Commons Sitting of 9 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Bill,
Titchfield District Gas Bill,
To be considered To-morrow.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Third Report of the Royal Commissioners, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence, 10th October, 1912 to 13th December, 1912, with Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GLAMORGAN COUNTY POLICE STATIONS.
Copy presented of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Standing Joint Committee for Glamorganshire on the subject of the County Police Stations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Day Schools 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Fifth Annual Report of the Governing Body of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, South Kensington, for the year ending 31st August, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TELEPHONE TRUNK SYSTEM.
Return ordered, "showing for the Telephone Trunk System for each of the past ten years (1) the total number of calls; (2) the total number of trunk lines; (3) the total mileage; (4) the average duration per call; (5) the average number of calls per trunk per day; (6) the average number of calls per trunk per busy hour; (7) the total number of trunk operators, including all supervisors, record operators, and clerks in charge; (8) the average number of calls per operator per day; (9) the average cost for operating per call; and, in cases where definite figures in respect of the above are not available for estimates, based on the best information at the disposal of the Post Office Department"—[Mr. Goldman.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Silloth Gas, Petition for leave to deposit Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

3. That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramways Nos. 2, 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 6, 8, 8a, and 8b are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

1147

4. "That in the case of the Galway (Barna) Railways and Harbour, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with

First three Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum, for Grant-in-Aid [presented 13th March]; referred to the Committee of Supply.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARMED BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed in case of war indiscriminately to arm British merchant ships in order to repel the attack of armed foreign merchant cruisers, or whether it is proposed only to arm certain selected British merchant ships; if so, on what principle such ships will be selected; and whether only ships over a certain tonnage will be selected for the purpose?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is proposed, with the concurrence of their owners, to arm in peace time certain merchant steamers for the purposes of defence only. There is no tonnage limit, but the object is to provide defence for ships most likely to require it, and capable of carrying the armament.

    SHORT-SERVICE MEN.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the number of short-service men that are to be enlisted out of the 8,500 proposed as additional in this year's Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I explained in debate, the numbers by which it is proposed to increase the Navy are approximately 7,000. In order to make good waste and arrive at this increase more than twice the number of boys and men of all ratings will be recruited. Of the total numbers recruited, about 1,850 will be Special Service stokers and about 500
    1148
    Special Service seamen. The service of Special Service stokers and seamen is five years afloat and seven in the Reserve.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his statement made in his Memorandum regarding the 8,500 men to be added this year to the Fleet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I cannot withdraw any statement. They are all strictly accurate.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many out of the 8,500 are officers and how many seamen?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes Sir, on notice being given.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked how many short-service men are borne in each ship of the First Fleet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No useful purpose would be served by giving this information in detail, but I may say that by the Returns of last February the actual number of Special Service seamen borne throughout the Navy is 3.8 per cent. of the number of seamen borne, excluding boys, or 3 per cent. of the number of seamen and boys. The number of Special Service stokers is 14.8 per cent. of the total number of stokers borne.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman increasing or decreasing the number of Special Service men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice. I could not answer without reference.

    FIRST FLEET (SEAMEN AND BOYS).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked how many ordinary seamen and boys are borne in each ship of the First Fleet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of boys allowed is one-fifth of the seaman complement. In addition to their full seagoing complement composed as above, twelve ships in the First Fleet have drafts of from twenty-five to forty boys as supernumeraries for training. The actual complements are confidential.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complements have been published?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are not correct.

    H.M.S." COCHRANE."
    Major HOPEasked if the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been drawn to the case of Frederick Marshall, carpenter's mate, His Majesty's ship "Cochrane," about to be discharged from Haslar Hospital suffering from consumption; whether he is aware that, after sixteen years' service and suffering from illness contracted in the Service, this man is to be discharged without pension and with only a bonus of £6; and whether he will take steps either to enable this man to complete his cure and return to the Service or to enter civilian life with a more reasonable prospect of finding work and being able to support his wife and family?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): Frederick Marshall is at present in Haslar Hospital under treatment for tuberculous disease. He will be surveyed on the 10th instant and, if found unfit for further service, will be invalided. On that assumption, he will be granted a pension of about ten shillings a week and a good conduct gratuity of £3. As regards the latter portion of the question, an offer was made to treat the man in hospital and to assist him in securing sanatorium benefit on discharge, but it was declined.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what amount was spent by Germany in 1912 on airships and aeroplanes for naval purposes and for buildings and equipment in connection therewith; what amount is provided in the German Naval Estimates of 1913 for the same purposes; what were the amounts provided and actually spent under these heads by Great Britain in 1912–13; and what expenditure is proposed in 1913–14?
    Mr. CHURCHILLThe amount provided in the German Navy Estimates for the financial year 1912–13 for airships and aeroplanes for naval purposes and for buildings and equipment in connection therewith was £114,970. Information as to the actual expenditure is not available. The corresponding amount provided for 1913–14 is £183,464, but it is stated in the Press that a Supplementary Estimate is to be proposed amounting to £146,771, which would bring the total for 1913–14 to £330,235. As regards Great Britain, the amount provided in the Navy Estimates for 1912–13 was £141,150, the amount expended in that year being approximately
    1150
    £183,800. The amount provided for 1913–14 is £321,620. I am not prepared to say that the actual figure is necessarily the final figure for British expenditure.
    Mr. F. HALL: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman states that the actual figures may not be taken as the final figures, and is the House to understand that if necessary he will come down for additional Estimates for the aerial service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman may rely on our taking all steps that are necessary.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if there are at the present time in the possession of the German Government any dirigible airships of the rigid type capable of a speed of 40 miles an hour or over, of flying 500 miles or more without requiring to descend, and equipped with guns and bomb-dropping apparatus; if so, what is the number of such ships constructed or in course of construction; and how many airships of equal value are in the possession of, or have been laid down for, the British Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are no rigid airships of this value in the possession of the British Navy at the present time. Two airships almost capable of the above performances will be in the possession of the Admiralty in the course of the next month or so. There are no rigid airships built or building as yet for the British Navy.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not speak with absolute certainty respecting the performances of vessels which I have never seen, and no person connected with the Admiralty has ever seen, and the details of which are kept most carefully secret by the foreign Governments concerned.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what number of dirigible airships of the rigid type for naval purposes is proposed to be constructed in 1913–14, and the dimensions, speed, and carrying capacity of the same?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of the construction of rigid airships for naval purposes is now under consideration. It is not considered advisable at present to give any information as to their probable numbers or dimensions.

    TRAINING SEAMEN.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what is the length of time taken in training a seaman for the Navy; how many of the boys now being trained will become qualified as regards age limit and in other respects to join the Navy in the present and the two succeeding years; how many new ships will be commissioned in the three years 1913–14, 1914–15, and 1915–16; and the total number of seamen required for the full manning of such vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as the training of seamen is concerned, I must refer the hon. Member to what I said when introducing the Navy Estimates last month. The output of men and ships, and the corresponding deductions due to wastage of men and ships, are, so far as can be foreseen, carefully balanced for several years in advance, and the partial statistics asked for would be of no value, as they would take no account of wastage on either side.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in introducing the Navy Estimates he gave three years as the time in which seamen will become efficient, and is it not the fact that the term in the opinion of the authorities of the Admiralty is four years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That does not arise out of the question.

    BRITISH SHIPYARDS (FOREIGN CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. F. HALLasked how many battleships, battle cruisers, and light cruisers are at the present time being constructed for foreign Powers in private shipyards in Great Britain?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information asked for is as follows: Battleships, four; battle cruiser, one; light cruisers, nil.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet or will consider the question that I raised on the Estimates as to the advisability, in consequence of the congestion in construction, of obtaining possession of the Thames Ironworks for the purpose of building ships?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is very remotely connected with this question.

    SCOTT DIRECTOR FIRING APPARATUS.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked whether the Admiralty have yet discovered who gave confidential information concerning the Scott Director firing apparatus to the "Sphere" newspaper; and, if not, what steps are they taking in this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and as at present advised I do not think any action necessary.

    PUBLICATION OF SIGNALS.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the publication of signals from the signal logs of His Majesty's ships is contrary to the King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take with regard to the recent article in the "British Review" written by Admiral Sir Percy Scott, Baronet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The incident referred to does not appear to me to call for Admiralty action.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the same leniency be shown in future to others under similar circumstances?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty will certainly approach the consideration of all questions of this character with a view to the impartial exercise of disciplinary authority which they possess, and the maintenance of the general interests of the Naval Service.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers have any contract with the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the wages paid to labourers by these firms in the cement trade on the Thames and Medway are from 1½d. to 2½d. less than the wages current in the district; that they pay no recognised rate for overtime or Sunday work, and employ a good deal of cheap boy labour in the machine shops; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter in order to secure strict observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Both the firms mentioned hold contracts for the supply of

    1153
    Portland cement to the Admiralty. Inquiries will at once be made into the matter to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I get the result of the inquiry later on?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Certainly.

    ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are asking men of the Royal Fleet Reserve to re-enter the Navy; and, if so, will he inform the House how many men have accepted the offer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As a temporary measure, men belonging to Class B of the Royal Fleet Reserve who have served as Special Service seamen and stokers have been allowed to re-enter for a further term of three years' service in the Fleet. Eight seamen and forty stokers have re-entered under these conditions.

    HIGHER RATING.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that men are waiting to pass for higher rating who cannot be sent to the depôts owing to there being no reliefs; whether he is aware that this presses hardly on petty officers and men, as it amounts to their being unable to obtain an increase of pay although they are fully qualified for higher rating; and will he say what action he proposes to take to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of the circumstances. If it can be stated what particular ratings are referred to inquiry will be made.

    EASTNEY SEA SERVICE BATTERY.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the staff for sea service battery at Eastney, mentioned on page 11 of his statement to the House and in the Portsmouth General Order, No. 509, of 19th March, 1913, is to consist of one E.R.A. at 24s. per week, one S.P.O. or leading stoker and two stokers at 22s. per week each; whether these rates of wages are correct; if so, will he state the reason for the reduction to 24s. for the fully qualified mechanic, who is to be in responsible charge of the whole of the plant, seeing that the current rate
    1154
    in the district for ordinary mechanical work is 38s. 6d. per week; and whether he can state how many qualified men have refused to accept the employment at these rates?
    Mr. LAMBERT, the answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I am making inquiries as to the precise nature of the work for which the man is required, and how it compares with ordinary mechanical work. I have no information as to how many qualified men have refused the appointment.

    VICE-ADMIRAL SIR PERCY SCOTT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the First Lord of the Admiralty has any official information showing that Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott will, after retirement, join a firm engaged in naval construction and armament work; and, if so, whether he will state the name of the firm and the nature of the position to he filled by Sir Percy Scott?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir Percy Scott is now on the retired list, and it is not incumbent upon him either to furnish the Admiralty with information or to obtain from them approval in regard to any steps of the character indicated in the question.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Prime Minister stated that when these officers were retired they, as a rule, intimated to the Minister in charge beforehand what they intended to do, and obtained consent before accepting any position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has not been drawn to that particular statement of the Prime Minister, but I will verify the reference. It does not, however, appear to affect in any way the answer I have given.
    Mr. BARNES: Is not Sir Percy Scott pensioned and retired, and if he accepts a pension is it open to him to accept private employment when pensioned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly he is pensioned. I do not know that he is going to accept private employment, but there is nothing to prevent it under the conditions of the pension which has been granted, and which, I may add, has been earned.

    1155
    I have always understood that the theory upon which a pension is granted is that it has been earned, and is to be regarded as deferred pay. There is nothing in the conditions under which the pension is being paid, and which has been earned, to prevent him from acting in this manner. I express no opinion whether it is desirable or undesirable.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether it is the fact that the Prime Minister did make that statement in reply to a question by an hon. Member, and whether he will consider it, and be prepared to give me an answer if I ask a question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are quite different aspects of this question. When an officer on active service is approached by a firm of contractors with an offer to leave the Service in order to take up some work with them, that requires to be carefully watched, but the action of retired officers who have left the Service is not amenable to public control under any law or regulation which exists at the present time.

    Abyssinia (Importation of Arms).
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in consideration of the fact that Abyssinia does not stand by the terms of the Brusels Treaty, it is possible to prohibit the importation of arms into that country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Brussels Act provides that a territorial Power on the coast may stop, exceptionally and provisionally, the transit of arms and ammunition across its territory if, in consequence of inland disturbances or other serious danger, there is ground for fearing that the dispatch of arms and ammunition might compromise its own safety. This is actually being done by the French Government, through whose territory arms formerly reached Abyssinia.
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked whether arms imported by the French at Djibouti for the use of the Abyssinian Government find their way to Somaliland, British East Africa, and the Sudan; and, if so, what measures he proposes to take to stop this trade which imperils the peace of our protectorates?
    Mr. ACLAND: According to the information received by His Majesty's Government, arms imported at Djibouti for the use of the Abyssinian Government have in the past found their way into British Somaliland, British East Africa, and the Sudan, but since April of last year the Governor of the French Somali Coast has prohibited the transit of arms for Abyssinia, and I am assured that the French Colonial authorities are taking energetic steps to prevent the importation of all arms through Djibouti.
    Mr. GLAZEBROOK: May I ask whether the Government have got information that arms are still going or have been during the last four months?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will make further inquiry if the hon. Member desires.
    Colonel YATE: Has the French Government prohibited the export of arms through Djibouti to Muscat?
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down his question about export.

    Chinese Republic.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to extend recognition to the Chinese Republic?
    Mr. ACLAND: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 7th instant to an unstarred question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham.
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the United States of America is giving public recognition to the Chinese Republic on the opening of its Parliament; and whether any similar action is being taken on the part of this country?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the second part, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 7th instant to an unstarred question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What was the answer—"Yes" or "No"?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer was neither "Yes" nor "No."

    Austrian Military Manœuvres.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether large bodies of Austrian troops have been assembled for the purpose of manœuvres on the Dalmatian-Montenegrin frontier between Budna and Ugni; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that Austrian military manœuvres are usually carried out in the early autumn, it is the intention of the European Powers, in view of the state of tension now existing, to request the Austrian military authorities to postpone the annual manœuvres of the troops in Dalmatia to a more opportune season?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have no official information respecting the first part of the hon. Member's question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

    War in Balkans.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the town of Cettinje is largely provisioned by foodstuffs imported from the Austrian seaport Bocche di Cattaro; whether he has received information that foodstuffs consigned to Cettinje have been or are about to be detained by the Austrian authorities; and whether such an action by a member of the Triple Alliance directed against a Power friendly to this country will have the countenance of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have no information respecting the alleged detention, or the intended detention, of foodstuffs at Cattaro to which the hon. Member refers. The question of action taken by the Austrian Government in its own territory is not a matter which depends upon the countenance of His Majesty's Government.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    GUN PRACTICE FACILITIES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the remarks made recently by the Commanding Officer of the Honourable Artillery Company as to the inadequate facilities provided for gun practice; whether in any case during the past year any Territorial regiment has been unable to carry out the prescribed amount of practice to render the men thoroughly efficient owing to the overcrowded conditions of the ranges placed at their disposal; and if he will state what amount is proposed to be expended this year in
    1158
    increasing the accommodation for Territorial training?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In no case during the past year has any unit of the Territorial Artillery been unable to carry out the prescribed amount of gun practice. Full use was made of the ranges which were not in any way congested. While the range at Ad Fines is closed this year for drainage and other purposes, arrangements are being made for the hire of a range in South Wales. My attention, however, has just been drawn to a case at Braunton, in North Devon, where, on a range which has been used by Territorial Artillery for the last two years, the Saunton Golf Club has constructed two holes in such a way as to make it impossible for firing to be carried out while play is in progress. The club has been asked to permit firing over the holes during two periods of only five days each in the year, but has, I am informed, not yet seen its way to agree to this request. There was a certain amount of opposition from other local interests, but this has been withdrawn.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the commanding officer referred to in the question stated that the Artillery had obsolete arms and was allowed to practice only once in two years? Is that statement correct or not?
    Colonel SEELY: The first part does not arise out of this question. With regard to the second part, I have given the answer that full use was made of the ranges, that they were not congested, and that there has been no case during the past year of any unit of the Territorial Artillery being unable to carry out its gun practice. I regret the particular case mentioned in the second part of the question, and I hope the House will support me in any necessary measures that may be taken, not in regard to this particular golf club, but in similar cases, to prevent the training of the troops being interfered with for reasons of this kind.
    Major STANLEY: Are we to understand that every Territorial Horse and Artillery Battery practised during the past year?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot go further than report the answer furnished to me by my responsible authorities. If there is a particular case in regard to which that reply is not correct, I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will tell me of it.
    Major STANLEY: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the batteries carried out the prescribed practice, is it not a fact that batteries are only required to practice every alternate year?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a matter for another question. I was asked whether they carried out the amount prescribed.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the First Lord's offer to the Leader of the Opposition to name two hon. Gentlemen to verify certain facts as to the shortage of men in the Navy, he will extend the same invitation to the right hon. Gentlemen with respect to military aeroplanes?
    Colonel SEELY: I have already in formed the House of the number of aeroplanes in the possession of the Army. The question of whether this number is adequate has already been discussed, and there will be further opportunities of debate on this point later on this year.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether any French company approached either the Admiralty or the War Office, or both, with a view to establishing a factory in this country, using British material and British labour, for the manufacture of aeroplanes and engines for His Majesty's Government?
    Colonel SEELY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The answer is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of Captain von Pustau, the German naval aeronautical expert, to the effect that any of the German airships could sail to Ireland to-morrow without a stop, crossing Portsmouth and Plymouth on the way, and return by way of the Orkneys and Edinburgh; and that a fleet of airships under cover of night might not even have been sighted until after it had accomplished the task set it in time of war; and what steps the Government propose to take to guard against this danger?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The statements in question have been noticed, but do not appear to call for any special remark.
    Mr. HUNT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government allow our dockyards and shipyard towns to be exposed to a bombardment from the air without any power of retaliation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; not in answer to a question, Sir.
    Mr. HUNT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe in retaliation then?

    COMPULSORY TRAINING.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Territorial Force Associations which have passed resolutions in favour of some form of compulsory training being introduced for Home defence?
    Colonel SEELY: Resolutions have been received from nine out of the ninety-four associations.
    Mr. HUNT: If the majority of the associations decide in favour of compulsion, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make it a non-party question?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a hypothetical question. As to its being imminent, nine out of ninety-four is not very near a majority.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the other associations are only waiting for a few months before deciding to follow on the same lines?

    MARRIED OFFICERS (REMOVAL ALLOWANCE).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the question of extending the grant of increased allowances for the removal of furniture, etc., on change of quarters, now given to married quartermasters, to married officers holding similar rank to the quartermasters?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): As I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 2nd instant, the matter has been fully considered, and I am not prepared to reopen the question at the present time.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why one class of lieutenant should have the allowance and not another?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I will consult the Secretary of State about the matter.

    MAGAZINES (PROTECTION).
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked if any extra protection has been made to our magazines in our Eastern defences, in view of the possibility of high explosives being dropped on them from above in time of war?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered desirable to state what precautions are being taken to defend our magazines from attack of any kind.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what number of men the Territorial Forces were below established strength on 1st April, 1913?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not yet in a position to give any figure for the date mentioned as the returns are not yet complete. I will send a statement to the hon. and gallant Gentleman as soon as the Return is received.

    INDIAN CANTONMENTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if circular memoranda are still sent out by the Quartermaster-General to Indian cantonments ordering the provision for our soldiers there of young and attractive women?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No, Sir.

    CEMENT TRADE (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers have any contract with the War Office; if so, whether he is aware that the wages paid to labourers by these firms in the cement trade on the Thames and Medway are from 1½d. to 2½d. less than the wages current in the district, that they pay no recognised rate for overtime or Sunday work, and employ a good deal of cheap boy labour in the machine shops; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter in order to secure strict observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The second company mentioned holds a War Office contract. If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with details as to the particular class of workpeople in question and the rates claimed as recog-
    1162
    nised or prevailing for such employment, including payments for overtime and Sunday work, I shall be happy to have inquiries made.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Do any of the Government contracts necessitate the excessive amount of Sunday labour now done on the Thames and the Medway?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I could not answer that without notice.

    Land Valuation.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the valuation of agricultural land, it is the practice to take into consideration, for the purpose of arriving at gross and total values, the value of growing crops and tenant rights?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The custom in regard to growing crops and tenant right varies so widely in different parts of the country that it is not possible to give a general answer to the hon. Baronet's question.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that valuers are in the habit of declining to say whether or not these matters are included? How is it possible for any owner to check the valuation unless he is told distinctly whether or not this is the case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Baronet knows, the question is being considered before the Referee, and I do not wish to say anything to prejudice the matter one way or the other.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: All I am asking is whether the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions to the valuers to answer the question: Whether these matters are included or excluded?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the practice varies in different counties, how is the right hon. Gentleman going to have a uniform valuation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That depends entirely upon the custom, which varies in different counties, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is quite impossible to have a uniform valuation where the elements are entirely different in the different counties.
    Sir G. YOUNGERasked whether, in valuations of agricultural land on which glass houses, trade fixtures, or buildings the property of the tenant stand, it is the practice to take into consideration the value of such glass houses, trade fixtures, and buildings for the purpose of arriving at gross and total values?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the practice of the Commissioners in arriving at the gross and total value of land to take account of such of the subjects mentioned by the hon. Baronet as would under a conveyance of the fee simple of the land pass, without express mention, to a purchaser.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Under these circumstances is it not possible that Increment Value Duty may be levied on property which does not belong to the man who has to pay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not answer that in reply to a question.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: But if you include the tenant's glasshouses, surely that is so?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is putting a matter of argument which I could not possibly answer in reply to a question.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked how many objections have been made against assessments for Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Value Duty, respectively; and how many appeals have been lodged against such assessments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am unable to state the number of objections received, which have in a large number of cases been disposed of without the necessity for an appeal. One thousand two hundred and seventy-two appeals have been lodged against Undeveloped Land Duty assessments and 123 against Increment Value Duty assessments.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether for each claim for Increment Value Duty substantiated 500 occasional valuations are being made, entailing trouble and expense to the State and each owner of land and house property affected; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The proportion indicated by the hon. Member in the first part of the question is approximately correct, and he will doubtless realise that the smallness of the proportion is in a great measure due to the short interval of time which has elapsed since 30th April, 1909. I do not propose to introduce amending legislation.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the site value on the occasion has no relation whatever to the value of the site?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have devoted just as many columns in replying to him. I do not think I could answer him further in reply to a question.

    Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister if he can now say whether the Irish Land Purchase Bill will he introduced before Whitsuntide?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister (1) if any communications have passed in recent years between the French and British Governments with regard to the construction of the Channel Tunnel; if the French Government still view the project favourably; and (2) if the question of the construction of the Channel Tunnel has been before the Imperial Defence Committee recently; and if the matter is still under consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No such communications as are referred to have passed in recent years. I am not in possession of the views of the French Government on this subject. No detailed examination of the Channel Tunnel project has been carried out by the Committee of Imperial Defence since February, 1907.
    Sir W. BYLES: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether our Government is favourable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot say either "Yes" or "No."

    Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. MUNROasked whether the Temperance (Scotland) Bill will be reintroduced before Whitsuntide?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement on the subject at present.

    Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if it is intended to reintroduce the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill this Session with a view to securing its early passage into law; and, if so, can he state the probable date of such reintroduction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury hopes to rentroduce this Bill at an early date.

    Imperial Preference.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent speech of the Finance Member of the Legislative Council of India on the subject of Imperial preference; and whether this indicates any change in the views of His Majesty's Government on this subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the report in the Press of the speech referred to. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. CASSEL: May it be taken, then, that the speech substantially represents the views of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I have answered the second part of the question in the negative.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to create an efficient Second Chamber within the lifetime of the present Parliament; and whether, with a view to securing a lasting constitutional settlement, he will revive the conference between the parties, so that the remodelling of the Constitution may be something more than a partisan measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have stated repeatedly that it is our hope and intention to submit our proposals on this subject to the present Parliament. In regard
    1166
    to the second part of the question I cannot say more than that I should be very glad if we could proceed in the matter on lines of general agreement.
    Mr. F. HALL: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not, in reply to a question on the Paper, give me an absolute promise that he would introduce the proposals in this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; no!

    Shops Act.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions and the amount of fines inflicted upon tradesmen in London for non-compliance with the provisions of the Shops Act by not closing their shops on the day appointed in the several districts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The London County Council inform me that up to 31st December last, in the county of London outside the City, proceedings had been instituted against shopkeepers in seventy-two cases for failure to comply with the requirement of the Act as to closing for a weekly half-holiday. Convictions were obtained in fifty-two cases, and fines amounting in all to £38 19s. 6d. were imposed. The Act came into force on 1st May last. No proceedings were taken in the City during that period.

    Land Valuation Office (Expenses).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Estimate of £630,000 for the expenses of the Land Valuation Office for the year 1913–14 includes expenses of printing and of all the legal and other expenses of appeals to Referees and the Courts and incidental thereto; and, if not, what is the estimated cost of these, and under which Vote do they come?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Estimate of £630,080 includes the expenses of appeals to Referees and to the Courts and any expenses incidental thereto, the necessary provision being made under Sub-heads DD and EE. The cost of printing falls upon the Vote for Stationery and Printing (Class II., 24). The amount attributable to the Land Valuation Office cannot be exactly stated, but it is estimated to be about £15,000.

    Bowles v. Bank of England.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government propose to pay in full, as between client and solicitor, the costs of Mr. Gibson Bowles incurred in the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England, in which judgment was given in his favour with costs; and, if not, on what ground a distinction is made in this respect between the Bank of England and Mr. Bowles; and (2) whether in the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England, in which judgment was given against the bank with costs, His Majesty's Government have paid the costs of the Bank; whether they have paid these costs in full as between client and solicitor, or whether they have paid only the taxed costs, and what the amount thereof was; and on what ground His Majesty's Government have paid the costs of the Bank of England in defending their unlawful practice in levying Income Tax by deduction without the authority of an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this and the following question. Payment was made to Mr. Bowles in accordance with the order of Court, which directed, as is usual, that the defendants (the Bank of England) should pay to the plaintiff his costs of the action, such costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master. The costs of the Bank of England, amounting to £238 5s. 4d., have been paid by the Crown in full as between client and solicitor, because under the Income Tax Acts Governors of the Bank are constituted Commissioners for executing the Acts, and as such they were acting on behalf of the Crown in defending a long-established practice.
    Mr. CASSEL: Seeing that Mr. Bowles was held to be right, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he might not be left out of pocket?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Mr. Bowles has got exactly the same treatment as every successful litigant—he has got his taxed costs.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have recently made a demand on the trustees of the Finchley Charities for payment of Undeveloped Land Duty amounting to £48 14s.,
    1168
    assessed on land belong to the charities, the greater part of which was let in allotments in pursuance of the scheme under which the trust was regulated and whereby the trustees were not permitted to use the land for any other purpose except with the consent of the Charity Commissioners; and whether, the income of the charities being chiefly devoted to the maintenance of almshouses and for payment of pensions and gifts of coal to the aged poor, such payments would have to be diminished pro rata in order to provide funds for the tax in question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the land is not occupied and used by the charity in question, and accordingly does not fall within the scope of the exemption contained in Section 37 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. With regard to the second part of the question. I have no information as to the manner in which the funds of the charity are applied.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cash was received on account of Sinking Fund since the first issue of Guaranteed Land Stock under the Act of 1891, from all sources, and from each head of the land purchase account, including tenants' annuities, sales of, holdings, guaranteed deposits exchange or surrender of stock, county percentage or payment in lieu thereof, dividends and interests on investments, or any other source; what cash was paid for the £588,351 of Guaranteed Land Stock (1891) and the £292,889 of Guaranteed Stock (1903) held on the 31st March, 1912, on account of Sinking Fund; why was such stock under the Act of 1903 purchased on account of Sinking Fund, and why was the whole of the sums available not invested in the Guaranteed Land Stock of 1891, in view of the fact that the price of that stock is considerably below its redeemable par value; what is the total amount of 1891 stock cancelled, and why is the whole amount of such stock purchased on account of Sinking Fund not cancelled as soon as purchased; must the 5s. per cent. of the advances payable under the Act of 1891, known as the county percentage, be applied since the Land Law Act, 1896, Section 27, towards repayment of capital, and whether the payment to the Sinking Fund is now at the rate of 1¼ per

    1169
    cent. of the nominal amount of the capital, under the combined effect of Section 27 and Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Act of 1891; are these provisions as to Sinking Fund still operative; whether the stock issued before and after the Act of 1896 was accepted by the vendors and dealt with by the public on the faith thereof; are all the issues of the stock now consolidated, and is any and what distinction made by the Treasury as to the rate and application of Sinking Fund in respect of the several issues of such stock; what sum in cash has been applied in redeeming the £2,164,028 of Guaranteed Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Land Stock, stated to have been redeemed on the 31st March, 1912, and to what extent was such redemption effected by purchases thereof under par, if so, at what price, and how otherwise was such redemption effected: whether under the Act of 1891, Sections 1 and 4, payments to the Sinking Fund have been made out of the whole land purchase account or, in case of deficiency, out of the Guarantee Fund and the Consolidated Fund; whether deficiencies in the tenants' annuities, as originally provided for, owing to the alteration in the mode of payment, under Section 25 of the Act of 1896, has to be made good out of all these funds; whether the National Debt Commissioners are bound to redeem at par outstanding stock issued under the Act of 1891, so soon as the Sinking Fund held by them, either in cash or securities, equals the par value of stock held by the public; and whether for this purpose stock held by various Government Departments is on the same footing, and if the stock has in any event to be redeemed under the Act of 1891, Section 1, Sub-section (2), at or before forty-nine years from the time of the issue of such stock?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With the permission of the hon. and learned Member, I will circulate a detailed answer with the Votes. [See Written. Answers this date.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Treasury have stopped nearly half a million of money from the Irish Taxation Account in the last few years, and that, while we have no means whatsoever of discussing matters with the Treasury, they seem to exercise a paramount right to make the deduction without question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the fact stated by the hon. Member.
    Mr. DELANYasked when the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to announce that the Estates Commissioners have come into possession of the lands of Bordwell, Owens estate, Queen's County; whether he is aware that negotiations for the acquisition of this property have been going on for the past three years, and that an inspector has been down in the locality making arrangements for the distribution of the land; will he say who the inspector having charge of the scheme is; and whether the local representatives of the people will be consulted before the scheme for distribution is approved by the Commissioners?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the lands and have intimated to the owner the price they are prepared to advance if formal proceedings for sale are instituted under the Land Purchase Acts, and title is shown in accordance with their requirements. Until this has been done, and they acquire the lands the Commissioners will not be in a position to consider the question of their allotment.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the necessary steps are yet near completion for the acquirement of the untenanted lands of Clonfin; and when the distribution of these lands will take place?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to issue their offer for the purchase of these lands at an early date.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the scheme for the untenanted lands of Rhyne, county Longford, the property of Mr. J. W. Bond, D.L., has yet been prepared; and, if not, when it is expected to be ready?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. The owner has accepted the Estates Commissioners' proposal to purchase these lands, and they hope to be in a position to take over possession of them and distribute them during the present year.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Major WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to Increment Value Duty, what is the number of transactions of which particulars have been presented under Section 4 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, up to the 31st

    1171
    March, 1913; what is the number of assessments which have been made upon these transactions; and what is the amount of duty assessed thereon?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is 497,148; to the second, 1,706; and to the third, £31,393.

    Customs and Excise Department.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, as a result of the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services somewhere about twenty late senior Excise clerks are suffering a loss of £60 a year or thereabouts, and stand to lose sums varying from £780 to about £500 during the remainder of their service, in spite of the fact that they are still allowed to proceed to £400 a year; and whether there is any provision under the amalgamation scheme to ensure that these officers will be saved this loss?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is impracticable to enter into calculations based on the assumption that, if amalgamation had not taken place, particular individuals would have received one step in promotion on the old classification by this time, and a further step at a particular time in the future. As to the position of these officers I must refer the hon. Member to the answer of my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on the 27th ultimo, in reply to his previous question on this subject.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some of these facts if I send them to him?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.

    Commutation of Pensions.
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that 5 per cent. is the statutory rate of interest charged to an officer commuting his pension under the Commutation Act, he will state the rate of interest at which the money of savings bank depositors is lent to the Treasury for this purpose under the sixth and eighth Sections of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amounts paid by the National Debt Commissioners
    1172
    for the commutation of pensions are repaid to them by terminable annuities calculated at 3½ per cent. per annum, the minimum rate authorised by Section 8 of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked whether any Order has been issued that modifies or eliminates Sub-section (j), Part II., Schedule 1, of the National Insurance Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Yes, Sir. By a special Order which came into force on 15th July last, the class of outworkers specified in paragraph (j) of Part II. of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act has been brought within the scope of the compulsory provisions of the Act. The Order is No. 921 in the series of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1912.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been brought to his notice that insurance committees, in refusing applicants desirous of making their own medical arrangements, are in the habit of assigning no reason for their inability to comply with the request of the insured person, but merely warn the applicant that, failing making a selection by the 31st ultimo, he will be liable to distribution among doctors on the panel; and whether, in view of the fact that each application is considered on its merits, he will explain why the reason for refusal is not stated in the reply?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: An insurance committee is under no obligation to explain in each individual case the reasons for refusing an application from an insured person for permission to make his own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment. The general policy which I believe is guiding insurance committees in dealing with such applications is indicated in the Memorandum on the subject issued by the Commissioners, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Surely, as a matter of courtesy, the insurance committees might give this information to insured persons; it would not cost anything.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an approved member claiming insurance benefit, declaring sickness on a Monday and declaring off on the following Saturday, thereby only being entitled to three days' sick pay, is compelled under the National Insurance Act to provide three medical certificates for the period; and, if so, whether he will take steps to stop such proceeding, which can only have the effect of preventing members from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The question of the evidence to be required in connection with a claim for sickness benefit must be determined by the society administering the benefit, subject to an appeal to the Commissioners under Section 67 of the Act. I see no reason why in any case in the circumstances stated a society should require three medical certificates.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, owing to the delicacy of the panel doctors' position in relation to persons insured under the National Insurance Act, it is being found increasingly difficult in Gloucestershire and elsewhere to check malingering, and that in Bristol a medical referee has been appointed with this object by the insurance committee with the approval of the approved societies in that city; and whether the Insurance Commissioners favour the same course being adopted in other administrative areas?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The matters referred to in the hon. Member's question are receiving the careful attention of the Commissioners.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, when a workman is in receipt of 10s. a week from his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act on account of an accident, he is precluded from receiving sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, seeing that the employer has had to pay twice over for one benefit, whether, in the Act for amending the National Insurance Act, it is proposed to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-
    1174
    tive. It is not, however, the case that either employers or employed contributors are paying twice over for one benefit. The relief to the funds in the cases referred to was a factor in the actuarial calculations, and if sickness benefit were allowed, in addition to payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of the same accident, the contributions would require to be increased. There would then be justification for complaints that payments were being made twice over, as there is no obvious reason why an insured person requires to receive more when the illness is due to accident than when it is due to other causes.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. JOWETTasked if married men in the Navy are required to give three months' notice of the approximate date of the expected confinement of their wives in order to comply with the rules governing the payment of maternity benefit under the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The provision referred to by my hon. Friend was made not as an essential condition of payment, but solely in the interests of the men and their wives as being, under the exceptional conditions of naval service, the only means of ensuring payment of the benefit immediately after the confinement takes place. The advantages of this procedure have already been proved in several cases. When it is not possible to give the full amount of notice the claim is in no way prejudiced thereby.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of payment to the wives of seamen?
    Mr. LAMBERT: That is for what the regulation is framed.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether secretaries of trade union branches have had their claim to unemployment benefit under Part II. of the National Insurance Act contested by Labour Exchange officials on the ground that such secretaries are receiving a remuneration or profit greater than that they would derive from the receipt of unemployment benefit under the Act; and, if so, will he state whether Labour Exchange officials have been instructed not to pay benefit under these circumstances?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is provided by Section 107 (1), paragraph 5, that "a workman shall not be deemed to be unemployed whilst he is following any remunerative occupation in an insured trade, or … any other occupation from which he derives any other remuneration or profit greater than that which he would derive from the receipt of unemployment benefit under this part of this Act." I have no information as to the particular cases which my hon. Friend has in mind, so that I am unable to say if the trade union secretaries referred to are covered by the provision I have quoted.

    POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General if he has made better arrangements with the Insurance Commissioners or the Treasury to secure more adequate remuneration for the employés of the Post Office who have had such onerous work thrown on them by the National Insurance Act?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As regards scale payment Sub-Postmasters I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on the subject on 24th and 27th March; and as regards other officers, to the reply given to a question on 6th January.
    Mr. FELL: Are there not numerous cases where they are receiving absolutely nominal pay for really very serious and onerous work?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The pay that is so far being given is only payment on account, and the ultimate amount to be received has not yet been settled.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction over this matter and cannot he get money out of the Treasury?

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the county and city of Cork can now reckon on receiving their share from the Sanatorium Grant on the basis of population stated in October to be approximately £13,000; whether, as the Cork Joint Hospital Board made temporary provision for insured persons suffering from tuberculosis from other counties, they are entitled to receive an additional amount from the
    1176
    Sanatorium Grant; why are counties which have not joined with the Women's National Health Association kept ignorant of the sum they are to receive and thus debarred from proceeding with their schemes; is he aware that this delay in giving information is availed of by the Women's National Health Association to canvass county councillors to induce support for schemes by which beds are to be taken in their sanatoria; has any of the £25,000 been expended, and, if so, how; do the Local Government Board usually estimate each bed will annually cost about £140; has the Women's National Health Association or its patrons suggested that about half that figure would suffice; and, if not, what are the respective estimates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The county and city of Cork can reckon on receiving their share of £120,000 immediately their schemes receive the final approval of the Local Government Board. As explained in my answer to the hon. and learned Member's question on 17th October last, such part of the remaining £25,000 as is expended by the Women's National Health Association on behalf of particular counties will be recovered from the shares of these counties, calculated on the population basis, and will be available for distribution on the same basis as the £120,000. The remaining portion of the £25,000 representing expenditure incurred in the interest of the country generally in respect of temporary provision for the counties which are contemplating building sanatoria for themselves and in respect of accommodation, whether for adults or for children, which will be available in the future for any county insurance committee which may apply for it will be a final charge against the £145,000 Grant as a whole. The share of Cork county and city in the Grant will be ascertained in this way, and will not be affected by the fact that the Cork Joint Hospital Board has provided temporary accommodation. County councils have been apprised of their respective shares of the £120,000, and will be informed as to the allocation of the £25,000 as soon as practicable. I am not aware that the Women's National Health Association have taken any steps to obtain support for their sanatorium other than such as might naturally be made by the managing authorities of similar institutions in similar circumstances. By far the larger portion of the £25,000 has been expended, but the exact amount cannot

    1177
    be made up at present. The Local Government Board do not understand what is meant by the annual cost of beds. The capital cost is arrived at by dividing the total expenditure by the number of beds, but I am not at present in a position to name any figure as the usual cost. The Women's National Health Association, who enter into their own agreements with county councils, have quoted £70 as their charge per bed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon a decision will be come to in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am pressing for it, and I hope it will be come to very soon.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture why, out of 495 applicants for small holdings in Herefordshire, 271 of whom have been approved, only 104 have been satisfied.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Small Holdings Commissioner for the district is inquiring into the causes of delay in satisfying the demand for land in Herefordshire, and everything possible will be done to effect an improvement.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government have informed the Dutch Government that they may be compelled to take severe measures against the importation of goods coming from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax if such goods are proved or suspected to have occasioned such disease in Great Britain; and, if so, what articles have the Government in mind in this connection, and what is the nature of the restrictive measures contemplated?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government have not so informed the Dutch Government, but the report made last May by the Departmental Committee on foot-and-mouth disease has recently been circulated to His Majesty's representatives in foreign countries, and I surmise that the rumour to which the hon. Member refers, has arisen from the publication of a recommendation made on page 12 of the Report. With regard to the latter part of the question, no restrictive measures have at present been decided upon.

    Sheep Disease.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the intestinal parasitic disease known as strongylus contortus is again very prevalent among sheep in the south-eastern counties and is causing considerable mortality; whether, in the opinion of the Board, doses of turpentine prove an effective cure for this disease, or, if not, whether there is any other drug that does; and whether the Board will publish in the provincial papers some advice as to its treatment in those counties where it is most prevalent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the prevalence of the disease to which the hon. Member refers. In the opinion of the Board's veterinary advisers the use of turpentine in sufficient doses to have a therapeutic value would be very dangerous, and the Board are unable at present, pending the result of investigations now in progress, to advise a remedy for the disease.

    Factory and Workshops Act (Trade Regulations).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if, in view of the fact that in trades regulated under the Factory and Workshops Act there were 656 cases of poisoning last year of which fifty were fatal, he has considered how far the regulations made for all these trades are, by Section 79 of that Act, not only reasonably practical but such as meet the necessities of the case; and whether, and by what section, when regulations declared by His Majesty's inspectors to be necessary are resisted, and he appoints an arbitrator instead of himself amending them, he deems it his duty to accept the arbitrator's advice without appeal in any case to Parliament?
    Mr. McKENNA: The records of poisoning in the different industries, and, where regulations have been made, the working of the regulations are closely watched by the Department. New codes and amendments of existing codes are prepared from time to time as experience shows the need for further precautions; for instance, recently the rules for the manufacture of pottery have been completely recast; a code for lead smelting has been made, and a Departmental Committee is now engaged in considering the coach building trade. As regards the last part of the question, I must point out that

    1179
    when objections are taken, whether by employers or workmen, to regulations proposed by the Home Office, and, in pursuance of the Factory Act, a competent person is appointed to inquire into and report on the objections, a thorough inquiry is made, the evidence of the representatives of the Department and of all parties interested who desire to be heard is taken, and the Commissioner reports the conclusions at which he arrives on a consideration of the evidence. No express obligation is placed by the Act on the Department to accept the conclusions of the Commissioner, but it is obvious that conclusions arrived at by an independent Commissioner after an exhaustive inquiry of this kind is bound to carry, and I think was intended by Parliament to carry, very great weight.

    Glamorgan Police (Exchequer Grants).
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State whether his attention has been called to the statements of the chairman of the Glamorgan County Council regarding the alleged withholding by the Home Office of certain certificates upon which the Exchequer Grants to the Glamorgan police depend; whether the communications upon this matter between the Home Office and the Glamorgan County Council are in writing; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. I have no objection to laying the correspondence on the Table if my hon. Friend will be good enough to move for it in the usual way.

    Criminal Law Amendment Act (Convictions).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether any, and, if so, how many white slave traders, as distinct from souteneurs or bullies, have been convicted and sentenced under Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year in England and Scotland, respectively?
    Mr. McKENNA: Proceedings under the Act are not reported to the Home Office, and I am unable to give my hon. Friend the information he desires. I would point out that Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last near creates no new offence, but merely amends the procedure for bringing to justice offenders against the Act of 1885.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand nobody has been brought to justice?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. If my hon. Friend reads the answer he will see he would not be justified in coming to such a conclusion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether any single white-slaver was arrested under the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: The first part of my answer must have escaped the attention of my hon. Friend.

    Ponies in Coal Mines.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked how many coal mines there are in the United Kingdom; and in how many of them ponies are used?
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of mines under the Coal Mines Act at work in 1912 was 3,315, and the number in which ponies were used was 2,164. The figures are subject to revision.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. F. HALLasked how many women suffragists are at the present time doing the hunger strike; and how many of these women are being forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKENNA: Fourteen women suffragist prisoners are refusing their food at the present time, and five of these are being forcibly fed.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether Mrs. Pankhurst is still hunger striking; whether she is being forcibly fed; whether her own medical adviser is allowed to visit her; whether the prison doctor does not now consider that her further detention may be dangerous; and, if so, whether he proposes taking immediate action to secure her release?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received no notice of this question, but, so far as my memory goes, I think I can answer my hon. Friend. Mrs. Pankhurst is not taking food; she is not being forcibly fed; the medical officer does not advise that she should be released; her own medical officer has not been allowed to see her, and I have nothing to say upon that point.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: With regard to notice, it was sent this morning, and it was delivered at the Home Secretary's room in the House before mid-day.
    Mr. McKENNA: I was at the Home Office this morning until I came down here.

    Mines Act (First-Aid and Rescue Work).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any decision has yet been reached concerning the memorandum of the education committee of the Glamorgan County Council asking that certificates issued by that body for competency in first-aid and rescue work, which are already recognised by the Board of Trade and the War Office, should also be recognised by his Department for the requirements of the Mines Act; and, if no decision has been reached, whether he will expedite the consideration of the matter in order to enable working men students who desire to sit for their certificates as mine managers at the forthcoming examination in May next, and who already hold the Glamorgan qualification, to do so without further delay or waste of time?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on Monday. I have the matter under my consideration and will see that there is no unnecessary delay.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Home Secretary say whether he will come to a decision in time to enable those students to sit at the forthcoming examinations?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have already told my hon. Friend I can add nothing to the answer I gave on Monday.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing great inconvenience to young colliers holding those certificates who will be debarred from sitting?
    Mr. McKENNA: The statements reported to me are that the colliers in general would prefer the existing system.

