.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to put those conditions in the Statute? Are they to be statutory conditions? That was my view.
    Mr. McKENNA: I recognise that, but I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press me to put them in the Statute. After all, the whole enforcement of this Act will depend upon the discretion of the Home Secretary; the Home Secretary will throughout be responsible to Parliament for the enforcement of this Act. Having stated what the conditions are, I think it would be undesirable to put them in the Act of Parliament, because that would not give the Home Secretary any reasonable latitude in particular cases, but they remain on record. They will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the Home Secretary will have to answer to Parliament and explain the reason if in any case he departs from those conditions. I think that it would be undesirable to bind him down to hard-and-fast conditions. In the parallel case of penal servitude, while there are certain statutory conditions inserted in the Act, there is also a general power given to the Home Secretary to put in any conditions he pleases, with this limitation, that he is to lay them on the Table of the House. But there is no restriction of his power.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: In particular cases he can do away with statutory conditions, but he cannot introduce others.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes he may, but he must lay them on the Table. His own power of release is unlimited as regards conditions. He can put in any condition he pleases, and the hon. and learned Gentleman may possibly see shortly some novel conditions in the case of particular prisoners laid on the Table. I would ask the House not to restrict powers by putting the conditions into the Act, but to accept the statement I have made that they will appear in print. I will, if necessary, circulate them as a Parliamentary Paper, and any variation from them would be the immediate occasion for calling upon the Home Secretary to justify the change. It is undesirable to restrict him to hard and fast conditions.
    11.0 P.M.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wondered very much why the Government determined to keep this Bill in the House instead of sending it to a Committee upstairs, but after the speech of the Home Secretary I am no longer in doubt, because if such a speech had been delivered in a Grand Committee the Government would have been instantly beaten. What is the issue between my hon. and learned
    1140
    Friend and the Home Secretary. It is whether the conditions shall be left entirely to the judgment of the Home Secretary without any control by Parliament whatever, or whether they shall be inserted in the Act of Parliament, I cannot think as stated in that way there can be the least doubt that conditions of this kind affecting the liberty of the subject ought to be in the Act of Parliament. The Home Secretary says they will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. So they will be. But the Home Secretary may leave office to-morrow—it is well to look facts in the face—and his successor would not be bound by anything he said this evening. There would not be the slightest control by this House, or the slightest reason for this House to suppose that the conditions the Home Secretary has laid down would be enforced. I ask the House for once to exercise its own judgment. It is perfectly clear that if we are to give these very novel and, I think, very serious powers to the Government of the day to release prisoners conditionally and allow them to be rearrested when the Home Secretary likes, we ought to know the conditions upon which they are to be released, and they ought to form part of the Act of Parliament. That seems obviously to be the right course, and I feel confident that if the House uses its own judgment it will agree that the conditions should be inserted in the Act of Parliament. The Home Secretary says that that would fetter unduly his discretion. That is what I desire to do. I do not think that the Home Secretary should have unfettered discretion to impose any conditions he or his successor may choose in a very serious matter such as this. The House of Commons has a right to be informed authoritatively what these conditions shall be and they should not be changed without the assent of the House. It is quite true that in the Penal Servitude Act the only control put upon the Home Secretary is that he must present to Parliament any changes that he makes. That may be so, but the licence under that Act is a pure remission and a pure gift to the prisoner. It is not imposing really any new form of punishment.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday). Report Progress.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Army (Annual) Act, 1913.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    I do not think that the Committee desires at this hour to enter upon a discussion of this Bill, which is likely to take a very long time. The Secretary for War may be prepared to give us some better occasion than this.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): If it is not the general wish of hon. Members that we should proceed with this Bill to-night, I do not wish to press the matter. As the Committee knows, it is necessary to pass this Bill before a certain date, which is not far distant. If it is understood that we can pass the Bill with a reasonable time for discussion, and perhaps, in order to make quite sure if we undertake to put it down as first Order, and an indication were given that we should dispose of it within reasonable time, I should myself be prepared on behalf of the Government to agree to that. I venture to make this request because it is so important at the present time that we should get this Bill through the Committee stage. I may say that there is nothing novel in the Bill this year, although there are one or two important matters, notably the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Craig), to which I wish to give a reply. If we can arrange the matter on that basis I shall be glad to make representations to the Prime Minister and get it put down as first Order, on the understanding that it would be allowed to pass in the necessary interests of the Army.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think we can make any definite arrangement as to the exact time to be taken, but there will be no desire on this side of the Committee to discuss the Bill unduly. I understand that the Secretary for War will put it down as first Order on some date within the period in which it is necessary that it should be passed. When I say that the
    1142
    discussion will not be unduly prolonged on this side of the Committee, I must not be understood to limit it to an hour or two, or as saying that there will be no lengthy discussion.