    SS. "Olympic."
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether the alterations made to the steamship "Olympic" include a rearrangement of the accommodation for third-class passengers to give them access, in case of necessity, to the boat decks as readily and freely as the first-class passengers have?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): In view of the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic," that there was ready means of access from all the principal accommodation decks to the boat deck, no rearrangement of the third-class accommodation on the "Olympic" has been considered necessary. Two additional emergency doors have, however, been fitted, affording direct communication between the third-class quarters and the first and second-class quarters. I understand that by means of these new exits and the existing doors and staircases the third-class passengers can enter the first-class and second-class quarters freely, and thence reach the boat deck as readily as the first-class and second-class passengers.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it not a fact that the report of the inquiry stated definitely as one of the findings of the Court that why so large a proportion of the third-class passengers were drowned was their inability to get to the boats?
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not think it was a question of inability. I understand that question was most carefully considered, and those new emergency doors will enable them to have as free access to the boat accommodation as second and first-class passengers.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Will these doors be open all the time or only occasionally?
    Mr. BUXTON: They will be open whenever it is necessary. I do not say they will be open all the time.

    Loss of ss. "Titanic."
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether out of the sum of £430,000 contributed by the public for the relief of sufferers by the "Titanic" disaster a sum of barely £2,000 has been granted to the relatives and dependents of third-class Irish passengers lost in the "Titanic"; whether he intends to call for an inquiry into the method of ascertaining the amounts allotted to each case by the several committees acting under the Public Trustee; and whether the latter official will be allowed to keep in his hands the unexpended balance of this fund, and, if so, for what purpose?
    Mr. BUXTON: As I informed my hon. Friend in reply to questions put by him yesterday, the Board of Trade have no

    1183
    authority over the Public Trustee. In regard to the administration of the "Titanic" Fund, I am informed by the Public Trustee that two reports and accounts have been presented to the Mansion House Committee, who retain control of the fund, and under whose auspices the appeal to the public was made. A scheme for the permanent administration of the fund has, I understand, been approved by this committee and embodied in a deed of trust. The examination of claims and allocation of grants to claimants on the Mansion House "Titanic" Fund has been in the hands of local committees, including an Irish committee, reporting for confirmation to a sub-committee of the Mansion House General Committee. Specific provision is made in the trust deed for the disposal of any unexpended balance of the fund on the completion of the administration.

    Wages Census.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked when the final summaries of the wages census taken in 1907 will be published?
    Mr. BUXTON: A volume dealing with wages and hours of labour in about forty trades will be issued next week. This will complete the publication of the series of detailed Reports. It was at one time intended to include in this volume a general survey of the whole inquiry, but it has now been decided to await the publication of the results of the Census of Population of 1911 as regards occupations and trades, as it is anticipated that these figures will be of considerable advantage in summing up the wages inquiry.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the Board of Trade conducting another wage census, and, if so, will they endeavour to supply the figures a little earlier?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly give me notice.

    Helmsdale (Sutherland) Harbour.
    Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will send an independent expert officer to hold a local inquiry as to the state and present condition of the Helmsdale (Sutherland) Harbour, with a view to seeing that the lives of those who have to use the harbour are properly protected?
    Mr. BUXTON: I propose to instruct one of the Board's professional officers, who will be in the North of Scotland shortly, to take that opportunity of visiting Helmsdale Harbour and conferring with the fishermen and others interested. I will communicate to my hon. Friend as soon as I can the date of this visit.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Postmaster-General if he can say what is the cause of the delay in connecting Durrow, Queen's County, with the telephone system; whether he is aware that the necessary guarantees are forthcoming, that the request has been made more than four years ago, and that the trunk line at Attanagh railway station is only two miles distant; and whether he can now say when the connection will be carried out?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding the protracted efforts which have been made, the necessary amount of support to justify the establishment of a telephone exchange at Durrow has not yet been obtained. I will cause further inquiry to be made, and will then write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will say when he hopes to begin the work of installing the trunk telephone in Longford as already promised?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The work of erecting the trunk line to Longford will be begun at the end of this month.

    Central Telegraph Office.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the nature of the terms of reference to the Norton Committee appointed to inquire into certain changes made in the organisation of the Central Telegraph Office; whether the recommendations of that Committee includes the abolition of light refreshments in the Central Telegraph Office galleries between 9 a.m. and 2.30 p.m.; whether that question has been made the subject of complaint by the staff or discussed by the staff's representatives before that Committee; and whether he is now in a position to reply to the memorials on this subject forwarded to him by the staff of that office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee were appointed to consider whether recent improvements in the organisaton of the Central Telegraph Office had been

    1185
    unduly burdensome to the staff, and to advise whether, having regard to the efficiency of the service and the proper consideration of the staff, any further changes were necessary or desirable. The Committee did not regard as satisfactory the practice under which various articles of food and beverages were brought into the galleries to be consumed at the instrument tables at all hours of the day, and they recommended that this privilege should be restricted to the hours between midnight and 9 a.m. and between 2.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. I have received representations from the staff on this matter, and hope to reply to their memorials shortly.

    Hull Telegraphist's Claim.
    Mr. FERENSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the request of a sorting clerk and telegraphist at Hull for the inclusion as a pensionable period of his service between 1889 and 1908, during which time he performed full-time unestablished duty in the engineering department of the Post Office; whether his attention has been called to Section 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 as covering such cases as these; and whether he will state if this officer's claim has been represented on these grounds to the Treasury?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The case of Mr. Ball, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Hull, to whom this question apparently refers, has been considered on more than one occasion; and Mr. Ball has been informed that full particulars of his service will be represented to the Treasury on his retirement in the ordinary course.

    Sunday Post (Sheffield).
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that in certain districts of the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield there is no delivery after 4 p.m. and neither collection or delivery on Sunday, while less than a mile away the residents receive all the services; why one part of the city of Sheffield should be treated differently to another; and whether he will see that these complaints are attended to?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The postal arrangements at Sheffield are engaging my attention at the present time, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the matters to which he calls attention will not be overlooked.

    Milk Preservation.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the borough of Kensington and elsewhere dairymen are being prosecuted under the Public Health Acts for using derivatives of boron for the preservation of milk, although in strict compliance with the milk and cream Regulations recently issued by the Board; and whether, if these Regulations are deemed to be contrary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament, he will, in fairness to the dairymen, bring in an amending Bill to legalise such Regulations?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am not aware of any such prosecutions, but I may point out that the Regulations prohibit the use of any preservatives in milk.

    Tuberculous Children (School Accommodation).
    Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education how many schools, residential and day, there are for tuberculous children; and how many receive Grants from the Board of Education or local education authorities?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): There are seven residential hospitals or sanatoria, providing accommodation for 451 children, which are certified by the Board of Education and receive Grants under the Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899. These hospitals provide almost exclusively for the treatment of children suffering from surgical tuberculosis. There are nine non-residential open-air schools certified and receiving Grants under the Act referred to, which make provision for 810 children, of whom the majority are tuberculous. All the open-air schools and five out of the seven hospitals or sanatoria are provided by local education authorities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.

    OPIUM TRAFFIC.
    Mr. TOWYN JONES: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks I will call attention to the opium traffic in the East, and move a Resolution.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks I will call attention to the opium traffic in the East, and move a Resolution.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH INDIA.
    Mr. HEWINS: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks I will call attention to our economic and financial relations with India, and move a Resolution.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF CLUBS BILL.
    "To amend and extend the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910." Presented by Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DEATH BENEFIT) BILL.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for an Amendment of the National Insurance Act, by making provision for an additional contribution from employers and to enable death benefit to be paid."
    This measure proposes to do this by providing that the employers shall pay a penny per week above and beyond the present contribution in respect of each insured person. The workman is already paying as large a sum as he can generally afford and as a private Member I am precluded from making any proposition relating to a State contribution. The Bill proposes that the accumulation of this penny per week shall be definitely ear-marked for the purpose of death benefit. In the case of an insured person who is not now insured for death benefit the whole will go to supply that benefit, and where he is so insured then it will be used for the augmentation of the present sum for which he is insured. It is further proposed by the Bill to collect the money in
    1206
    precisely the same way as the contributions are now collected. It is not proposed in any other respect to amend the National Insurance Act except that the death benefit shall be paid in the case of a workman killed by accident quite apart from and in addition to any sum he may get under the Workmen's Compensation Act, under the Employers' Liability Act, or at Common Law.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. James Hogge, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Hughes. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the better Representation of the People in Parliament and for a Redistribution of seats."
    This subject is well known to the House. It is a Bill which I have introduced in two or three previous Sessions, and it is a non-party measure. The subject-matter of the Bill is also a non-party subject. The proper representation of the people in this House will be admitted to be a subject which the whole House ought to make a matter of first interest. I recognise that it would not be fair or proper that I should go into all the arguments in favour of Redistribution, nor is it necessary, because the Bill which I ask leave to introduce is one which is supported by many respected Members on that side of the House and below the Gangway, and I also claim by Members of the Government themselves. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question which I put to him yesterday, agreed, if not to all the terms of the Bill, at all events to a fair and patient consideration of the Bill itself and the principle of Redistribution. The Prime Minister was good enough to refer me to a speech he made on 10th March which convinces me that at all events he recognises the subject is one which it is necessary to consider, and I may quote the opinion of the respected father of one of the respected Members of the Government, Sir William Harcourt, who in 1893, twenty years ago, said that this was a subject which sooner or later must be considered, and sooner rather than later. It

    1207
    will, therefore, I hope not need any apology and scarcely any reasons for my bringing this matter before the House on the present occasion. Perhaps half-a-dozen figures, which will be admitted by the whole House, because they are derived from an Annual Return of the Parliamentary constituencies in the whole of the Kingdom, will be the best preface I can make to the Motion with which I shall conclude. The total electorate of the Kingdom being 8,058,000, it will be obvious that the average, if they were equally distributed, would be 12,000 to each of the 670 Members, and, when I point out that, instead of that average obtaining the highest electorate returning one Member at the present time is over 57,000, very nearly 58,000, and that the lowest electorate returning one Member is 1,676, it will be obvious that nothing like an average representation of the people of the country has been obtained.
    4.0 P.M.
    The extreme disparity in 1884 was eight to one; the highest electorate was eight times the number of the lowest electorate. By 1897 it had risen to twelve to one; by 1901 the disparity had increased to eighteen to one, and in the present year of Grace it is no less than thirty-four to one. Taking another view of the figures, there are four constituencies in the United Kingdom each returning one Member which represent 184,000 electors of the country, while another 184,000 electors return to this House fifty Members. This institution is the machinery, to use Mr. Gladstone's simile, by which we boast that we govern ourselves by ourselves and for ourselves, and yet fifty Members are sent here by the same number of people as send four. Looking at it from another point of view, one half of the 670 Members out of a total electorate of 8,000,000 represent 5,500,000 and the other half represent a little over 2,500,000. In other words, one-third of the House represents one-half of the electorate and the other two-thirds represent the other half. The average representation of half the Members of this House is 16,306, and the average of the other half is only 7,746. Taking another point of view, half of the total electorate send here 459 Members, and the other half of the electorate send only 211 Members. The average electorate of Irish constituencies is 6,814, and of the English, Welsh, and Scotch over 11,000, that for England alone being 13,000. These few

    1208
    facts, which could be multiplied if time permitted, show the groundwork of the Bill. I have to submit reasons why this ought to be a subject on which, to use the Prime Minister's own words, we should hope to find room for agreement. I have never, in anything I have said or written on this subject during the past twenty years, either in the House or out of it, allowed myself even to think whether the Bill would be, for this party or that, advantage or disadvantage, and I feel quite confident that, if the House would only consider it was its first duty, as it is in my opinion, to put the machinery of the Government and this one machine of the Government, this House, in order that it might be possible, by means of a round table conference or a Select Committee to arrive at a conclusion as to what would be a fair thing between all the constituencies in the country. The provisions of the Bill may not be perfect.
    I will state very shortly its outline. Granting that the average electorate is what I have stated, the average population in each constituency, if the whole electorate were equally divided among the 670 Members, would be 67,000. I propose to make the Redistribution first by giving every constituency containing a population of more than 65,000 a Member for every complete 65,000. Secondly, I propose to enlarge every constituency containing less than 60,000 and bring it up to or over 65,000, but not over 100,000. The constituencies now represented by two Members, which cannot be enlarged up to 100,000, will lose one seat. The number of Members of the House (670) it is not proposed to increase. The Universities will retain their existing representation. A Boundary Commission is proposed to be appointed to work out the alterations required to effect the above purposes, their report to become law, unless and except so far as amended, or negatived, or otherwise determined by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and with the Royal Assent. Provisions are added for an automatic revision every fifth year, and there is a temporary provision to the effect that, until the above reform is carried out the Members for existing constituencies with more than 65,000 population shall have an additional vote in Parliament upon every question in respect of each complete 65,000 people over the first 65,000. I may summarise these provisions by saying that the Bill disfranchises nobody and no place. It

    1209
    equalises approximately by levelling up or levelling down, and it bases itself on population rather than on electorates—no question into which suffragists need come. They are left outside the temporary provisions until rectification has been made. I beg to move.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Kimber, Sir John Bethell, Earl of Ronaldshay, Mr. Nield, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Newman, Earl Winterton, Mr. Malcolm, Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Mallaby-Deeley, and Mr. George Faber. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

    PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. CASSEL: I desire to claim your ruling whether one of the provisions of the Bill is not outside the scope of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded. The particular provision to which I desire to call your attention is Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Bill. You may remember there were three heads of the Resolution, (a), (b), (c), which the House agreed to. (a) and (b) are embodied almost verbatim, with limitations in Clause 1 of the Bill. (c) is embodied almost verbatim with limitations in Sub-section (1). Section 2 of the Bill and Sub-section (2) is a sort of excrescence altogether outside the Resolution, to which no reference whatever was made in the speech of any Minister. It was not explained to the House in any sort of way, and yet it has a very wide and far-reaching effect altogether outside the scope of the Resolution. It provides that Section 95 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect with respect to any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year, with the substitution of a reference to that Finance Act for any reference to that Section to "this Act." It is a very long and complicated Section. The one thing which alone is sufficient to put it outside this Resolution is that it makes the Finance Act of this year retrospective at whatever date that Act may be
    1210
    passed or by whatever Government it may be passed. It would give prospectively retrospective effect to any duty whatever, whether permanent or temporary, which might be in that Bill, absolutely irrespective of the date on which that Finance Act was passed and also irrespective even of the Government by which it was passed. There are many other points in Section 95, which are also outside the scope of the Resolution, but that one is sufficient for my purpose. I desire to call your attention to two rulings. One was given in 1894, when the point was raised as to whether Section 15 of the Finance Act of that year was not outside the scope of the Resolution, and Mr. Speaker said this:—
    "It is important that the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means should cover exactly all the provisions of the Bill subsequently introduced, and the hon. Gentleman has done right in referring to the importance of the matter, and also, I think, in drawing attention to that particular Clause, Clause 15. In my opinion the original Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means upon which this Bill is founded did not contemplate the extra imposition of duty which may be involved by the operation of Clause 15. Under these circumstances it will be necessary not to withdraw the whole Bill, as the hon. Member seems to contemplate, but before we come to the Clause to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and adopt a new Resolution which will cover the particular Clause. Bat as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of withdrawing the whole Bill, I may say that in 1881, in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill of that year there were two Clauses which were not covered by the original Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means … and the consequence was that before considering those two Clauses the House went again into Committee of Ways and Means and passed two subsequent Resolutions covering those Clauses."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion said:—
    "I have to thank you, Sir, for the clear explanation you have given to the House on this point. The hon. Member was perfectly right in calling attention to what was certainly an oversight."
    There was one other ruling, in 1901, when the Chairman of Committees ruled that it was impossible to make the provisions in a Bill retrospective when the Resolution itself did not do so; that is to say, that it was impossible to ante-date the effect of the Resolution. The proposal in this Sub-section would have the effect of making legal any anticipatory collection of a duty whatever might be its nature, no matter at what date the Finance Bill of the year was passed. With reference to the provisions of the Act, it seems to have the same effect whenever the Bill may have been passed. I do not propose to question the effect of that, but there is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. Any Resolution on which this particular Sub-section should be founded ought to have been passed in Committee of Ways and Means, as that

    1211
    is the Committee to which the Finance Bill of the year is referred, and if there is to be any provision dealing with the finance of the year it ought to be dealt with by that Committee. It would not be in accordance with the rules of the House to take, with regard to the Finance Bill which we are going to pass, as it were, anticipatorily, power to make any duty to be imposed by it already retrospective. It would not be possible for the House really to consider, without knowing what those duties were, whether or not it should make them retrospective. I think it is stated in "May" that the rule to refer these matters to the Committee of Ways and Means is not without exception, but those exceptions date back sixty or a hundred years. It may be this is a matter to be dealt with when the particular Sub-section is reached, but I thought it right to draw your attention now to the course pursued in 1894 with the approval of Mr. Speaker on that occasion.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As the House will gather, this is a very complicated point, and I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that at first sight it is very difficult to grasp the whole meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (2), of the Bill. I do not profess to understand how far it would carry the House, but I look upon it in the nature of machinery which is designed to carry out the general provisions of this Bill. It is not correct to say that every provision in a Bill must necessarily receive the sanction of a Resolution in Committee, otherwise the Bill would simply be a verbatim reproduction of the Resolution passed in Committee. That is not necessary. There was one sentence quoted by the hon. and learned Member from the decision of my predecessor in 1894 which might lead one to take that view, but that inference cannot properly be drawn. The object of a Resolution in Committee is simply to deal with that part of a Bill which is of a charging nature. In the Finance Bill itself there are many provisions which are not covered by a special Resolution in Committee. I look upon Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 as being part of the machinery which is necessary for carrying out the general provisions of the Bill. Therefore no special Resolution is required for that purpose. With regard to the precedent of 1894, which the hon. and learned Member quoted, I think that on looking at it carefully he will see that that particular part of the Bill was out of order, because
    1212
    the Clause to which exception was taken was a Clause which imposed a charge upon the people. I have listened to what the hon. and learned Member said, but I have not had time to take in entirely the precedents. With regard to antedating, it appears to me that that is a matter of machinery for the collection of the duties that may be imposed, and it is not necessary that this Clause itself should impose any duty. The duties would have to be imposed by the Finance Bill when it is introduced. The hon. and learned Member will be entitled, if he likes, to renew the point when the Chairman of Ways and Means is in the Chair, and to see if he has any better luck with him.
    Mr. CASSEL: I fully accept your suggestion, Sir, that the point might more properly arise when the particular Sub-section is reached. May I submit that this is a charging Sub-section, and that it will, from the moment it is passed, make legal charges on the people which otherwise would not be legal, and will make legal by anticipation any charge which may subsequently be imposed. With reference to that, if you tell me that I shall be in order in raising the point in Committee without being in any way prejudiced by any decision, I shall be content to leave it there. If you tell me that you leave it as being absolutely free to be dealt with in Committee I will not press the point further now. I regret I was only able to give you short notice, but I only received a copy of the Bill myself this morning.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member shall not be prejudiced in regard to any representation he may make to the Chairman of Ways and Means by reason of what I have said just now. I may point out that with regard to Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1910, there was no special Resolution in that case upon which that Section was founded. That Section was introduced into the Finance Bill without any special Resolution governing it. Therefore a fortiori as this is a Bill which is not a Finance Bill, it is hardly necessary to have a Resolution dealing with a Sub-section which embodies Section 95, which itself had no Resolution.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit that it is usual, I do not say universal, before a Finance or Revenue Bill is introduced, for an omnibus Resolution to be passed declaring that it is expedient to amend the law with regard to Customs, Inland Revenue, and the like. I suggest that

    1213
    such a Resolution would have covered machinery of this kind, but such a Resolution in this case has not been passed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That Resolution is introduced for the express purpose of enabling Members to propose reductions in taxation, and to propose their own Amendments, which otherwise they would not have been able to propose. If I remember aright, I have known a Finance Bill to be introduced without such a Resolution.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I suggest to you, Sir, that it is the practice for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, even when not wishing to make any alterations in the general law except those covered by his own specific Resolutions, to move that general Resolution for the purpose you have stated, namely, to give other Members of the House an opportunity of raising questions which otherwise they would be precluded from raising. I submit to you that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself proposes any alterations in the general law, not covered by his own Resolution, that Resolution is as necessary as a foundation for his action as for that of any private Member, and is always used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that purpose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In this case we are not discussing a Finance Bill. That is the first thing we should have clearly in our minds. This is more in the nature of a Revenue Bill, and during recent years we have had examples of such Bills being introduced in the same Session as a Finance Bill and dealing with a number of revenue topics which might possibly have been included in a Finance Bill. I look upon this Bill in the same light. As I said just now, the Sub-section to which exception is taken appears to be somewhat in the nature of machinery which enables the principle of the Bill to be applied. Therefore it would be in order.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
    I ought almost to apologise to the House for addressing it again on the subject of this Bill, in view of the arguments which were brought forward on the Resolutions. I think we may regard the arguments on those Resolutions as something
    1214
    in the nature of a preliminary skirmish. We have now got the Bill itself in black and white, and can see what alterations the Government propose to make in the constitutional practice which has for so many hundred years protected the subject against the taxing powers of the Crown. As everyone knows, this question has arisen owing to a decision in the recent case brought by Mr. Gibson Bowles. In order that the House should appreciate the position we are in and exactly what alterations the Government are proposing to make. I should like to read one sentence from the judgment of Mr. Justice Parker, now Lord Parker. At the commencement of his very important judgment, he asked himself the question what power a Resolution of the House of Commons had with regard to the imposition of Income Tax. That particular decision related to Income Tax only. This is the considered judgment of Lord Parker, laying down exactly what rights we have and what power a Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means has over the taxation of the subject. He said:—
    "By the Statute 1st William and Mary"—
    that is the Statute known as the Bill of Rights—
    "it was s finally settled that there could be no taxation in this country except under the operation of an Act of Parliament. The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and no practice or custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can be relied upon by the Crown as justifying any infringement of those privileges."
    That is the position we are in to-day. It has been declared by the Courts of Law, and the Attorney-General has admitted that the decision was right, that that is the position to-day. The Bill of Rights remains part of the Statute law of our land, and whatever Resolutions we pass in Committee of Ways and Means we cannot, without going through all the formulæ adopted by our ancestors for the protection of the subject, impose any taxation upon him. The argument has been brought forward that the public has for a great many years acquiesced in this method of carrying on the taxation of the country. That is perfectly true; but no acquiescence on the part of any individual can possibly be claimed as acquiescence on the part of the whole people. Anybody may acquiesce in an illegal tax being placed upon himself, but that cannot prevent any other person contesting the legality of the tax. I think the reason why Mr. Gibson Bowles brought his action was chiefly to call attention to the practice the Government has adopted during the

    1215
    last few years of postponing its financial legislation until a much later part of the Session. In the old days the Finance Bill was brought in immediately after the Budget. Sometimes it was a few days, and sometimes a few weeks, during which there was illegal collection of the taxes. If I may say so without offence, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who is very largely responsible for the position in which he finds himself, through the habit of letting his Budget run for so many months. I desire to deal with the constitutional aspect of the matter. I want to emphasise it even at this stage, after we have debated it twice, because I do not want the House of Commons, which is in its essence a different body from the Committee of Ways and Means, to pass the Second Reading of this Bill—which gives up powers which in all probability will never be got back again to the control of the Executive in the matter of finance, and simply hands everything over for a period of four months to them by a mere Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means—without realising what it is doing. There has never been before in the history of England a possibility of imposing taxation by a mere Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means. For the first time that is to be done under the provisions of this Bill.
    If there is one thing we are sent here to do, it is to protect the rights of the subject. If we are going to throw away those rights and give up all those safeguards, at least let us do it with our eyes open, realising that what is being done under the provisions of this Bill by one Government may be carried a step further under the provisions of a somewhat similar Bill by another Government. It has taken a good many hundred years for any Government to have the audacity to come down and propose the abrogation of our financial procedure. I admit that some of our financial procedure has been cumbersome and that it might be altered or modified in certain particulars, but that is no justification for any Government coming down and proposing to sweep the whole thing away so far as four important months of the year are concerned, and saying that whatever the Committee of Ways and Means chooses to do with regard to Income Tax, Customs and Excise shall have statutory force as if it were an Act of Parliament. There is a great difference between passing a simple Resolution
    1216
    in Committee of Ways and Means and passing a subsequent Bill through all its stages in this House. You may—I say this without desiring to give offence—get a coalition majority to pass a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, but you may find it much more difficult to keep that same coalition together week after week and month after month while you go through all the stages of the Bill. It is no secret that the Budget of 1909 was a compromise between the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Irish party. I think it was frankly admitted that the Irish party did not want the Budget of 1909, or many of its provisions, so they held up the right hon. Gentleman and would not pass his Finance Bill until certain other arrangements had been made with regard to Home Rule, with which I will not trouble the House at this moment. I want the House to realise how very much easier it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to come to terms with any particular section of his followers in order to pass a single Finance Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means than to keep those terms going and the coalition in existence while the Finance Bill was passed through all its stages from Committee to Third Reading. That is a point that the House must clearly realise. Then, having extended this particular form of procedure to finance, there seems to be no reason at all why some future Government should not bring in a Bill and extend the same procedure to other matters of legislation. It is just as reasonable to say that, having established the fact in this House that taxation may be imposed upon the subject by a mere Resolution for four months, there is no reason why you should not pass another Bill and say any legislative proposal should be passed and have statutory effect for four months, and, if four months, why not for eight or sixteen, or a limited period—by a mere Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means or the House of Commons itself? I ask the House to hesitate before passing this new system of legislation. When we were dealing with the Resolution various suggestions were made by Ministers, and the Home Secretary seemed to think we were making too much of the Resolution. He said:—
    "The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that this Resolution of itself is operative and effective. It is the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded."
    Now we have the Bill itself. It is in its essential details exactly the same as the Resolution upon which it is founded. The

    1217
    Home Secretary went on to make a most extraordinary statement:—
    "The question is treated by the hon. and learned Member as if the Bill was really going to impose taxation by a Resolution of this House. It will do no such thing. It will authorise the collection of taxation as if it had been imposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1913, col. 1041.]
    I want the House to look at the Bill in the light of the speech of the Home Secretary. The Bill says that where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons providing for the imposition of a new tax, or for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal of an old tax, such Resolution shall, for a limited period, have statutory effect as if it had been contained in an Act of Parliament. What does the Home Secretary mean by saying the Bill we are now discussing does not authorise the imposition of taxation by a mere Resolution? That is exactly what it does authorise. I cannot understand how the Home Secretary can possibly have made that suggestion in answer to us yesterday afternoon, when I think it is fair to assume that he knew what the conditions and contents of the Bill would be, and while we on this side of the House certainly did not know. Then the right hon. Gentleman made great play with the suggestion I made that a tax passed by this mere Resolution should not be operative until it had at least been reported to the House. I thought it right that the House itself, even if we are to give this power by mere Resolution of imposing a tax, should take some part in that proceeding and the Committee of Ways and Means should report to us and give us at least an opportunity of saying whether we desired that tax to he passed or not. He said, "You cannot do that, because, if you do, you will have all kinds of stocks taken out of bond, competitors will have to compete with them, and so forth," but that has nothing to do with new taxes at all. New taxes at all events do not refer to articles which are in bond. You may impose a new tax to-day, say, on the import of foreign watches. The right hon. Gentleman's argument with regard to goods coming out of bond is not effective at all, because there are no such things in bond at present. I quite agree it would refer to an alteration of the existing taxes on whisky or tea or anything of that kind, but I think there the matter might be reported to the House on the following day. At least we have felt on previous occasions that we could let these Resolutions go through because we knew they would come before the House on
    1218
    Report, and on the Finance Bill. It would be quite possible that even on existing articles there would be no question of taking cut of bond if we passed our Resolution late one evening and passed on Report stage the same Resolution the next day, making it retrospective. I do not think very much would get out of bond under those circumstances.
    We know now that there is to be a Report stage, and if on Report stage, which may be any time before the expiration of four months front the date of the Resolution, the tax is rejected, or if it is rejected on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, or if there is a prorogation or a dissolution, the Resolution is to have no effect at all. In a very light and airy way Ministers tell us that anyone who has paid these taxes can get them back again, but there is very considerable difficulty, and the difficulty applies mostly to poor people and to small articles of consumption. The big importer might get his tax back again from the Treasury, but the man to whom he has sold will not get very much of it back, and the retailer will not get much back from the wholesaler, and certainly the consumer, the man who has drunk the whisky or the tea, will never get his proportion of the tax back again.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Then the consumer pays the tax.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It will be out of order to turn this into a Tariff Reform discussion, but I will grant that the consumer undoubtedly pays the tax on tea. Then I want the House to understand a little further where they are going. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) told us the other day that he would not think of passing a Tariff Reform Budget under the provisions of this Bill. He speaks, of course, with great experience of the difficulty there would be of passing a Budget, but after we have gone there may be other Chancellors of the Exchequer who will make as big a leap as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made from past procedure, because this is a very much bigger leap than it would be, having got the Bill into working order, to pass a complicated Resolution with a Schedule imposing new taxes on a vast number of manufactured articles. The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is desirable to get your legislation through as quickly as possible in matters of taxation. Assuming it is desirable to have your tax clapped on immediately the

    1219
    Resolution is passed, it would be perfectly possible, and I think right, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "In addition to my tea and my whisky taxes, and so forth, I am going to put a Customs Duty of 10 per cent. on manufactured articles in the Schedule of this Resolution." It would be one Resolution, it would be perfectly simple to pass it, and you would get the very thick end of the Tariff Reform wedge passed through the Committee of Ways and Means, and it would have statutory effect under the provisions of your own Bill for at least four months. Look at the confusion! Supposing it were passed by a narrow majority in this House—supposing the Free Traders on the other side of the House set the whole country in a blaze of agitation against this particular Resolution imposing these taxes on manufactured articles. Supposing meetings were held, and a very strong demonstration was got up against the tax, and ultimately, at the end of three and a half months, the House rejected the particular Resolution on Report, what is to become of your taxation? You have imposed it; you have made it statutory for three and a half months; you have been collecting the taxes on these articles for that time; they have been sold to small dealers and consumers. What a condition of confusion you would have got into and how harshly you would have treated the consumer, who is really the person for whose care we in this House are actually elected! This Bill is constitutionally an outrage on the constitutional practice which has been ours for so many centuries. I know the difficulty, and I am quite prepared to admit it, but I think it should be overcome, and might be overcome, without going to such an extreme step as making a simple Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means have statutory effect.
    I want to refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and to protest against it as one more instance of legislation by reference. This is a Taxing Act, which affects the subject, and which everyone who runs ought to be able to read. Just read this Sub-section:—
    "Section 95 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have the effect with respect to any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year, with the substitution of a reference to that Finance Act, for any reference in that Section to 'this Act.'"
    1220
    You, Sir, of course, are much more learned than I am in Acts of Parliament. Section 95 consists of five long and complicated Sub-sections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a lawyer and may understand his own Acts, but it is difficult for me, as a lawyer, to interpret them in another place, and no member of the public, none of the ordinary subjects of His Majesty, could understand an Act of Parliament containing a Clause like this referring to an Act containing a Section like Section 95 of the Act of 1910. I have protested before against legislation by reference, and I protest finally against this. This is a short Bill. Section 95 might have been altered and reintroduced in this Bill. There was no dispute about it in 1910. It is a mere machinery Section, and might and should have been introduced, and I hope even now the Attorney-General will consent to take out this Sub-section, and reintroduce Section 95 into this Bill. For these reasons, but more especially because of the grave breach of our constitutional usage and practice, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment. I desire, in the first place, to express my regret that we are compelled to deal with this very complicated Bill at such very short notice. We only received it this morning, and I have been unable, though I have spent an hour or two at it this morning, to fully master its provisions. I quite agree the matter is an urgent one, but for months, ever since 4th November, I have been trying to press the Government to do something, and we ought not to have to suffer in not being able to discuss this Bill properly because the Government were too negligent to do anything at the proper time. It is a matter of the gravest constitutional importance that we should rush into it in a hurry without properly considering its Clauses and provisions, which may lead us into passing a Bill the effect of which we do not fully apprehend, and which may be very far from what we really wish to do. At first I was inclined to think there was very much more in the Bill than I think now after consideration of the Resolution, but the discussion on the Resolution has convinced me that this method of dealing with it is at least so open to doubt that I am not sure that the qualified assent which I was prepared to give to the provisions of the Resolution in

    1221
    the first instance was justified. In the first place, it appears to me that the Government have made absolutely no defence of their policy. They had a day and a half on the Resolution, and it was pointed out to them that no country in the world had similar provisions. There was only one case cited by the Attorney-General, and that was the Isle of Man. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to-day whether he can cite any other precedent than that of the Isle of Man. That was an Imperial Act applying to the Customs of the Isle of Man. In the whole history of Financial Resolutions the Government have hitherto cited no other precedent. I have still an open mind on this matter, and it would be interesting if the Government could cite any other precedent. In our country during the time we had a protective tariff we had not this practice.
    Let me point out that, if the Government really are justified in going on with this Bill in the form in which it stands, I cannot understand what they were about when dealing with the Government of Ireland Bill. I do not think attention has yet been called to Section 15 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which provides that the Irish Parliament is to have certain powers of taxation. When the Bill was under discussion we were told that the great financial stand-by for the Irish Parliament was the power to increase the duties on beer and spirits. With regard to that they have unlimited power of increasing the duties. Now, under this Bill, which is incapable of coming under the Parliament Act, it will be impossible for the Irish Parliament to do so, because in order to impose a duty it must be done by the Irish Parliament, and it would be incompetent for the Irish Parliament to pass any legislation of this description, or to do it by Resolution. In the case of the Irish Parliament, supposing you take the duties on spirits or beer, the same difficulty which is said to be insuperable here would be equally insuperable there. You might say that before the Irish Parliament had passed its Act the whole of the revenue expected for the year might have been forestalled. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation, if they think this is so inevitable in the case of Great Britain, why it is not equally necessary for these additional duties, upon which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to rely for any additional source of revenue. That is one of the matters which weighed with me since the Resolution was brought
    1222
    forward. It seems to me that it raises a wide constitutional question for the whole Empire, for although there have been two decisions in Colonial Courts before the case of Mr. Gibson Bowles, those decisions must be taken as overruled, or as decisions which would not be followed by the Privy Court if that Court came to deal with the matter now. The question is whether Canada, Australia, or South Africa could without an Imperial Act pass an Act of this description or legalise or sanction such a practice.
    As to the provisions of the Bill itself, I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having embodied in the Bill a good many of the Amendments which he said he was going to embody in it, although he was not going to embody them in the Resolution. If I expressed myself somewhat warmly on that subject, perhaps he will attribute it to my study of his orations while in Opposition. Although he has gone a certain length in meeting those points, I must say with regard to the Income Tax that I do not think the argument has yet been answered that there is no necessity for taking such a course as is now proposed. I pointed that out before, and no attempt has been made to meet the point. The whole thing could be done by making the Income Tax year run from 5th July to 5th July. In 1842, when the Income Tax was originally imposed, the financial year ended on 5th January. The financial year now ends on 31st March. The Attorney-General did attempt to make an answer to that. He told us that the financial year for Income Tax was so impenetrably embedded in our financial system that, according to his view, we are bound to go with it to the crack of doom. I think that the resources of civilisation are not exhausted, and that it would be possible to alter the date. It might give a little trouble to officials. It might be that for a year it would put your statistics out of joint, and it might be that you would have to deal with a period of fifteen months instead of twelve months. I have not the knowledge which is possessed by the officials, but the Government in these matters, while considering the convenience of officials and the convenience of Members of this House, so far as their holidays are concerned, leave out of consideration altogether the convenience of the public. I say that we ought not to regard these matters as

    1223
    superior to and over and above the convenience of the public.
    It is a very real inconvenience to the commercial community that this uncertainty should exist. Even under the terms of the Bill bankers and all those who deduct Income Tax from interest will be bound to keep a list, because if your Resolution ultimately fails through its statutory effect coming to an end, the bankers will be bound to repay everything they have deducted. They expose themselves to an action by every individual from whom they have deducted 6d. if there should be a dissolution after the date of the passing of the Resolution, and before the tax is legalised by Statute. Supposing you increase the Income Tax by a Resolution, and then in the Act that increase is not legalised, bankers and the whole commercial community, everybody who has deducted Income Tax from salaries, and every mortgagor who has deducted Income Tax from the interest, will have to refund the money. It is conceivable that a dissolution or a prorogation of Parliament might take place—it is highly within the bounds of probability—after the date of the passing of the Resolution and before an Act has been passed giving real effect to the Resolution. In that case the whole commercial community will have been wrongfully charged these taxes. I put it to the Government that it would have been a more statesmanlike way and more conconant with the principles of the Constitution, from the Bill of Rights onwards, if they had altered the Income Tax year, or if they had adopted some other expedient. Before I commit myself to any particular expedient I should like to have an opportunity of consulting the officials as to whether some other expedient which would not have led to such inconvenience to the whole commercial community could have been adopted on the present occasion.
    5.0 P.M.
    I quite agree that, so far as the temporary difficulty is concerned, something must be done, because the Government was so negligent as to do nothing at an earlier date. In spite of all the endeavours I made by asking question after question, and moving the Adjournment of the House, and in spite of the fact that we had time to discuss whether we should have a billiard table or a bagatelle table in the House, there was no time to discuss this important matter before 5th
    1224
    April. With regard to Customs, I am bound to say that until I studied the matter more fully I thought something of this kind would have to be done. I am not sure now that that view is right. I am very much impressed with the fact that the Ministry has been unable to cite any case other than that of the Isle of Man. I am impressed also with the fact that they themselves as regards Ireland have not provided for the case at all. I am impressed with the fact that in the case of our own Colonies such procedure would be constitutionally impossible without an Imperial Act of Parliament. I am further impressed with the fact that some procedure could have been adopted whereby goods could have been taken out of bond, subject to security being given that the duty would be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act. I believe it was long the practice, when duties were reduced, to at once allow goods out at the reduced rate, but then security was always taken that, if the Act did not allow the reduction, the higher rate would have to be paid. I do not know exactly under what Act of Parliament that was done, but that practice apparently did not lead to any loss of revenue. I wish to get a little more information so far as Customs are concerned. I have an open mind on the question, and my only complaint is that the Government decline to deal with our arguments. For a day and a half we have been endeavouring to get them to answer these points. I should really like to know whether some other expedient could not have been adopted. My hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has pointed out that there is great advantage in collecting duties before the Act of Parliament is passed. In the case of Customs and Excise you can do that, and in the case of the Income Tax in the majority of cases you can do it. By passing this Bill, under which a tax may be collected on the authority of a mere Resolution produced for the first time, and which is not fully appreciated by all the Members of the House, you may be doing a grievous wrong to a large number of persons. And you have got to weigh that in the balance against the convenience of the revenue. The convenience of the revenue has to be considered I quite agree. On the other hand, the interests of the public have also to be considered. The Government have not placed before us the opportunity for dealing with the question in a satisfactory way.

    1225
    This Bill goes much further than the Committee of Ways and Means into the details of our Parliamentary procedure; it introduces the words "when considered on Report." We have here stereotyped in an Act of Parliament the whole of that procedure, and in Committee we shall have to introduce a lot of modification of that. We shall have to be certain that the Report stage is taken within reasonable time, and there will have to be a number of detailed provisions which bring in the whole procedure of this House. The period of four months mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 1, is too long. During all the periods in which this Resolution will have a statutory effect people will have to keep a record, and will be subject to the possible risk of action. It is not only for four months, but for four months after the Resolution is "expressed to take effect." You might have a Resolution expressed to take effect three months hence, and then having statutory effect for four months afterwards, so that the uncertainty might last a long time. The Finance Act of the year might in accordance with the recent practice of the Government be again postponed until November or December. That requires considerable narrowing down and limitation. With regard to the one month to which the right hon. Gentleman said he would agree, though I was willing to accept one month in the Resolution instead of two months, it appears to be too long a time for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman put it on this that Easter might be late and that we might want fourteen days' holiday. There, again, if the House chose to take the trouble to do it, it could always within fourteen days of the expiration of the Income Tax year, before 19th April, introduce the Budget; and the public have all the more right to look to us to sacrifice our convenience since we are in the enjoyment of salaries. It is important in a commercial community that the Budget should be introduced at the earliest possible moment, and on that ground I submit that the period should be shortened.
    Sub-section (2) of this Clause seems to me to be an altogether outrageous provision in its present form. It goes to this length, that we are now to say already by anticipation any duties whatsoever which the Finance Act which will be introduced at a future day may impose may be collected before that Act becomes law, however distant the date may be when the Act receives the Royal Assent. It leaves
    1226
    the right hon. Gentleman open to pursue his practice of getting his Finance Bill in December or November. It does not limit at all the character of the duties to which this is to apply. Of course I accept Mr. Speaker's ruling that this question cannot be raised now until that Section comes up in Committee, as to whether it is within the Resolution, but it seems to me to be very far-reaching to say prospectively that every duty, whether permanent or temporary, which may be imposed by the Budget of this year, and whatever may be the date when that Budget is passed into an Act of Parliament, shall have a retrospective effect as from the date when this is passed. If a Clause of the kind was intended to be put into the Bill the right hon. Gentleman might have given us some information. I do not in the least understand what the words "any previous year" mean. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation. In matters of finance, at least since I have been in the House in 1911, the Government have shown an unparalleled negligence which has got us into this constitutional tangle. The negligence of the Government in getting us into this tangle is only equalled by the want of resource and incompetency which they have shown in their endeavours to get us out of it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Although as a rule I have been a somewhat unsparing critic of the finances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I feel bound to say on this occasion that I think sufficient allowance has not been made for his difficulties, nor do I think his difficulties have been created by any Act either of himself or the Government. I therefore feel bound to express the opinion that the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, was the proper and constitutional line. While saying that I wish strongly to criticise the frame in which the Bill has been shaped for which I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the least degree responsible. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take any remarks that I may make as in any sense a criticism upon him. I desire to guard myself entirely in that direction, but I do submit that the Bill as it is framed is one of the most curious developments in the history of legislation, and that the frame of the Bill deserves to be entirely altered. What was the position? The Chancellor of the Exchequer found that a practice which

    1227
    had gone on for nearly a century had been attacked, and, as everyone knew, the moment it was attacked that practice was bound to be condemned by the Court. That was A B C law to everybody for the last seventy or eighty years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for that state of the law nor for that state of practice. He found it as his predecessors found it, and he did nothing since to incur or deserve the censure of this House. Then he had to apply a remedy. He had to bring in a Bill. If I were asked how this Bill should be dealt with I should deal with it in the way in which the difficulty has arisen. I should provide that if an action were brought in respect of any tax enforced by reason of any decision of the House of Commons, the certificate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such tax had been imposed by reason of the Resolution of this House should be an answer to the action. I would stop there, and I think that that would absolutely have provided a remedy for the difficulty that has arisen.
    This Bill, to my mind—I am only criticising the drafting of the Bill and taking what I think is the historic view of the case—outrages Parliament in this way, that it takes the temporary procedure of this House and stereotypes the form of legislation while we have the power of altering our Standing Orders. Whoever drafted this Bill never dreamt for a moment that it would ever come before a Court for construction. He thought that what he was doing was saying to the public, "The moment we legalise this nobody will ever come into Court or challenge a tax in any Court"; and nobody who drew this Bill ever dreamt that a writ would be issued after it passed into law. But suppose for a moment that anybody challenged a tax after this Bill becomes law, a more deplorable muddle could not be conceived than the state of things that would come to pass if this Bill was challenged as an Act by means of a writ, and if Mr. Bowles attacks the Government a second time. If a judge had to consider the case the pleading would be that a Resolution in the House of Commons had passed. The judge would say, "What is the Resolution?" He would say, "Was it a Resolution of a Committee?" and then he would say, "What is a Resolution of a Committee of Ways and Means? Prove all that before me."
    1228
    That would have to be a matter of proof. Then the judge would say, "I dare say I can get some light on the matter by turning to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons," and he would look up in the index the words "Ways and Means"—because a judge is bound to be tender to the subject when a tax is imposed, and naturally he would want to see how this tax was laid on the subject. Turning to the index, he would see "Ways and Means: See Chairman of Ways and Means." That is the only clue which the Standing Orders of Parliament would give to the judge in construing this Act. Then he turns to "Chairman of Ways and Means." Remember you are dealing with one of the matters relating to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Standing Order 79 says that the Chairman of the Committee or Mr. Speaker's counsel shall confer with the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Lords; Standing Order 80 says that the Chairman of the Committee, with the assistance of the counsel of Mr. Speaker, shall examine all private Bills; Standing Order 81 says that the Chairman shall report on Bills relating to Government contracts; and so on down and along the whole of these Standing Orders, and there is not a single clue which a judge could find as to what was a Resolution imposing a tax on the subject in Committee of Ways and Means. The judge would say, "Well, this a term of art, and as a term of art it is absolutely novel." He would then derive assistance, I dare say, from some amicus curiœ, who would say, "Perhaps you will find the clue if you grope through the Standing Orders in relation to Money Bills." The extraordinary thing is this, that when you come to deal with this Section from the point of view of laying a tax on the subject, the words "Ways and Means" are not used at all in the Standing Orders of this House. Let me call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Standing Orders, because this Bill is attempting to import the language of the Standing Orders into the language of a Statute, and it should use the language of the Standing Orders. What is the language of Standing Order 66? It is this:—
    "This House will receive no Petition for any sum relating to public service, or proceed upon any Motion for a Grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to he provided by Parliament, unless recommended from the Crown."
    The first thing any judge would insist upon would be that you should prove to the