    Colonel SEELY: I say at once on behalf of the Government that I accept the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that I should undertake to make arrangements with the Prime Minister, who is the proper authority, to put the Bill down as first Order, on the understanding that, although hon. Gentlemen opposite are not bound to an hour or two, there will be no lengthy discussion.
    Mr. KING: I rise to offer my protest against this arrangement. When the two Front Benches suddenly get up and embrace one another across the table I feel sure some immoral proceeding is taking place. I want the Committee to realise that most hon. Members present have, like myself, come down prepared to defend our country, even if it means sitting up to a very early hour of the night or the morning in order to have an Army able to defend us. Under the circumstances under which we live at present I consider that delay is dangerous, and therefore I cannot allow this proposal to report Progress without a strong and emphatic protest, and I feel I have, if not the concurrence of the two Front Benches, at any rate the support of all other respectable parts of the House; and, in view of the very earnest appeal from a devoted follower of the Government, I hope they will compel the withdrawal of the Motion, and, if not, I shall have to divide against it.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I am of the opinion that this is going to prevent a most useful discussion on Army matters. We usually look to this occasion for an opportunity of free discussion, and it appears to me that by this arrangement a few Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, and some Army men on the other side of the House, will get the larger part of the opportunity of addressing the House upon Army subjects, and criticisms from this side will be utterly ruled out, because it will be suggested that it is we who are really causing delay. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) and his Friends are quite anxious to adopt this proceeding, because by that means they avoid what might be harsh and unfriendly criticism from people belonging to their

    1143
    own party, and I consider it is a most unfortunate suggestion that we should in any way curtail discussion. We might have had one all-night sitting on the subject when hon. Members could have had a chance of speaking, and not limit it to a few special Gentlemen whose names will be handed into the Chairman before the proceedings begin. That is how I find myself in most of these discussions, and expect to find myself again if the suggested arrangement is carried out. I enter my protest against an arrangement of this description come to by the official element on both sides of the House. The Opposition are worse than you. I can understand you wishing to avoid discussion.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is usual for hon. Members to address the Chair.
    Mr. J. WARD: I cannot understand why hon. Members on the opposite side of the House should wish to avoid discussion, but I can understand the Minister of War wishing to get this carried through with just a few hon. Members taking part in the Debate. So far as I am concerned, I am not going to divide on the subject, but at the same time I wish to enter my protest against, the arrangement which has been made.
    Colonel SEELY: In order that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of my two hon. Friends, I wish to say that I was myself greatly disappointed that this arrangement had been come to, and that the officials of the War Office should be unable to proceed with the Bill. We understood that the whole business would be through very shortly owing to the Bill being of a non-contentious character. Only one point was raised on the Second Reading. I understood it would be dealt with in half an hour. Greatly to my disappointment I found it was proposed that there should be considerable discussion on
    1144
    the Bill. Indeed, I understood that it was the general wish of hon. Gentlemen on our side that they should not have to sit up until a late hour, although they were willing to do it, if necessary, in the interests of the State. I have stated what happened in this matter in order to dispel the illusion that this arrangement between the Government and the Opposition—a very proper one—was going to prevent discussion from taking place.
    Captain CRAIG: With regard to what the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) has said, I think he ought to be the last person in the House to be prevented from taking part in a debate. When he gets the chance he fights fairly in regard to any grievance he may feel in relation to any Bill before the House. I think the arrangement come to between both Front Benches is a most sensible one. The practice hitherto has been to take the Army (Annual) Bill in the small hours of the morning, when no proper reports of the Debates can be got by the country. On this occasion I think it is necessary to have the Debate taken in the day-time, when one or two matters of importance are sure to crop up. We are satisfied with the arrangements come to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).

  MARCONI SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Gordon Harvey be discharged from the Select Committee on Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, Agreement.
  Ordered, That Sir Walter Essex be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.