    1229
    tribunal that there was a recommendation from the Crown for this tax. Standing Order 67 says:—
    "This House will not proceed upon any Petition, Motion, or Bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, but in a Committee of the whole House."
    The words "Ways and Means" are not mentioned at all. The words used are "Committee of the Whole House." Take the next Standing Order, "Restrictions on receipt of Petitions relating to public money." That also speaks of Committee of the Whole House; and Standing Order 69 deals with the procedure on Address to the Crown for the issue of public money. In the latter Standing Order also the words used are "Committee of the Whole House." These Standing Orders never use the phrase "Ways and Means." It is the same in regard to India—
    "This House will not receive any Petition, or proceed upon any Motion for a charge upon the revenues of India, but what is recommended by the Crown."
    There it is, "Committee of the Whole House" again. All through the Standing Orders dealing with public money, from No. 66 to 71, the Committee of Ways and Means is not once mentioned. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the House—I think it was the year before he was elected—when Mr. Gladstone laid down that you could take your whole Budget with the Speaker in the Chair. We did not challenge it, but what happened was this: Mr. Arthur O'Connor had put down a Motion against the Speaker leaving the Chair, and he proposed to raise a question of grievance before the Speaker left the Chair on Budget night. It was a case of great importance, and it occurred at a time when we were fighting upon very many matters. Mr. Arthur O'Connor had acted on his own initiative, and we put pressure upon him, in view of Mr. Gladstone's great position and great age, not to take the course which he proposed to follow. Mr. Gladstone thanked the Irish party, and he said that if they had proceeded in keeping up obstruction he was prepared to make his Budget statement, not in Committee of Ways and Means at all, but with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. I never looked to see how far that view was correct, but I was convinced when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was not wedded to those particular words that when we got the Bill the Bill would not contain them. I do not think that the Bill should contain those words, and I think they are a very grave mistake.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The words "Committee of Ways and Means"?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes. What is worse is, a worse thing, you import into this Bill, not merely the phrase, "Committee of Ways and Means," but you bring in the practice of the House, which we could abolish to-morrow morning by a majority vote. I therefore say that you have brought in a Bill which might land you in a procedure far more complicated than the recent case. An absolutely unnecessary course has been taken, and a simpler course I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman would absolutely suit his purpose. I know very well that as an old Member of this House he is attached to its rules and formulæ, and, therefore, I am quite sure that he is only acting on the advice of the draftsman, without having considered the matter in all its bearings from the Parliamentary point of view, in stereotyping by Statute the forms of this House, which have only been adopted by us within the last comparatively few years. I am dealing with the case of Money Resolutions and with the Standing Orders, and I say that you do not find in the Standing Orders this expression, "Ways and Means," which the right hon. Gentleman is using in this Bill. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Standing Orders may be changed from one hour to another, and that he should not import them into this Bill and make them statutory. Some easier and simpler remedy should be found for what is undoubtedly the difficulty that he has to face—some simple remedy whereby a certificate could be given by him to a litigous person who brings a case into the Court for merely acting on a Resolution of this House—a practice which has been adopted for many years past. I do not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the least degree to blame, because he has only done what his predecessors have done, but I would respectfully ask him that he should pass such a Bill as will not make encroachments upon the forms and usages of this House and stereotype them as permanent, when really they are nothing but for our convenience and for use among ourselves.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I should like to say a few words on what has been said by the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. Nothing can be worse than to use under statutory conditions phrases which are merely applicable to the forms

    1231
    and Orders of this House, because the result of that is that, when you have once got terms of this kind embodied in a Statute, we are really prevented in this House from dealing with the forms and Orders in any way we think best. There was another case in which the duty was ultimately levied in such a form that so far as concerned the forms and orders of this House we were to have an absolutely free hand, and they were not to be stereotyped by Statute at all. If you once stereotype your procedure you cannot alter it except by Statute, and that, I think, would be a great mistake as regards the forms of this House. I want to speak to-night only in regard to the remedy proposed; I said what I had to say on the constitutional point on another occasion. Let me call attention to this matter as bearing upon the use of the phrase referred to. In the Customs Act of 1876, you had to deal with what is called "the Resolution of this House." This term was in Section 18 of the Act of 1876, and if you used now an expression similar to that which appears in Section 18, of the Act of 1876, the difficulty which is felt would not arise. I want to know why the phraseology which was used in Section 18 of the Customs Act of 1876, has been departed from. The terms there have been used for the very same purpose as that for which we are endeavouring to find some solution of the present difficulty. I want on that to urge two points upon the Solicitor-General. The first is that the solution of the difficulty proposed in this Bill is not only highly unconstitutional but highly inconvenient to the subject. Secondly, having regard to what was put in the Act of 1876, and having regard to the fact that we are dealing with the Income Tax, I suggest that the proper remedy is not that which we have in the terms of this Bill, and that, therefore, this Bill ought to be rejected and a proper remedy should be introduced.
    On the first point, what can be more inconvenient than the proposals contained in this Bill? There is a period of time in which the liability of the subject remains in suspense; he may not be liable to pay a certain tax or particular duty. A Resolution has been passed, and while that Resolution is in force, and has not been upset by any subsequent procedure of this House, he will be liable. After a period, perhaps two or three months the liability imposed in the first instance no longer
    1232
    affects him; so that as regards everything in this country, as regards taxes, Customs, and duties, you are in this position of uncertainty which is admittedly most inconvenient to traders, to bankers, and to the ordinary subject. You may be held liable for the time being to pay a sum of money in the form of a tax or duty, or Customs charge, but after a period of three or four months—in my opinion much too long a time—you may find that you are no longer liable to pay at all, and that those taxes, duties, and Customs charges were only temporary, and were not to become permanent at all. I suggest that that is a most inconvenient position. It is said that the subject who has been put in that position can afterwards get repayment of recoupment from the Government. Is that really in substance a practical remedy at all? I am not now talking of who pays the tax in its ultimate incidence, but of the man who pays the actual amount, and who desires to obtain repayment or recoupment. Everyone's experience is that that is a costly, difficult matter, and there is no litigous business in which the subject proceeds which is more difficult to carry on without enormous expense than litigation against the Government or a Government Department. That is really no effective remedy at all, and, in my view, one of the essential wrongs of the Bill, so far as the subject is concerned, is that he has to pay money to the Government, which under the terms of this Bill he may not be liable ultimately for, and then it is put upon him to obtain repayment or recoupment. We do not find any particular methods mentioned, and I assume the method is by ordinary legal procedure, and I do not think you could put anything more unjust on the subject than to place upon him the trouble and inconvenience of obtaining repayment or recoupment under those circumstances. If that could be shown to be necessary, we would all agree to the argument that to necessity other considerations must give way, but I cannot see that there is any argument of necessity at all. It is from that point of view I desire to urge upon the Solicitor-General, with his knowledge of Finance Acts, whether all that is desirable could not be obtained, I do not say exactly under existing procedure, but by a modification.
    Let me take the question of duties and Customs. The present procedure under the Act of 1876 has not been referred to,

    1233
    and I do not think it has been really appreciated. The procedure is when a Resolution of this House has been passed imposing a new duty or varying or placing an additional duty on something on which an existing duty has to be paid. The position is one which does no hardship whatever to the subject, who has got to pay the tax. If there is a dispute as to what the tax may ultimately be, during the period of time between the Resolution and the passing of the confirming Act, the money is kept in suspense, in order that it may be properly dealt with when you finally come to the proper legal position between the parties. It is not handed over to the Treasury or the Government, in order that when the real duty is ascertained, and there is very elaborate machinery for ascertaining it, then the proper amount shall be charged as against the subject. A very slight modification of that procedure would meet the present situation. The case brought by Mr. Gibson Bowles was not with regard to Duties and Customs, but only with regard to Income Tax. Mr. Justice Parker, now Lord Parker, said that it by no means follows that the reasoning he applied to Income Tax was applicable to Customs and Duties because of what he found in the Act of 1876, particularly Section 18. A very slight modification as regards the existing provisions of Section 18 and subsequent Sections of the Act of 1876 would amply, conveniently, and fully deal with every inconvenience which heretofore has been suggested as regards this question of the collection of Customs and Duties. Why have we heard nothing about that? The reason is this—and this is where, I think, the seriousness of the Bill comes in—that it enables a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and unfortunately, I think, on either Front Bench, and therefore the House does not get support from either Front Bench, to get his Resolution early, say, in April, and not again to touch his Budget Finance until some time in August.
    What possibility is there really for fair discussion and a fair grasp of financial topics in this House under conditions of that kind? In the meantime the tax has been levied for a period of four months, and then the discussion arises in August. There is not a Member of this House, and I wish they would express their views, who is not perfectly well aware of the fact that under those circumstances financial control and discussion are nothing more than
    1234
    a mockery. Just consider that you may be asked in August, or possibly in September, to discuss in detail whether a tax is a proper tax or not, while it has been collected for four months! To suppose after that period that you can get any proper discussion in the House is merely blinding ourselves to what is the truth and pretending that we are going to maintain a control which, in truth and substance, it is impossible to maintain under conditions of that kind. In my view the question of Customs and duties could easily be met by the adaptation of the Act of 1876, but the difficulty has not arisen yet. I do not believe it ever will arise, having regard to the terms of the Act of 1876, but, at the outside, nothing more is wanted than certain amendments and adaptation of that Act in order to meet any possible action which it is suggested could follow upon the action taken by Mr. Gibson Bowles. That is only an assumption.
    May I say, in agreement with what was said by the last speaker, that you cannot talk about usage being the same as a statutory condition, because the very idea of usage is that it only holds so long as you utilise it reasonably, just exactly why it was set aside in the case of the Income Tax in Mr. Bowles' action. Once have a statutory provision that you can depend on the Resolution for four months, and under those circumstances usage is so transformed into a stereotyped condition that, in substance and in truth, it is entirely different from the old usage and from the conditions on which the old usage was based. As to the Income Tax, in my view, all this interference with constitutional privileges is wholly unnecessary. Suppose you have your Income Tax extended over a period of fifteen months to a later period in the year—and there is not the least reason why you should not do so—then, if you simply did that, your Income Tax would be collected, like all other taxes, under ordinary constitutional authority, and this innovation by mere Resolution giving power to tax the subject, which I look upon as a most serious innovation as regards the rights and privileges of this House and of the subject, would be wholly unnecessary. Why cannot that be done? There is not the least difficulty in it. In the old days you imposed Income Tax for two or three years, and it is not necessary for this purpose to make it run over more than about fifteen months, by which you would have everything you

    1235
    want. I know we have had extraordinary cases put, such as War Taxes, but those cases really are no test of what our ordinary procedure ought to be. When you have some great crisis of that kind you suspend all ordinary rules. We all come together and do what is necessary in order to provide money for a national crisis, but it is wrong to test our ordinary procedure by what may he wanted under exceptional conditions of that character. One word as to other points in the Bill. There is the question as to it being applicable to a Tariff Reform Budget. I should, personally, be very much opposed to a Tariff Reform Budget introduced, and made binding merely by Resolution, but if you are going to give power of this kind against this House to any Government, I do not see why a Government should not use that power, and I believe they will, and I think that many hon. Members opposite, who now vote for stopping the effective control of this House, will live to repent their action if they put this halter round their necks, when they find they have no opportunity of discussing some great financial change which may be introduced in some future Session.
    I desire to refer also to Clause 2, the purpose of which, I imagine, is to apply to Income Tax somewhat the same provisions as Section 18 of the Act of 1876 applied to Customs and duties. Clause 2 says that although there is no Resolution of this House or any statutory power to collect the Tax, yet, for a period of time after all statutory power has come to an end, you may still go on collecting. I want to know what is the meaning of a provision of that kind. If it is to deal with the same subject matter as Section 18 of the Act of 1876, then I appreciate it, but then if the procedure is to be approached from that point of view, it is inconsistent with the framework of this Bill. If, on the other hand, you are going to say, without any statutory authority at all or any authority of this House, you are going to tax the subject and make him pay taxes, then I say that is a proposition which cannot be supported, and I do not believe any Member of this House, apart from strong party spirit and feeling, would attempt to support it by any argument, and I have not heard it supported by any argument up to the present. I do not believe anyone could support it, if the House understood what is proposed in this part of the Bill. I am not going
    1236
    to deal with matters to which I referred yesterday, but I agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment. I think nothing could be worse than the unconstitutional aspect of this Bill, but, apart from that, when we come to the Bill itself, we know that it puts the remedy in a most inconvenient form possible, whereas, when we examine what is intended to be met, it ought to be met either in the way I have suggested or in the way suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, that not as regards the imposition of a tax, but as regards the collection of a tax, no action should be brought against the collector during the period of time when you want to safeguard the revenue. I shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. MILLS: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend in his opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. It seems to me that the Government have wantonly drawn up a very bad Bill—one which violates the constitutional forms of this House, and also inflicts a great deal of worry and trouble, and perhaps worse, upon the financial and commercial interests of the country. It is very difficult for a layman to understand the Bill in the short time that it has been in our hands, but, as far as I can gather, every banker who deducts Income Tax has necessarily to keep for a period of from four to seven months a complete list of the people for whom he has paid Income Tax and of the deductions that he has made. At any time during that period there may be a Dissolution or prorogation of Parliament, or the tax may be defeated or altered in the House of Commons. In that event, he will have to go to the trouble of notifying his customers, and they will have to try to get the money back from the Government. The Bill may also inflict a great deal of trouble on Government officials, who, after all, are ultimately responsible for repaying this money to the people from whom it has been exacted. I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the difficulty sought to be met by this Bill might have been dealt with far more easily in another way. Moreover, the Government have brought this difficulty on themselves. Everybody knows that the action of "Bowles versus the Bank of England" and the whole of the muddle consequent thereupon would never have occurred had

    1237
    it not been for the habit of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of postponing the financial business of the year to an altogether unseemly period of the Session.
    It may sound foolish to say so, but it is actions of that sort, perhaps far more than the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which tend to lower the credit and the prestige of the Government in financial circles. When the financial business of the country gets into the muddle indicated by this Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during all the months when he might have taken steps to avert it, prefers to go on with some purely political and unnecessary measures, financial people all the world over are apt to think that our finances are not being properly managed, and that tends to depreciate the high standing of our credit all over the world. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question which may seem a stupid one, but, not being a legal light, I should like an answer to it. Does this Bill legalise the deductions of Income Tax which have or will have been made this year between the passage of the Resolution two nights ago and the day upon which the Bill receives the Royal Assent? I can see nothing in the Bill on that point. If it does not, a very serious situation may arise. All banks and business institutions have a few cranks among their clients, and if there is an opportunity, some crank will certainly institute legal proceedings, and there will be no defence whatever for the bank. For these reasons, in addition to the constitutional grounds which have been fully gone into by other speakers, I desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I do not think that anyone will deny that this Bill creates a very great change in the taxing processes of this country. Now that we have the Bill in our hands, the objections which we foresaw when we were discussing the Resolution are even more marked than they were then. The speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) has effectually shown that this Bill goes far beyond the necessities of the case. I am not sure that Clause 2 (1), coupled with the fixing of a later date to which the Income Tax should run, would not have entirely met the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. So long as the collection of taxes in this way remained illegal, but a mere matter of usage during
    1238
    a certain period, there would always be a tendency on the part of the Government to put themselves in a legal position as soon as possible. But if you once legalise the practice by giving a Resolution statutory effect, you will tend to make the intervening period not only longer than is necessary, but habitually longer, and, instead of the Budget following closely on the Resolutions upon which it is founded, it will become the regular practice to allow something like four months to elapse between one process and the other. If that should be so, and if the Resolutions were brought in at the time of the year to which we are accustomed, it would mean that the Budget would be brought in somewhere about August, when Members were already fatigued by the weather customary at that time of the year, and the holidays were approaching, and consequently that the finance of the country would receive less and less the attention which it deserves. It has been steadily contended during the discussion on the Resolution that the object of this Bill was merely to facilitate the collection of taxes during a certain period. Nevertheless it remains a fact that the Bill provides for the imposition of new taxes. It is true that in a later Sub-section there is the limitation that those taxes shall only be Customs, Excise, and Income Tax. But the Bill still provides for the possibility of imposing by a Resoluton in Ways and Means new taxes, so long as they are included in one of those three classes. Any new Customs Duties, including a whole series, such as has been mentioned by other speakers, might be imposed by a mere Resolution.
    It seems to me that it would be quite possible, by a Resolution in Ways and Means, not only to impose new Customs Duties, but to differentiate between one part of the country and another. I cannot see anything in the Bill that would prevent the House from passing a Resolution by which Customs Duties were imposed upon one part of the United Kingdom and not upon another. That might—I do not say that it is likely to—have a serious bearing on the respective positions of the Governments of Great Britain and Ireland after an Irish Parliament has come into being. The Irish Parliament cannot claim to impose taxation by Resolution in the manner proposed by this Bill, and it is restricted in its field of taxation in respect of articles which this country already taxes. Is it not quite possible that, in

    1239
    the general scramble which a great many people foresee between the Chancellors of the Exchequer in Ireland and in this country, when the Irish Parliament suggests a tax, which it will have to carry through by the ordinary form of legislation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country will be sorely tempted to forestall that tax by means of a Resolution in Ways and Means, in order to sweep it into the Imperial Exchequer. Taxes imposed by Resolution are open to be upset in various ways. There is the possibility of a Dissolution or prorogation of Parliament; there is the possibility of the Resolution being disagreed to by the House on Report; and there is also the possibility that the Bill necessary to confirm the Resolution would not be passed within the prescribed period. It is necessary to emphasise what has been already said with regard to the difficulty of readjusting a tax which has been wrongfully collected for so long a period as four months. In many cases the money would not be refunded to the people who had originally paid it, and feelings of great uncertainty and injustice would certainly be created throughout the community. It seems to me that unless a very strong case can be made out, showing the necessity for such a drastic measure, the disadvantages entirely outweigh the advantages of the Bill.
    6.0 P.M.
    I suggest that Government might well consider whether Clause 2 (1), and an alteration of the date to which certain taxes could be collected, would not practically meet all the difficulties of the case. As regards Clause 2 (2), we have had absolutely no explanation whatever. I think we ought to have a clear exposition of that Sub-section, and especially of the words "or in previous years." It seems to me very uncertain whether they refer only to the years intervening between the Finance Act of 1910 and the present moment or whether they refer to all previous years. I am no lawyer, and perhaps it may be all right, but I cannot see at all clearly whether or not these words, "in previous years," really have a very wide scope. I trust, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will give us some further information upon that subject. The chief objection which I have to this proposal is, not the meeting, so far as necessary, of the definite difficulty which has arisen; I quite see that a diffi-
    1240
    culty has arisen, and that it must be met; but it does seem to me that this Bill goes very much further than necessary to meet that difficulty. I hope, if that is so, it may be cut down at a later stage, so that it should not impose undue difficulties and inconveniences upon the people of this country.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The hon. Member who has just spoken concluded his observations by conceding, perfectly fairly, that a difficulty undoubtedly existed and had to be met. Though I do not feel certain that that is the effect of all the speeches which have been made this afternoon, and which I have heard on this matter, I do submit that it is most essentially a true view of the situation. The question whether the proposals of this Bill are apt to meet that difficulty or whether, as the hon. Member who has just spoken thinks, they go further than needed for that purpose, is another question. Let me say, first, that whatever may be the effect of our proposals, the object of our proposals—it is for the House to judge whether the effect and the object correspond—the object of our proposals is certainly not to do that which the hon. Member referred to earlier in his remarks. He began by saying that this Bill would create a great change in the taxing processes of this country. If by "the taxing processes of this country" he means the way in which in times past in practice the taxes have been collected, the object of this Bill is not to affect or change that at all; on the contrary, it is to justify and perpetuate it.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: Collecting, not imposing.
    Sir J. SIMON: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I understood him to say that the effect of this Bill would be to create a great change in the taxing processes of this country. If he means that we wish to legalise a method which, according to a recent great judicial decision, is illegal, that is quite true. If he means that what will take place under this Bill is substantially different from what has in fact taken place hitherto, then I think he is wrong. Whatever may be the true effect of what we are proposing, our object at any rate is nothing more than to secure beyond doubt that the ordinary processes which have hitherto been followed should be beyond legal question, in order that we should not have undoubted

    1241
    inconvenience to the interests of the public revenue and good administration. What are in fact the processes which have in practice been followed hitherto? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire made reference to both direct and indirect taxes. Let us take them in turn. In order to take the instances which, of course, are most serious, let us take what are known as the temporary taxes, because they are obviously, capable of raising more difficulty than the taxes which when once introduced continue indefinitely. Take first an indirect tax like the Tea Duty. The Tea Duty, as we all know, runs from 1st July to 1st July. So at least we commonly say. As a matter of fact, the Tea Duty, if there is going to be any change in its amount runs, not from 1st July to 1st July, but from the morrow of the day of the Budget statement to the 1st July of the year following. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands here on Budget night and announces that he feels compelled to impose an additional penny on tea, and makes that announcement in April or May, that announcement will begin to take effect not on the following 1st July; it begins to have effect the next morning, and always has done.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEwas understood to dissent.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think so. I think if anybody will look at the Finance Act of 1900, for example, he will find that what I say is correct: that the additional duty commences not from 1st July following, but from the day following that on which the Budget statement was made—some date in April until 1st July twelve months. It must be so. The reason why it is so is so obvious that I do not delay to explain what everybody understands. That has been, in fact, the practice as regards indirect taxes, and I think the necessary practice and the convenient practice both in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of the public revenue. So far, then, as indirect taxes are concerned, all we desire to do by this Bill is to make sure that that practice which has been challenged, and which it is now suggested is illegal (I will not say has turned out to be illegal) shall be made beyond all question legal. Now I take direct taxes. Income Tax, of course, does not run between the same calendar dates. It starts at an earlier period of the year.
    1242
    Supposing in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced—take this for the sake of illustration—an increase of the Income Tax, when deductions come to be made by bankers and others, if I rightly understand the matter, it has been the practice to assume that that which has been proposed in the House of Commons in the Budget Statement will be authorised by Statute, and to make that subtraction, rather than the subtraction hitherto current, as from the date that the increase was announced. There, again, the practice has certainly in the past been convenient; convenient not only in the interests of the public revenue, but in the interests of the individual taxpayer, although there is always a theoretical possibility of change. Sometimes it actually arises in practice that you may have a subsequent change. You may have your financial proposals for the year completely upset—as, for instance, by the defeat of the Finance Bill on the Second Reading or some subsequent stage. That has happened within living memory. But it is a chance comparatively slight compared with the chances of the proposals being carried through. Of the two inconveniences, the chance of the inconvenience of having to adjust matters by way of repayment is small as compared with the great inconvenience, both to the taxpayer and the public revenue, that would result if you make these announcements and do not put them into operation for some time afterwards.
    So far, I am not laying down any abnormal doctrines. I am merely contending for that which has been found in the ordinary experience of Chancellors of the Exchequer, of whatever political party, to be convenient and what has, in fact, been done. The only object of this Bill is to make sure that what, in fact, has been done in the past, to the convenience of all the parties concerned, should be beyond question lawful. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire said that, after all, Mr. Gibson Bowles had been content to win a great victory in the matter of the Income Tax. No one admires the subtlety that the hon. and learned Gentleman applies to legal distinctions more sincerely than I do, but having done my best to see if there is a distinction, I should be very sorry indeed, when we are dealing with this subject, to pledge myself, if the House

    1243
    authorised the prompt collection of the changed Income Tax alone, that no authority is needed to levy the Tea Duty. I do not at all think that. I think the arguments, such as they are, which prevail and which satisfy most of the constitutional authorities of this country in the case of the Income Tax, have never in any constitutional authority of which I am aware ever been said to apply to the Income Tax only, and not to apply to indirect taxes. It is agreed that we must do something both as regards indirect and direct taxes. Substantially the question which the House has to consider on the Second Reading is whether what we propose to do is in the circumstances best. I recognise the cogency and force of some of the arguments on points which may very well arise in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, for instance (Mr. T. M. Healy), took objection to the reference in the Bill to Committee of Ways and Means. I do not myself quite see the full force of the criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously thought to be forcible. Be that as it may, the matter is one which might be considered in Committee. Let me only say just now that the hon. and learned Gentleman is doubtless aware that our Standing Orders do give specific recognition to Committee of Ways and Means—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not money Standing Orders.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the reason for that, if I may suggest it, is that there are two Committees of the Whole House which deal with the money; one is Committee of Ways and Means and the other Committee of Supply. Consequently, when the Standing Orders come to the Committees to deal with money, although they use the expression "Committee of Ways and Means" elsewhere—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Committee of the Whole House!
    Sir J. SIMON: If one looks at the index to the Standing Orders in the earlier part of the book, Standing Order No. 14—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The book that I use is the one on the Table of the House.
    Sir. J. SIMON: Standing Order No. 14, which is headed "Supply and Ways and
    1244
    Means," contains the well-known provision:—
    "This House will, in future, appoint the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means at the commencement of every Session, so soon as an Address has been agreed to in answer to His Majesty's Speech."
    They become Sessional Committees from that moment. Of course there is the further Standing Order which makes specific provision for their being put down for so many days in every week while the House of Commons is in Session. I should have thought the Committee of Ways and Means was very well known in this House—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Well known in the Courts!
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me just deal with what I am referring to. There is the expression known in the House for a great many years, an expression which means nothing more than a Committee of this Whole House, which considers the method by which the public money is to be raised. I have thought that that is all that Ways and Means meant. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it was well known in the Courts! Hitherto, though not strictly legal, it none the less has been a convenient practice to treat a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means as a justification for exacting taxes, and that has gone without challenge. I am perfectly willing to concede to the hon. and learned Member that to that extent a change is involved. But the hon. and learned Member seemed to think that it might be almost impossible to prove what has been done. I might point out to him that it would not be difficult to prove what had happened in Committee of Ways and Means; that no judge would ask what it was all about. The Journals of this House are evidence in any Court of Justice of that which is recorded in them. I do not think there would be any difficulty where they are King's printers. In the Journals of the House would appear exactly what is done in Committee of Ways and Means, and that would prove all that is necessary, so that if it comes to actually proving what was done it would not be a very difficult operation. The hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to suggest that his criticism was more in the nature of a criticism of the Clauses, rather than of the principle of the Bill. Coming to the further question asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite on Sub-section (2) of Section 2, that Sub-section is the one which deals with the way in which the bankers have been acting as between

    1245
    the 5th April and the present time. The effect of that Sub-section is, and is intended to be, that in so far as there has been a deduction, for instance, by the bank between the 5th April and the time the Bill received the Royal Assent that this deduction in so far as may be shall be retrospectively legalised and the banks rendered safe from the possibility of action.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is not that after the Finance Act of this year passes?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that Sub-section (2) says that in terms. The hon. and learned Gentleman is very likely right. The Sub-section says:—
    "Section ninety-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect with respect to any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year."
    Mr. CASSEL: It would only become operative after the Royal Assent was given to the Finance Act.
    Sir J. SIMON: Possibly. Anything that induces the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the Royal Assent to the Finance Act sooner, will, I am sure, be heartily welcomed by hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are all happy together on that ground. The other question asked was asked by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason), and he not unnaturally inquired what the Sub-section was all about. I think I put it correctly when I say the intention is nothing more than to make sure, once we have put the present Bill upon the Statute Book and given statutory effect to our Resolution, that henceforth nobody shall be able, in respect of what has happened in times past, to complain because the bank, believing the common practice was legal, did that which every banker has done for a number of years past. The only probable case would be that a second Mr. Gibson Bowles, not content with his former triumph, might conceivably endeavour in the same way to obtain a declaration as regards some other case. But I do not think the occasion is likely to arise. That is the situation. The only substantial criticism I think I may submit of the principle of the Bill, and I recognise the importance of it, is the suggestion that they are alternative ways of doing it. Of course alternatives may be possible, but, if I may say so to those who offer them, I think they will find it one thing to make
    1246

    a suggestion about an alternative and quite another thing to sit down and put the alternative into an Act of Parliament to meet every possible difficulty and to safeguard every complication which such a course of treatment involves. I assure hon. Members it is not that we complain of alternatives, but we think we have chosen the best way. The suggestion that you should get over the difficulty by postponing the period of the year up to which Income Tax runs is based upon a complete misapprehension. It would not assist the matter in the least. The point is this, that as soon as the announcement is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Income Tax on Budget night, from that moment it is desirable that the banks and others should deduct that rate of Income Tax from the interests that they pay.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Why?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is what I suggest.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: But why, that is the point?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am putting the point that it is desirable to legalise what has, in fact, been the common practice, and you do not get rid of the difficulty by saying, "Let us have Income Tax running to the 5th September, instead of the 5th April." Exactly the same difficulty arises then. But the Noble Lord puts the constitutional question, "Why is it desirable?" I take refuge in this general answer—that, in the submission of the Government, it is desirable that we should legalise that which has been for many years the common and convenient practice, and we believe the necessary practice, of the Treasury, whoever may be chief or head of the Department.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman is the effect of his argument this: That the Budget Resolutions are not passed under Standing Orders 66, 67, 68, and 69, but under some other Standing Orders?
    Sir J. SIMON: If I am to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, I think I should say it is not accurate to speak of the Budget Resolutions being passed under Standing Orders at all. They are passed in accordance with the usages of the House, and they start in Committee of the House. If the object of the House is to raise money, it has to find ways and means by which money can be found.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Under what Standing Order?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Member is attaching too much importance to words and too little to things. I am speaking of things, and the thing that is imporant is that, according to our constitutional usage, if we are going to find new sources of revenue or new taxes, we do it in Committee of the Whole House, and the thing we are engaged in is finding ways and means of raising money, which is called Committee of Ways and Means. There is no virtue in the words; it is a convenient expression, and I do not see that any great harm is done because we use that expression.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not desire to dwell at any great length upon any of the detailed points raised in this discussion. There is, for instance, the matter with which the Solicitor-General was dealing a moment ago in answer to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. I think there is force in the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, and force which perhaps the Solicitor-General has hardly seen. The contention of the hon. and learned Member was that you should not stereotype in an Act of Parliament the particular procedure of the House of Commons, which has hitherto been exclusively a matter for the House of Commons to alter when we please, where we please, and how we please, without anyone to say us nay. To put that into a Statute, and to make our taxation law depend upon that procedure, seems to be highly inconvenient and quite contrary to precedent, when dealing with our own privileges, and rather derogatory to the position of this House. Then there is a question of some detail on which I must say one word. You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt, the very important explanation given by the Solicitor-General of the object of Sub-section (2) of Section 2. That is the Sub-section to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), appealed to you earlier in the day to know whether it was in order, as not being covered by the Resolution of the House, and you said, if I correctly understood you, as I think I did, that you had some difficulty in appreciating the exact bearing of that Sub-section and its legal effect, but you took it to be a matter of machinery and not a charging Sub-section, and that accord-
    1248
    ingly my hon. and learned Friend's point fell to the ground. It will be seen from what the Solicitor-General said, that it is a charging Section.
    Sir J. SIMON: I never said that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Solicitor-General explained this Sub-section is necessary to prevent a second Mr. Gibson Bowles from claiming relief, which he could get in the Courts. I think his exact words were to stop the hole against the proceedings of another Mr. Gibson Bowles. The meaning of that is that if another Mr. Gibson Bowles chooses to go to the Courts without this Sub-section, he would be able to recover, but this Sub-section is going to destroy his cause of action, and prevent him from being able to recover where otherwise he would be able to recover. I submit that the learned Solicitor-General has supplied you with the legal evidence which was lacking before, that this Sub-section is in effect a charging Section.
    Sir J. SIMON: That Sub-section does not authorise anybody to exact anything. What it says is that certain things which have happened shall not render people liable to an action. An Act of Indemnity is not the same thing as a Charging Act.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think it is. This Act of Indemnity is to indemnify people who have been charging without legal sanction. There has been no law, according to the Solicitor-General, to authorise these charges for deduction. We are now going to make a law to authorise them. That law is a charging Statute, and it does authorise them; it is the only lawful basis. I do not raise the point of Order now, but I think it is quite clear, after what the Solicitor-General said, that the point of Order raised by my hon. and learned Friend must be again submitted to the Chair. Now I come to the larger question, perhaps more especially appropriate to the Bill itself. There is a general admission that as a consequence of Mr. Gibson Bowles' action and his success, something has got to be done and some Amendment of the law has got to be made. For fifty or sixty years, a practice without legal sanction has prevailed in this matter, unquestioned in any Court of Law within the United Kingdom, either in respect of direct taxation or in respect of indirect taxation. I believe I am right in saying that it has been questioned in regard to

    1249
    indirect taxation in the Australian Courts, and the Australian Courts upheld the practice. I am not a lawyer, and I am not competent really to express an opinion upon this subject, but I would venture to express at least a grave doubt whether, having regard to the general principle laid down in the action of Bowles versus the Bank of England, although Customs were expressly excluded, whether that principle would not cause a similar decision to be given in the United Kingdom in regard to Customs, and whether it is not practically certain that if a case of Customs or Excise were brought before the Courts in this country, a decision would follow on the lines of Bowles versus the Bank of England, and would not uphold the decision of the Australian Courts.
    I think it is admitted that something must be done to restore the custom that existed for fifty years. Many Members upon both sides of the House are not only extremely nervous—I think I may use as strong a word as that—about putting into a statutory form even previous practice, and I quite concur that in this matter the convenience of the Treasury is not a sufficient answer, and is not by any means the only thing we have to consider. Indeed, the convenience of the Treasury is the last argument that occurred to me. The convenience of the Treasury is not above public interest, which it is the business of the Treasury to consider. The convenience of the Treasury is about the last thing that would occur to my mind. I would say to hon. Gentlemen who show that anxiety that there must be very careful consideration as to the wording you choose and the methods you adopt to restore this practice. Quite obviously there must be careful inquiry and time for discussion and amendment of the proposals of the Government, but surely the practice itself would not have continued to exist for sixty years unchallenged in any Court of Law if it had merely served the convenience of the Treasury. Surely that fact alone shows that as long as it was not abused the practice served the convenience not merely of the Treasury, but even in a larger degree the convenience of the subject upon whom the tax was ultimately or directly to fall, and upon all those who did business for him and were made instruments in collecting the revenue from him. Why has the practice which has existed for sixty years unchallenged been challenged at last, and why is there any necessity for a Bill of this kind? It is because
    1250
    the Government have done in this case what they are doing in other cases—I wish they would take the lesson to heart—they have strained usage and custom and the conventions of the Constitution to the breaking point. When you have a practice of this kind and you use it, not in the public interest but for your party needs, when you subordinate the public interest to your party manæuvres, then people will begin to examine what underlies your proposals, and how far they are legal from a constitutional point of view.
    That is a consideration which, though illustrated by what has happened, in this case is of far wider application, and may be illustrated in a much more serious way. That is the reason why we have this difficulty. It is because the Government in one year were in difficulties about their Budget and did not get it passed until another year had begun. During that year everyone, without complaint and without a single objection, raised no objection to levying the tax as if it had the force of law, and there was Income Tax and Customs collected without the sanction of law by the general agreement of those concerned, because they knew the Government was doing its best to pass the Budget. The year after that, and the next year, when there was no such difficulty, and the Budget was postponed, it was done for the convenience of Ministers in other respects, because every measure in their programme was considered of more consequence than the financial interests of this country. It is not surprising that someone arose who would challenge this practice as a matter of public policy. Now we are writing down in the language of a Statute a custom which has prevailed to everyone's advantage, but which has been destroyed by the abuse which the Government have indulged in. Given that situation, I find myself in agreement in principle, or, at any rate, in substantial agreement, with the Solicitor-General in his statement of the object which we ought to have before us. What we want to do is to restore the old practice, neither more nor less. Whether this Bill does it or not may be open to a great deal of doubt and argument, but, at any rate, I would prefer in the main to leave for Committee discussion matters of smaller detail. I express my general approval of that object.
    We are asked in some quarters why it is necessary to do anything. I am not wholly convinced by the argument of the

    1251
    Solicitor-General about the Income Tax, because I think he changed the ground of the Government a little on that subject. Hitherto the Bill has been defended on the ground that you will require it even when there was no change, but to-day the Solicitor-General rested his defence on the Income Tax part on the ground that if you changed the rate it was desirable to make the deduction from the first moment. I think it was obvious by providing that the tax should be levied for the year at such and such a rate that it should continue to be levied for so much of the next year at the same rate, unless Parliament should have previously otherwise determined. When it comes to a change in the rate of the tax, then I admit that that would not be sufficient, but when you are thinking of changing the rate of a tax, really the Income Tax is the least important of all the taxes you have to consider. Suppose you make a change in the rate of an Income Tax and you raise it by 2d. in the £, that can only be levied at the moment when your Budget passes, and you will only have lost a very small proportion of your year's income. On the other hand, suppose you make a change in the Tea Duty. That can only take effect from the moment your Budget passes, and therefore you may lose a very large portion and perhaps the whole of the increased revenue of the year.
    The really important thing for the House to consider is, not the convenience of the Treasury, but the interests of the public and of the nation at time when it becomes necessary to change the rate of a tax. I said the other day, in answer to what I thought was a suspicion underlying the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I really was not arguing this question from the point of view of a party which desired to bring in a reformed tariff. I do not mean to say that a Tariff Reform Ministry would not be entitled to apply to a particular tax, even though it happened to he in a Tariff Reform Budget, the procedure which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer might be authorised to apply to any similar proposal made by himself, but what I do say is that, in my opinion, it is impossible for any Government introducing a reformed tariff of the kind that we have discussed so often, to try and levy the whole of those duties, or the greater portion of them, after the Resolution was carried in the House. That has not been done anywhere, and I do not think it would
    1252
    be possible in this country. Probably the modification made in the passing of those proposals through the House would be much greater than is ordinarily the case with the Budget. The application would be much greater, and you would have to treat any such alteration of duties as you would treat such an alteration of the Land Taxes as the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in 1906, and you could not bring it into force until you knew its final shape.
    I ask both sides of the House to give the argument which I am putting forward credit for the fact that it is not the argument of a possible Tariff Reform Minister in distress. Let me say what I think will help to convince hon. Members. A Government making such a reform of the tariff does not ex hypothesi need that revenue immediately. They may contemplate having a great many things from which they can get revenue. There is no reason why they should not postpone the effect of their spending legislation until the time when they have got their revenue. There is no necessity for them to get their revenue at once. They are not making a temporary change to meet a temporary emergency, but a permanent change on grounds of general public policy, and they can afford to wait for the result. They may have to meet a deficit in the current year—a deficit may be caused by the growth of expenditure or by a falling revenue, or by the outbreak of a war. In any case, it is desirable to fill up that deficit as far as you can within the year. You want an immediate collection of the revenue, and if you allow the opportunity to slip through your fingers for a greater part of the year you still have to collect it, and you have not the immediate resources which the country requires. That is true of many things, and it is especially true in the case of the national emergency caused by war. Why do I dwell upon this point? It is because I think the Government have laid more stress even upon the Income Tax than they have upon indirect taxation. You lose much more by not collecting immediately the Customs and Excise Duties than you do by not collecting immediately the Income Tax, for not only does that part of the taxable commodity which is actually consumed in the interval escape the higher rate, but it is removed entirely out of your sphere of influence, and it might destroy your revenue for the whole year.
    You cannot do that with the Income Tax. Nobody will pay Income Tax in

    1253
    advance, because they think a higher rate is going to be imposed. Mr. Gibson Bowles' argument is that the inconvenience to the trade and community would be so great that this would not be done, and Mr. Bowles was wise enough to add that it would not pay if the duties were small and regarded as ad valorem. But that is not the case with any of our existing duties, which are very high, such as 3s. 6d. per gallon on whisky, because under these circumstances it is worth while, and it is possible for the great dealers to clear enormous stocks and shatter your revenue entirely for the year, and probably in the only year when you want it most. I really believe in the case of tea there is no limit to the amount you could take out except the number of carts you could get to take it out, and the case is the same with tobacco. I remember one case in which a particular firm of tobacco dealers had two years' supply, and certainly a large proportion of that could have been cleared under the circumstances at that time. That is the really difficult problem. That is the really urgent problem the House has to face. It is a problem, above all, of meeting the case of alterations in Customs and Excise.
    I believe in the long run the interests of the revenue and the interests of the trader in this matter are the same. The interests of the revenue and the interests of the taxpayer are the same. Supposing an increase of twopence in the Income Tax, if it could be collected in the old way, would finance the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the whole year, but owing to the Bowles' decision a great deal of it would escape before he could put it on, the result would be that for the remainder of the year he would have to put on an increase of fourpence. We have had once within my memory two different rates of Income Tax within the same year, and, if my memory serves me rightly, it was very much objected to. Take the case of Customs. All the trades concerned in dutiable articles want most of all to get their duties, at any rate of the kind we now have in existence, taken off, but, granted they are to have duties, they want certainty and security. They do not want the market unsettled. That is why they agreed to pay the Customs Duties in 1909 when there was no legal sanction for them. I remember, if I may venture on a personal recollection, that when I put on an increased Tea Duty I did as the Solicitor-General said: I collected it from
    1254
    the morrow on which the Resolution was passed in the House of Commons and the Budget statement made, but when I took it off I could not afford to do so for the whole year, and I took it off as from a date two or three months after the Budget statement was made. I shall not easily forget the amount of remonstrance I had from the trade against keeping before them so long a time an alteration of the tax before it took effect. Their desire for the convenience of their business was to have the alteration take effect as soon as possible. I believe that is as true of an addition to a tax as it is of a deduction from it. If I have made a case in regard to the existing taxes, then I venture to say I have made an equally strong case in regard to new taxes, not from the point of view of a reformed tariff which is in operation not to be done every year and not arising out of the particular fiscal emergency, but in regard to the normal course of the imposition of new taxes.
    I am not even now quite certain what is the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject. He rather rashly, as I thought, committed himself more or less to some of his Friends when he made his statement in moving the Resolution on which this Bill is founded. Following him, I made an appeal to him to keep that question open, and he has kept it open in this sense, that he has put words in which include new taxes just as much as the alteration of old taxes; but, reading yesterday's Debate, I understand he then considered he was pledged to his Friends to move the omission or to accept the omission of those words. I hope that is not so, because, if that is done, then frankly I do not care about the Bill. I think then it does not meet the greatest of all the emergencies with which the House ought to be dealing, and, if new taxes are to be taken out, then I think I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall not vote against the Second Reading to-day; I shall wait and see what takes place in Committee. Looking back to the time of the Boer war and to the necessity for increased taxation which that war brought with it—it is obvious that any big war must bring with it the necessity for greatly increased taxation in these days when the cost of a war is greater than it was ever before—I must say that it was just as important, not to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and not to the Treasury as a matter of fiscal convenience or of convenience to their clerks, but to

    1255
    the financial condition of the nation that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach should be able to collect his Corn or Sugar Taxes from the moment they were imposed, as it was that he should be able to collect the increased Tea or Spirit or Beer Duty which he equally imposed to meet that war. Look how absurd the distinction is from the point of view of the protection of the subject. Supposing you had the Tea Duty reduced to 1d., you might then raise it to 1s. per pound, under the provisions of this Bill, if new taxes are cut out; but if you had not a tax at all on tea, you could not, under the same condition, put a 1d. on it. Could anything be more absurd from the point of view of the control of this House and the preservation of the liberty of the subject. You might, if you had an Income Tax of 1s. 2d., make it 4s., 5s., or 15s. in the £, but you could not impose a new direct tax. Is there any possible reason from the point of view of constitutional law why you should make a distinction of that kind? I can conceive of none.
    The only cases in which you want to increase duties are those in which you urgently need revenue, and in those cases it is of importance that those duties should take effect at once. It is of special importance that the whole of the yield of the duty for a twelvemonth ahead should not be destroyed by forestalments. It is quite true, as Mr. Gibson Bowles said in his letter, that even under the present system you cannot altogether avoid forestalments, but you reduce them to their narrowest limits. In the first place, even when it is known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must impose new taxes, nobody quite knows which article he will select, and people have to clear a good deal if they are going to make themselves perfectly safe against all his possibilities. The forestalments in the case of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's first War Budget were reckoned to be between two and three millions or a little over, and, if it had not been for the power to collect on a Resolution of the House, no increased revenue would have been obtained for the year at all. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach antedated the usual time for introducing his Budget because those forestalments were going on at such a rate. He made his Budget statement before the close of the financial year, and began to collect the increased taxation from the moment the Budget statement was made. That is really the
    1256
    serious kind of emergency the House has to meet and anything which does not meet that emergency is not worth doing. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I offer no opposition to the Bill at this stage. I confess particular provisions seem to me of more doubtful propriety after listening to this Debate than I thought them when they were first described on the Resolution. I am quite certain they will want the most careful and exhaustive inquiry, but I offer no personal opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, and my course on its Third Reading will depend very largely at least upon the line the Chancellor of the Exhequer and the House eventually decide to adopt in regard to new taxes, that is to say, the way in which they carry out that which the Solicitor-General declared to be their intention, namely, the reinstatement as law of what has hitherto been a convenient custom practised without the sanction of law.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle of the Bill, and throughout he has given a general support to the proposals which we have introduced to this House. This afternoon he has criticised in detail some portions of the measure. All his criticisms could have been raised in Committee and discussed there, but I propose to deal with one or two of his main criticisms. I am not going to follow him in apportioning the blame for the present position, because I think it is rather a fruitless inquiry. We certainly were not responsible, in my judgment, for what happened in 1909–10, and, even with regard to the second Budget. I was anxious to get it through before the Adjournment. It is true that was in August, but there are a dozen precedents of a Budget having been got through in August, including one of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINindicated dissent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was, at any rate, very late in July, just about the end of the Session. We were pressed not to take it then, and I remember an hon. Member sitting on that Bench, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), took a leading part and made a very violent protest about it being taken. But for that it would have been taken in August. The only non-contentious Budget for which I have been responsible passed late in December. I did it at the urgent

    1257
    request and on pressure to which I was subjected by an hon. Gentleman sitting on that Front Bench.
    Mr. CASSEL: That does not apply to 1911.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Budget of 1911 was in August.
    Mr. CASSEL: 16th December.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am referring to that Budget. I do not think, however, it is a very useful inquiry. It simply means that right hon. Gentlemen opposite blame the Government, and I think we can make a good case for saying we are not responsible. Still, that is not the question. Here you have, for the first time, this long-established practice smashed in the Law Courts as the result of litigation initiated by one taxpayer. It is assumed now that everybody understood before that there was no legal right. I do not think that was the assumption at all; I think myself until the last three or four years people assumed that these Resolutions had the force of law during the currency of the Session. That was the general assumption. I remember the matter being gone into very carefully in 1909. Most of us assumed then that really was the state of things. It was very doubtful after very careful inquiry what the law was, but I am sure the general assumption was that a Resolution had the force of law. It has now been established that Resolutions have no legal validity. That is the state of things with which we have got to deal, and, if it had happened during the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman, he would have had to do exactly the same thing as I am proposing now in order to meet the emergency in which we find ourselves placed. He might not do it in perhaps exactly the same form, but I do not believe there would be any substantial difference between us. So much for that part of this argument. I come now to a much more important question, that which he raised somewhere towards the end of his speech, as to including new taxes in the Resolution. I certainly intended new taxes to be placed in the same position as has been the practice of late years. There has been no difference between absolutely new taxes and variations of old taxes, and when we were bringing in a Bill to legalise the procedure I think it was right for us to bring in one which would give us exactly
    1258
    the powers which everybody assumed we had before this difficulty arose. However, there is a very strong feeling, I believe, on both sides of the House, as shown by the discussion which has taken place during the last two days, and has proved that there is a remarkable unanimity of opinion on both sides in favour of excising this power as far as new taxes are concerned. I do not know that I shall meet with very much opposition if I strike out the provision as regards new taxes.
    I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between new taxes and variations of old ones. I say there is a substantial difference. It has never been assumed that you can, by a Resolution, impose a new tariff and start collecting it immediately. A new tariff must be subject necessarily to a good deal of adjustment even if the principle is accepted by a large majority. It involves art enormous amount of adjustment between various interests concerned before you could possibly impose it. It would involve a revision of duties and sub-duties on many classes of articles, and these are all split up into sections and sub-sections, so that it would be impossible to bring it into operation without very prolonged discussion, not only in this House, but with interests concerned outside. It therefore is obviously impossible to do that by a Resolution of this House. Of course, I am confining this Bill to the kind of duty imposed in the past—a duty which is not a protective duty. There is a great difference between imposing a new duty on a subject not considered dutiable in the past, and imposing a duty on something which has been, for fifty or a hundred years, recognised as fair matter for taxation whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants money. For instance, take the Tea Duty. I do not know how long it has been in existence; at any rate it has existed for a very long period of years.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Ever since tea came in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not be surprised. But whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself short of money, in view of a great national emergency, tea is one of the subjects he always turns his thoughts to. The tea duty has gone up and down. It has been at 8d. It has been even at 2s. It has fluctuated from time to time because the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered it

    1259
    a subject marked out for taxation, and successive Parliaments have agreed that it is a fit subject for taxation. Let me take the War Budgets of 1899, 1900, and 1901—Budgets which raised taxes within the limits of the present fiscal system. Tea was put up. My recollection is that sugar was a new tax.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was an old tax revived.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are two taxes, first of all tea, which was a dutiable commodity at that time, and that was put up. There was sugar, which had been a dutiable commodity, but which had been for some years free. Then a third class of tax was proposed—on corn and coal. I could understand the House of Commons saying, "When you are putting 2d. or 3d. on tea that it is a question of amount, very important no doubt, but still not a new question." But when you come to corn and coal the question arises whether they are fit subjects for taxation, and I can understand the House of Commons saying, "You ought not to decide that in the course of a Committee Resolution. Very great and vital questions of principle are involved"—as indeed the Government found out, for they got rid of them in the course of a couple of years.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You got rid of them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate there is a real and substantial difference between the two cases. In the case of a new tax you have to decide on the principle of taxing the commodity at all, whereas in the other case the principle has been decided over and over again, not merely in Committee and on Report stage, but on First, Second, and Third Reading of successive Bills, Session after Session, and Parliament after Parliament, until it has been more or less accepted either as a dutiable subject by the community generally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stands at this box and proposes that various commodities shall be taxed. I am perfectly certain—I was in the House at the time—that the proposal to tax coal and corn came as a great surprise to everyone. I can understand the House of Commons seeing a great difference between the two cases and insisting upon it from that point of view. Still, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would undoubtedly be convenient to the
    1260
    revenue, and I think it would be for the convenience of the taxpayer himself, that this power should be included. I do not know of a single case where it has been abused in the past; I do not see how it can be abased in the future, certainly within the limits proposed by the Bill. In the case of the Corn Duty, inconvenience, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, was caused by the uncertainty of trade.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was referring to the Tea Duty. I put it up 2d. in the £ for one year, and I was able to take it off the next year, but I did not take it off till the morrow of the Budget statement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what was happening, and that is the real reason why my hon. Friends insist on differentiating between new taxes and variations of old ones. I agree with another point made by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that there is a great difference between the sort of forestalment that takes place when anticipating increased taxation and the forestalment which would take place if it were known which commodity was chosen for that increased taxation. In 1899 it was known that the Government would have to tax something, and there were very large forestalments of tea and sugar and considerable ones of beer.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not on beer, because that cannot be forestalled.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There were forestalments at any rate on three or four commodities which were never touched at all. Suppose it were known that there was only going to be a tax on whisky. There would have been no forestalment on tea, sugar, or tobacco. Tobacco was what I intended to refer to when I mentioned beer. We lost a very large sum of revenue in consequence of those forestalments, but it was spread aver four commodities, and if it had been known that the duty was going to be put up on whisky the forestalments would have been concentrated on that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When I raised the Tea Duty they took out everything except tea.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: if the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to bring his tea Resolution to the House, and to wait until he had got the Report stage, and

    1261
    had passed the Bill through all its stages, and sent it to the House of Lords, he would have had no revenue at all from tea. Take spirits. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a very good thing to take."] They cleared out spirits at the rate of at least half a million a day. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the only limit to forestalment in such a case is cartage. It is not the number of clerks, but it is the number of carts that you can get through the Customs. There is no great hurry on the part of the Customs officials in cases of forestalment, but even though they exercised their well known powers on that occasion to the utmost, spirits were cleared out at the rate of half a million a day, and in a case like that, unless you have the power which this Bill will legalise, your whole revenue may be completely cut off. You may check it as best you can, but there is undoubtedly a very considerable loss. There is a good deal of leakage. That was the case in 1909 when the whole tea trade agreed to do their very best to assist us. It was at a time when it was to the interests of both political parties to see that the revenue was collected. They had all agreed to pay the duty, although there was no law at that moment imposing it. But one great dealer stood out, and the pressure of the whole trade was brought to bear on him, as if he had continued to refuse, as he could have done, the others would have been bound to follow suit
    Sir G. YOUNGERmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that applies to tea, and I do not think it was very considerable. My recollection is that there was some difficulty with regard to Irish whisky, and that we lost the money.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, no!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes! The hon. Baronet will find that the amount was given in this House in reply to a question. Supposing a number of them had done the same thing, then we should have lost a considerable sum of money. It was purely because we had then an agreement between the parties to do their best to tide over the difficulty, each in order to meet his own particular interest, that we did not lose. You might net get that state of things in future. You might find that the whisky trade would say they did not see
    1262
    why they should assist the Government paying the extra half-crown, or whatever it might be. In that case there is only this way of doing it. It is not of any use quoting what happens in other countries. I am told there is nothing that corresponds to this in other countries. That may be so, but the result is that they lose an enormous amount of revenue whenever they impose new duties or whenever there is an increase of old duties. The result is that they get very little out of it during the first year. I think our practice is the better one. It has been justified by very long experience. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last sixty or 100 years has profited by it. I hope the House will enable us to legalise what has been the custom in the past and a usage which Las undoubtedly been to the advantage of the State.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: We have heard three speeches in succession in defence of the principle of the Bill, or rather I should say two, because the Solicitor-General adopted a method of Parliamentary argument which may be commended to any Minister in a difficulty. He said that the details could only be discussed properly in Committee, and he assumed the principle. One could defend almost any Bill on those terms. He said that the existing usage was desirable, that the Bill did not go beyond the existing usage, and he deferred all the other important questions to be considered in Committee. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has made much the best and most convincing speech in defence of the principle of this Bill to which we have listened in the course of these Debates. The defense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounts to the single point of forestalment in respect of Customs Duties. I do not think there is any defence in respect of the Income Tax. It is true that if any long delay takes place in carrying an Act imposing Income Tax you lose through it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is the inconvenience.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: There is no inconvenience if a tax comes into force so many weeks earlier or later. You lose so much revenue for those weeks. That can only be the case in a time of national emergency, to which my right hon. Friend referred, when war has broken out, or when there is an actual deficit to be filled. The House of Commons could

    1263
    pass an Income Tax Act in a single week, and the loss would be very trifling. There would be no difficulty in those circumstances in passing a Bill through all its stages in a very short time. There is nothing in the case for the Bill so far as Income Tax is concerned, for there is no injury to the public in waiting untll the Bill has passed through all its stages. We have, therefore, the single case of the forestalment of Customs Duties. Observe the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now is! He says that the existing usage is desirable, that we should lose a great deal of revenue, and that there would be dislocation of trade if the existing usage were dropped. Nevertheless, at the instance of his hon. Friends and, I admit, of the House generally, he is prepared to depart from the existing usage in respect to existing taxation. He is really in a dilemma. If there is all this inconvenience, mischief and injury, it applies to the new taxes. It is quite true that there is a stronger case against including new taxes, but the case for including them is just the same. What seems to me regrettable is that the Government do not seem to have made any effort to avoid the extremely odious course of levying taxation by a single vote of the House of Commons without passing a Bill through all its stages. For example, why is it impossible, instead of this Bill, to have a Bill dealing solely with the case of Customs, and providing, not that the duty shall be paid, but that some document should be signed by those who are carrying dutiable goods through the Customs House, showing how much they were carrying, on the strength of which subsequent proceedings could he taken against them compelling them to pay the duty when Parliament had agreed to it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: At what price would the man who got the goods out of bond sell?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: He would have to calculate the price. He would have to calculate whether or not the Bill would pass. He would know he could not be called upon to pay until the, Bill had been read a second time and passed through all its stages. If Parliament subsequently makes a change in the duty, there would be a certain amount of inconvenience, which is more or less made good. I was looking at the case of the Sugar Duty,
    1264
    where machinery was set up making good to the trade any change which was made. The Government would not be any worse off, and it would save the very harsh principle of allowing taxation to be levied by a mere decree passed in Committee. I desire to turn to one or two details in the Bill. I have read several times the retrospective Sub-section, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether I correctly understand it. As I understand it, this Sub-section will have no operation until the subsequent Finance Act is passed. The Sub-section says:—
    "Section 95 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect with respect to any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year."
    It will have no effect, as I understand, at this moment, except in regard to the Finance Act of the previous year, and it will have no effect in respect to the Finance Act of next year, which we are about to pass, until that Act passes. The only immediate effect which it will have is so far as it has a bearing on the Finance Act now in operation. What that bearing is I do not know. Perhaps we might have that explained to us. What will be the immediate effect of the Sub-section when it is passed? There seems to be some difficulty in regard to that. One of two things seems to follow if it has no immediate effect. If it charges the people it ought to have been founded upon a Resolution and to have been in the Title of the Bill. It does not appear in the Title of the Bill and it has not been the subject of a Resolution; therefore I apprehend that it, and, indeed, the whole Bill would be out of order. On the other hand, if it does not have an immediate effect, I do not understand what becomes of the case of urgency. This Bill has not been unreasonably pressed forward, but it has been pressed forward with very short intervals of discussion. I understand that was done because some immediate effect was going to result and there was some urgency. If it does not put a charge on the people in any respect there is no urgency, and we might have taken the Bill at considerably longer intervals without the inconvenience of discussing the same Bill on successive days. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take your opinion before this Bill is read a second time, for I suppose any question of order ought to be decided on a Second Reading, as to Whether the Sub-section is in order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord could not have been here at the commencement of the Debate, when we had all this out.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg your pardon. I quite agree that I am to blame for not having followed what happened. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that you had reserved your decision till a later period.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, the point we reached was this: I told the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) that the decision I gave, which was against him, was not to prejudice him in any way in raising the point in Committee, and that he would be entitled then to ask the Chairman of Committees not to put that particular Sub-section from the Chair on the ground that there was no Resolution in support of it. It is more or less arranged that the matter should again be taken before the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I am sorry I have troubled you with the matter. I ought to have been here. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain the exact bearing of the Sub-section—it is difficult for any one who is not a lawyer to understand it—so that we may know what we are doing. There is another point to which I wish to draw his attention. He did not deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to the Committee of Ways and Means. There is very great inconvenience in using in an Act of Parliament an expression which has a meaning according to the procedure of this House, for the reason that the House can, by Standing Order, alter the meaning of any thing which relates to its own procedure. For example, it will he perfectly easy, if the Bill passes in its present shape, to make the Committee of Ways and Means a Select Committee. Then, by order of the Select Committee, you could levy taxation for four months. There is nothing to prevent the House to-morrow making the Committee of Ways and Means a Select Committee or a Grand Committee, and in that case it would be the order of that Committee. I think that on reflection the Government ought to alter that expression.
    I confess to being still of the opinion that we ought to vote against the Second Beading of this Bill. The measure will undoubtedly put into the hands of the
    1266
    Government, and into the hands of the majority of the day, a power they do not possess. We have seen these things done over and over again in respect of the procedure of this House. The minority uses its power to stop what it considers to be an unreasonable act on the part of the Government of the day. The Government thereupon take away that power by an alteration in the Standing Orders—this has happened on both sides of the House—and the power is destroyed from that time forth. We are having the same thing in another sphere. Mr. Gibson Bowles, representing the liberty of the subject, fought the Government for abusing their power and used the reserve power of an appeal to law. Instantly the Government come down to this House and take away altogether the power by which he made that appeal. The matter is not being decided by giving new safeguards with regard to the liberty of the subject on the one side, and setting up new machinery giving the Treasury what they need on the other, but the matter is being decided wholly in favour of the Treasury and the Government of the day, so that in future we shall be in a position much less secure than we are in now. If you are going to take the very grave course of setting up statutory power in place of customary power you ought to do it with such safe guards as may effectually prevent the abuses which have in a degree arisen in the past, and may be expected to arise in the future. What you are now doing is sanctioning, not merely the usage of the past, but the particular abuses which Chancellors of the Exchequer have in emergency had recourse to. You are sanctioning the most extreme form of the old usage without the safeguard that it was known to be a usage which could be overthrown if challenged in a Court of Law.
    The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of an episode which took place in the early months of 1910. In those days the right hon. Gentleman and I and a great many other Members on this side were constantly pressing the Government to have recourse to this very machinery of a Resolution levying Income Tax all through February and March, 1910, and they obstinately refused to do so. They threw the greatest doubts on the legality of the proceeding, and they said it could only be done if a Bill was immediately to follow. I did not think they were right then, and I am sure they are wrong now. It is amazing, when they took up that

    1267
    extremely pedantic view, when there were manifest motives of convenience and it was quite easy to get over the difficulty by carrying a Resolution levying the Income Tax, that now they should turn round and take the opposite view and sweep away all the old traditions of insisting on an Act of Parliament in the matter and rely for ever on a statutory Resolution. I think we are taking a step which we shall find will be worked very unfairly indeed, both to the House and to the subject, if it is passed in the form in which it is presented now. We shall find that the Budget is not properly discussed, but is more and more postponed to the last days of the Session and left to take its chances with the Appropriation Bill and the Indian Budget in the dog-days. That is the danger to which we are exposed, and there is nothing to safeguard the House against such treatment as that. If you substitute a rigid system for an elastic system you always lose very much, and there ought to have been in the Bill, what there certainly is not, abundant evidence of carefulness to safeguard the House and the country against the dangers which are inseparable from setting up a rigid system of statutory control in place of the old system of flexible usage. I hope the Government will reconsider most earnestly the Amendments which will be put down in Committee and will resume the conciliatory tone which the right hon. Gentleman adopted when he introduced the matter, because if they do not do that, the Bill will be found to be the beginning of a long series of malpractices by successive Governments.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: In this Debate we have had a remarkable and curious instance of the unseen sympathetic electric current which passes from one of those boxes to another and binds together in a common purpose subjects who are not usually naturally sympathetic. Both my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken exactly the same view, in principle, of the Bill. Everyone on this side
    of the House so far agreed with me in recognising that something has got to be done, but neither my right hon. Friend nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said one word as to either of the concrete proposals which have been made for getting rid of this difficulty in a way that is not open to the objections which have been raised. It has been suggested that it would be sufficient if an action were taken in the future, such as Mr. Bowles took, that a certificate should be produced in Court that the tax was levied in pursuance of a Resolution passed by the House, and that that certificate should stop the action for a certain time, presumably until the Bill has been passed. It might be a certificate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of Mr. Speaker, but there was a concrete suggestion made by a very able lawyer, and not a word of answer has been given as to whether it is practicable or not. It was suggested on every night of the Debate, without a word of answer, that it would be sufficient to amend the law of Customs and Inland Revenue so as to make the effect of a tax retrospective. The principle is admitted in Clause 2 about deductions having to be refunded, therefore it is certainly not impossible in some cases to recover when the Act has become legal. Why is not that possible in every case? Why cannot you take power to give notice to the importer, in the case of Customs Duty, that he only clears subject to a tax being imposed later and, if necessary, takes some bond or some acknowledgment that that is so. That question has been put by six or seven Members if it has been put by one, and not one word of answer has been given to that point. Here are two concrete proposals which are not open to the objections, both as a matter of practice and precedent, which have been urged against the proposal in the Bill, and I do not think this Debate should cease without some answer being given on these points.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 114.

    Division No. 38.]

    AYES.

    [7.37 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Adamson, William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Alden, Percy

    Barnes, G. N.

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Barton, W.

    Boland, John Pius

    Armitage, Robert

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Brace, William

    Hodge, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pringle, William M. R

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hudson, Walter

    Radford, George Heynes

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Care-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richards, Thomas

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clough, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, Sir John M. (Tyneside)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Robinson, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    King, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Rowlands, James

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

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

    Crooks, William

    Leach, Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, A. A.

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

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    McGhee, Richard

    Shorth Edward

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Dawes, J. A.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Snowden, Philip

    Delany, William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Doris, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutton, John

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thomas, James Henry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Falconer, James

    Middlebrook, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Molloy, M.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Forens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wadsworth, John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, John J.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Field, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Munro, R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Gill, A. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Webb, H.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hackett, J.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Grady, James

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Wing, Thomas

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hayward, Evan

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Palmer, Godfrey

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

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

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Baird, J. L.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Barnston, Harry

    1270

    1271

    Barrie, H. T.

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyton, J.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cator, John

    Hohler, G. F.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Hems, Hitchin)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Eyres-Moosell, Bolton M.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, B. G.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cassel and Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.

    Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

    PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
    Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 8th April.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Secretary of 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 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 authorise 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
    1272
    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 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 case at which his presence may be required.
    Amendment proposed (8th April): In Sub-section (1), after the word "prisoner" ["the temporary discharge of the prisoner for such period"], to insert, the words "on licence." [Sir Alfred Cripps.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." Debate resumed.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: When the Committee adjourned last night I had hardly concluded the point I wished to make in support of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. He had moved an Amendment asking that the conditions on which a prisoner should be released, and consequently be liable to rearrest, should be part of the Statute, and not merely left to the discretion of the Minister. The Home Secretary replied by saying:—
    "I have prepared a form of licence which it is proposed to use when this Bill becomes law."
    He then read out to the Committee the conditions which he proposes to insert in the licence at the outset. These conditions are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The effect of them is in substance that the discharge is to be for a time, which may be extended if the prisoner submits himself or herself to medical examination, he or she having made application to that effect; and, secondly, that the prisoner has to notify any change of residence, and to abstain from any violation of the law. I venture to think that the conditions which the Home Secretary proposes are not at all satisfactory. I cannot, for instance, see the least advantage in requiring notification of any change of residence. It is perfectly notorious that none of these prisoners would make such notification. But that does not, of course, touch the merits of the Amendment. The real question is not whether the conditions proposed by t he Home Secretary are good or bad conditions; the question is whether they should be in the Statute or left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has similar powers in regard to sentences of penal servitude. I have had furnished to me the exact position of the law on penal servitude. In 1853 the first Penal Servitude Act was passed, and under it the conditions of release were entirely left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. In 1864 an Act was passed by which it was provided that the conditions should be themselves set out in that Statute, and that Statute only. In 1871 provision was made that the conditions might be modified, but if any modification was proposed, it was to be laid on the Table of the House. It is quite clear, therefore, that they were statutory conditions which could only be modified in a statutory way.
    That is the condition of affairs at present. If you have statutory conditions which can be modified by laying proposals on the Table of the House, it is open to either
    1274
    House generally—I am not quite familiar with the particulars in this case—to pass an Address to the Crown objecting to the proposals, and then they cease to be operative. There is thus real control by Parliament in such cases, and that is very effective indeed. The argument which I was addressing to the Committee when the Debate was adjourned last night went rather further than that. I say that the case here is stronger for preserving the control of Parliament than the case under the Penal Servitude Acts. The licence under the Penal Servitude Acts is a mere provision entirely in favour of the prisoner. It allows the prisoner to be released because he or she has behaved well, and because, acting on the advice of the prison authorities, the Crown really in the exercise of its prerogative of clemency thinks that the sentence may be shortened on certain conditions. Here we have got an entirely different proposition. It is not by way of concession to the prisoner at all that he or she is to be released. The object of this Bill is not to make the term of imprisonment lighter for the prisoner. On the contrary, the object is to secure that if the prisoner has to he let out on account of ill-health, you should be able to rearrest him or her without any trial or proceedings before a Court. During the time he or she is out of prison on licence the sentence remains the original length, and the prisoner has got to serve that. According to the proposals of the Home Secretary the prisoner has to serve it all. He or she is to be released for a specific time, and at the end of that time is to go back to prison. This Bill is not to be in any way in favour of the prisoner, and I do not quarrel with it on that ground. It is a pure convenience or means of compelling prisoners to serve their sentences. I do say that to leave it entirely to the Home Secretary to say what conditions shall be imposed—to leave it not only to this Home Secretary, but any future Home Secretary who will be absolutely free from the control of Parliament if this Bill is passed—is bad legislation and utterly indefensible.
    The right course is to put the conditions into this Bill before it leaves the House of Commons. However this House may have sunk in servility to the Ministry of the day, it is something a little bit better—not much perhaps—than the actual autocracy of the Ministry. We ought to insert in this Bill exactly what we propose to be the conditions, and then if the Minister

    1275
    should arrive at the conclusion that a change in those conditions is necessary, I should not be averse to a subsequent Clause being inserted to enable him to lay on the Table of the House his proposals for modification, and if they were not objected to in the forty days they would lie on the Table; I should not object to them. I should not mind that facility being given to the Minister if he considered it necessary. May I remind the Committee that in point of fact Ministers have changed statutory conditions, for they have powers to change the rules under the Prisons Act. There was a concession granted by the present First Lord of the Admiralty when Home Secretary in respect of prisoners not guilty of moral turpitude, but that has been very much modified by the present Home Secretary. It has been made very much less favourable to prisoners. That has been done behind Parliament, and without the power of Parliament to intervene. That shows how serious is the demand which is now made by the Home Secretary. I venture to hope that he will even at this last minute think it right to meet the critics in a matter of this kind which, after all, affects the liberty of the subject and ought to be one of the matters most closely and carefully guarded by this House.
    Mr. MUNRO: The question raised on this occasion is exceedingly simple in statement. I desire to say only a few words in regard to it, and chiefly in reply to the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), for I do not think he has been quite correctly informed as to the Penal Servitude Acts to which he referred. May I say, in the first instance, that if one can show that the Home Secretary at the present time possesses and exercises powers which are not only equal to but greater than those in this Bill, and uses those powers in circumstances which are analogous to those with which we are here dealing, then I should think it would be difficult for the House to refuse the powers he asks. I submit to the Committee that if they consider the condition of matters under the Penal Servitude Acts, they will see at once that the Home Secretary has powers which are not only equal to but greater than those he now asks the House to give him. In 1853 an Act was passed which empowered the Home Secretary to impose any conditions he thought proper upon a prisoner released under the Act. That law existed up to 1864, when another Act
    1276
    was passed in which there was a Schedule containing the conditions which might be appended to any licence the Home Secretary might grant. I ask the Committee to observe two things about the Act. In the first place, the Schedule was purely permissive and not imperative. In the second place, under that Statute the Home Secretary received express power to put any conditions he liked upon the licence of any prisoner he released, so that the position in 1864 was that the Home Secretary might, if he pleased, adopt the conditions set out in the Schedule, but he was entitled and empowered to append any conditions which he thought fit. So the law remained until 1871, when the Prevention of Crimes Act was passed.
    8.0 P.M.
    In that Act it was provided for the first time that, if the Home Secretary inserted conditions other than those in the Schedule of the previous Act, these conditions should be laid on the Table of the House. I would ask the Committee further to remember in regard to the Act of 1871 that there were statutory conditions imposed by it, which the Home secretary was directed to import into the licences which he granted, such as that the prisoner should report his residence and any intended change of residence. Even with regard to these statutory conditions in 1871, the Home Secretary was expressly empowered to remit them if he thought proper. Accordingly, at that date, not only had he power to impose such conditions as he thought proper, but he also had power, if he thought proper, to remit the statutory conditions which the Statute imposed. If that was the condition of matters with regard to penal servitude, the powers which the Home Secretary now seeks do not in any degree resemble or approach those which he enjoys in those entirely analogous circumstances. The circumstances are analogous. I differ from the Noble Lord who said that they were not. In each case the law is relaxed in favour of the prisoner. In one case the release is no doubt only temporary, and in the other it may be permanent; but if the Committee consider for a moment what the alternative is, it will see that I am justified in saying that in each case the prisoner benefits by the operation of the Home Secretary's discretion. The alternative in penal servitude is continued captivity. In this case it may be continued captivity plus forcible feeding or possibly death.

    1277
    Keeping that in mind, can anyone say that the operation of this Statute would not be beneficial to the prisoner if the prisoner is released in the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion? It is nothing to the point to say that the prisoner has to go back to serve the rest of his or her sentence. That is part of the original sentence. There is not only no increase of the penalty, but there is a remission of the penalty for the time, although not permanent, as in the case of a man released from penal servitude. If you compare the two cases, the comparison is entirely in favour of the case with which we are dealing. The conditions which the Home Secretary may append will be appended for a less time than in many cases of penal servitude, where these conditions may operate for ten, or fifteen, or twenty years, while under the provisions of this Act they would extend to a very much less period in nine cases out of ten. In addition, the Home Secretary has assured the House that the conditions will not be of a punitive nature. With regard to penal servitude, they may or may not be, according to his own discretion, but in this case he has fettered himself in this matter. Lastly, he has created a standard by which he is to be guided, and departure from which on the part of any of his successors would have to be justified in this House. The claim now made is really a small claim; and to refuse what the Home Secretary asks now, looking to the powers which he already enjoys, is really to strain at a gnat after having swallowed a camel.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I listened with the greatest attention to the extremely clear speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Munro), and I am authorised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) to express his deep regret that he was obliged to leave to fulfil an important engagement, and was not able to have the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. Member. The real question on this Amendment is: Is this House or the Home Secretary to settle what these conditions are to be? I do not entirely follow the arguments which have just been addressed to the House, or those of the Home Secretary. In practice there is no analogy at all between the licences granted by the Home Secretary to persons released from penal servitude and those which he will
    1278
    grant under this Bill. In practice, what happens in the case of penal servitude is this: There is in operation in the penal servitude settlement a system under which if a man behaves well for a certain time he accumulates a certain number of good marks, which, according to the prison rules, entitle him to discharge before the term of his imprisonment is fulfilled, and the only conditions it is ever sought to impose are that the released person is to report himself from time to time, and perhaps abstain from certain localities, but there are no conditions in the least analogous to these—that he is to abstain from committing offences in the future.
    Mr. McKENNA: The words which the hon. Member is now quoting are from the Penal Servitude Licence.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: But the licence as provided under this Bill is in totally different circumstances. This introduces an entirely new procedure. The whole success of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and the question whether or not it is to fulfil the object which the Home Secretary has in view, depends on the conditions on which these people are going to be released. If they are properly framed and drafted and proper means are given to enforce them, it may be that he will be able to carry out the object of an Act—that is, to release and rearrest at the expiration of a short term. But the last thing, surely, which the Home Secretary would desire is that those whom he does release under this Act should utilise their absence from prison to recommit the very offences, or offences kindred to these offences, for which they have been sentenced; and it is quite obvious that whether or not that happens will depend upon the conditions inserted in the order under which they are released. That is a matter that ought to remain within the cognisance of this House of Commons. The terms of the discharge are no doubt the most important part of the whole Bill. As an illustration of what I would suggest ought to be part of the order I have an Amendment, which is lower down, and when we discuss it the Committee will see that it is a question that needs to be discussed in the House. I am suggesting that if you release people under conditions set out in the order you should have a procedure analogous to that existing under what we call the Probation Order at the present time.

    1279
    There is already in existence a system under which men are released on certain terms, usually that they will abstain from drink or from associating with the criminal classes, and part of the system that makes that successful is that they are put under the supervision of an officer attached to the Court, a probation officer, and when they are let out under this Probation Order they know that if they do wrong it will be found out, because it is the duty of this expert attached to the Court to follow their movements, keep his eye upon them, and report to the Court; and if he reports that the conditions of the order are broken when they come up for sentence in the Court, and the knowledge that this supervision is being kept over them is a very powerful factor in leading them to obey the conditions imposed in the order of discharge. I am suggesting that some similar procedure may be adopted in this case. When my opportunity arises on the Amendment the Committee will come to a decision one way or another. I am only bringing it forward now as an illustration of the fact that the terms of this order should not be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary but submitted to the House of Commons. In my opinion, according to the insertion or non-insertion of that Amendment, depends whether the people released under these orders will or will not obey them, and consequently whether the orders will or will not be effective. That is a totally different condition of things from releasing people from penal servitude whom you do not seek to rearrest, who are not exceptional prisoners, and to whom you do not desire to extend exceptional treatment in any form. It is useless to say that the Home Secretary has already got these powers. If he had them he would not require to bring in this Bill. It is an entirely new procedure to introduce into our criminal law, not only for the specific purpose for which it is introduced at the present time, but for all time and for all classes, and therefore, if it is going to be made effective, the order should be subject to the discretion of the Home Secretary, operating under the control of the House of Commons, and that can only be done by accepting something in the terms of this Amendment.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I would like information from the Home Secretary on one or two points. In the case of a convict sen-
    1280
    tenced to penal servitude and released on licence, I quite understand that the Home Secretary has discretion to impose the conditions on which he extends to the convict the favour of release upon licence. As a matter of practice, is the assent of the proposed licensee asked to those conditions?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. M'CURDY: Then in a case arising under this Act, say the case of a female who is being released on account of a hunger strike, is it proposed that any assent or undertaking on the part of the prisoner proposed to be released should be asked as a term of the discharge?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. M'CURDY: Then I want to ask a further question to make the situation clear. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the importance of the enforcement of such conditions as may be made by the Home Secretary. Am I right in this view, that the only sanction for the enforcement of any conditions laid down will be that upon breach of the conditions the temporary discharge comes to an end?
    Mr. McKENNAindicated assent.
    Mr. M'CURDY:I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making these points clear.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight o'clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

    MINIMUM WAGE.
    Mr. CROOKS: I beg to move,
    "That the right of every family in the country to an income sufficient to enable it to maintain its members in decency and comfort should be recognised; and this House is therefore of opinion that the Trade Boards Act should be so extended as to provide for the establishment of a minimum wage of at least 30s. per week for every adult worker in urban areas and a minimum wage that will secure an approximately equal standard of life for every adult worker in rural areas; and this House also declares that the Government should set an example by adopting the minimum of 30s. per week in its own workshops and insert it as a condition in all contracts."

    1281
    I do not know, in regard to the subject to which I am going to call attention, that there is a single Member sitting in any quarter of the House who has not stood out for decency and comfort in living for the working men of the country. It is laid down as a cardinal principle, if there were no other reason, that the man who desires to come to the Imperial Parliament, and to take part in the proceedings of this august Assembly, is expected to see that the working man and his wife and children live in decency and comfort. When this question was raised in the House on the last occasion, and the subject of a 30s. minimum wage was debated, some Members, speaking in what is called the scientific and economic spirit, pointed out that if every adult person was to be paid 30s. a week it would cost the nation £88,000,000. Everyone who heard that held his breath, paralysed to think that decency and comfort should cost £88,000,000. They did not realise, nor do they realise now, I think, that if every adult worker in the Kingdom had 30s. a week, even supposing it cost £88,000,000, it would mean that that amount would be put in circulation; none of it would be wasted, or sunk, or blown away, while everybody would be living in decency and comfort. If it were proposed that every workman should work for nothing, and that he should have a recommendation by a clergyman to be allowed to do so, how many would rise on and say that it was undermining the principles of government? I am reminded of the fact that the average Member of the House of Commons seems to miss what it is the House of Commons really exists for—that it does not exist to do anything except to deliberate; and I think it is generally accepted that it can deliberate and go on deliberating.
    In the year 1823 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire as to whether workmen had any right to demand wages at all, though they called it the Conspiracy Law. Workmen in 1823 actually demanded the right to live, which was like their cheek, and Parliament deliberated on that for a considerable time, much evidence being gathered and many important persons examined. The employer then said, just as he does now, "The working man? Why, he is never satisfied; if I had his soft job as a working man I would retire to-morrow." When asked what the workmen received in wages the employer's reply was, "I think
    1282
    he gets more than he ought to have." When the employer was asked what he made, he answered, "What do I make? I do not make anything." "What do you sell?" "I sell what the men make." "What is the value of the article?" "I do not think I ought to be asked what is the value of the article." "Is it 30s.?" "Very well, I suppose 30s." "Suppose somebody offered you £1, what would you say?" "I would not take it." "Then do you not see that if your workman asks 30s. a week for his labour and you offer him only £1, he has just as much right to refuse to take your £1 as you have to refuse £1 for the article which your workman makes?" It is on record that the employer said, "I never heard of that before." We have gone along endeavouring to forward this question, and we have opened up the argument in relation to it from time to time. There is an Amendment down to my Motion asking us to insist, before any law is passed, on seeing that the workman gives value for his money. However a Member of Parliament can argue like that I do not know. Of course, I am not responsible for his feeling, but I suppose he feels he earns his money by listening to some of the deliberations that go on here. Does anybody know of any workman who earns money without the work of his hands?
    My mind goes back to my very early days when I was courting, or when another young man I knew was courting. This young man asked the father of the young lady to allow her to be his wife. The father replied, "It all depends upon your position. What do you earn?" "I earn £3 a week." "That will do," the father said, "take her, and God bless you with her." Saturday came, as it will come, and when the young husband went home he threw a sovereign into his young wife's lap. She said, "What do you mean by this?" He replied, "All right; it's my wages." "You told my father that you earned £3 a week." "So I do, but I do not get it." That is the situation of working men, yet they are expected to go about in decency and comfort on a wholly inadequate wage. By the way, one ought to be very careful. I remember that a friend of mine suggested in the House that an hon. Member could not live on the wages paid, and if he could he had better try it. The Member said he was insulted by the suggestion, yet if a workman refuses to be satisfied with what is paid him he is said to be all wrong. What we ask to call

    1283
    attention to is the 30s. minimum wage, and the Motion sets forth:—
    "That the right of every family in the country to an income sufficient to enable it to maintain its members in decency and comfort should be recognised."
    Everybody does recognise that on every platform, where they talk of the manly and independent British workman, whose fathers fought for the glories of the Empire on which the sun never sets. We have all heard that, and we have all played it. I have seen men take off their hats to the glories of the Empire on which the sun never sets. A man walked out from such a meeting, and the pathway was not broad enough for him to get along. He went home and said, "I am one of the Empire." His wife said, "Are you?" "Yes, I am." Then he asked if his supper was ready. "No, of course it ain't ready. What are you grumbling about?" "I am grumbling because the supper isn't ready." "How could I fry the fish and mind the baby? You lay hold of your bit of the Empire, while I fry the fish." The Resolution goes on to say,
    "and this House is, therefore, of opinion that the Trade Boards Act should be so extended as to provide for the establishment of a minimum wage of at least 30s. per week for every adult worker in urban areas, and a minimum wage that will secure an approximate equal standard of life for every adult worker in rural areas."
    We are all in favour of that on the platform. [An HON. MEMBER: "No we are not"] Yes you are, I have heard you. The Resolution proceeds,
    "and this House also declares that the Government should set an example by adopting the minimum of 30s. per week in its own workshops and insert it as a condition in all contracts."
    Some of these Amendments I notice have special ideas and notions as to how to raise the money. I do not care anything about that. It is not part of my argument where the money is to come from, because it will come from the same source from which it always comes, from labour, and you will take very good care about that. When you are shouting for "Dreadnoughts" and more armaments, you do not ask then where the money comes from, but you say the nation needs them. We say that the nation is in danger with discontented, dissatisfied, working men. We
    1284
    say that it is the greatest danger to the nation. What you propose to do is to go about making things a little dearer so as to be able to get them a little cheaper. I have heard you tell the working men that the very loaf is dear if you have not a 1d. to pay for it, and the meeting cheer, and you propose to make it 1½., to make them have a better chance of getting it. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Cooper) proposes to make a rule by which everybody who pays less than 4½d. per hour to an adult man, and everybody who pays less than 3d. to a woman is to go down to the town clerk, and tell him about it. Upon my word of honour, I can see notices being stuck up, "Come early to avoid the crush." I can see them coming down in rows letting the world know how cheap they can get things in that department. That will not do. When you talk here, people are listening outside, and I want to know what line the argument is going to take. Some people say 30s. is too much. I worked for 30s., and I worked for less than 30s., but I never worked for less than 30s. without getting into debt, which made it a bit of a burden. Decency and comfort, what is it? Is there any man or any Member of this House who can define decency and comfort? What is your minimum state of existence but decency and comfort? Need I enlarge upon the fact that you here could not get what you call decency and comfort for three times 30s.
    Need I say there is no necessity to create wealth in the country to be able to pay 30s. We have people who write articles in the "Economist" or "Quarterly Review." They have never had to live on it. We have got statistics of how we are piling up wealth one month after another, while people go on day after day toiling, and toiling, and having insufficient to maintain them in decency and comfort. There was an inquest held within the last fortnight which was headed in the newspapers, "A father censured for neglecting his children on an income of 28s. per week." It was proved that the man had travelled up to London, and, with that riotous extravagance which is inborn in our race, took furnished apartments somewhere, just as if he could not have done with a "doss" house at 6d. per night. One of his children died, and hence the inquiry. That one child was taken to the infirmary. At the inquest the father said, using a happy phrase which he must have learned from the coroner, that the child's apparent wasting was due to a lack

    1285
    of assimilation. But, the coroner said, the child found its appetite in the infirmary. Of course it did. There it would get food that would refresh it and comfort it. The man's wages did not allow him to supply the child with the common necessaries of life and useful food, and he is censured. A case exacty on all fours happened at Walworth, in which the coroner's officer reported that he visited a room eight feet square. In the centre of the room was a small coffin, and on the coffin was set out two cups and saucers and some dry bread, and four children and a man and woman sat around partaking of that. It was their table. The man said he was unable to give the child sufficient food. The doctor reported on the case, and the coroner's jury, after due deliberation, brought in a verdict that the child had died from lack of assimilation, a convenient way of getting out of the whole business. The child could not assimilate fat out of water, and therefore it died. I do not think it was a bad job, but a blessing that it did, under the circumstances.
    Do you expect, and does this House expect when that is going on, to get an Imperial race, a great race of people who are going to hold up, not only the dignity and importance of the Empire, but to become defenders of a great Empire? How appalling it is to talk about! You may talk about robbing them of their thrifty habits and self-reliance, but you never get a perfect man except in the newspapers. May I remind the House that it has set up a standard of some decency anyhow, and may I take the House back to a Report which was laid on the Table, and I think, as a matter of fact, it has been lying on the Table ever since it was presented a long time ago. They argued in those days about work and feeding the people. There was the natural reservoir for the supply of casual labour for the convenience of the commercial world, so that there should be a liberal supply of labour, and that if one man broke down another would be ready to take his place. Never mind about paying 30s. per week, but you could get a hundred and a thousand men glad to work for God's sake for 15s., and we are a Christian nation on the top of it. That Report said we had been feeding the people, trying to keep them up to working capacity, so that they might really be worth money when somebody was good enough to come along and give them a job at a half-crown per day. When we had been feeding them it was said we had
    1286
    neglected our duty, and that it was no part of our duty to adjust social inequalities. Yet you were created for that purpose. This deliberative Assembly, which has existed for six or seven centuries, was created for no other purpose than to see that no person was imposed upon, that social inequalities should not bear down a section of the community.
    Here, at the commencement of the twentieth century, we are told it is no part of our duty to adjust social inequalities. Is not the gulf broad enough for you to give 30s.? Government Departments have issued orders how people are to be fed under the Poor Law. The dietary scale sets forth how much tea, sugar, milk, bread, butter, broth and mutton on certain days, and so on. I remember once breaking the law by suggesting that they should put currants in the poor old folks' bread. They surcharged me for that. It was reckless, riotous extravagance, for which we were called upon to pay. We were carrying out the dietary scale passed by various Presidents of the Local Government Board, running on from the great Mr. Stansfeld, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), the late Sir Charles Dilke, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), down to the present day, when the same order has existed. The question put to me was, "Could a man feed his family like you have been feeding these people for less than 28s. per week?" I said, No, he could not," and then they said, "Oh, this is an abominable thing. You are wasting public money and making the pauper a superior person to the free and independent and starving labourer outside!" But you have laid down a dietary scale, and you say that less than that you shall not give. Surely it is not too much to ask that you should give the man outside enough to enable him to feed his wife and family up to the level of a Local Government Board dietary scale. I do not want to argue about the increased price of commodities; but, roughly speaking, it costs 5s. 6d. per week to keep an adult person; that means 11s. for a man and a woman. It costs about 2s. 7½d. to keep a child. If you put that together, and take a man, his wife, and four children, with the rent on top of that, together with boots and shoes and a few odd things that civilisation would allow them, there is not much change out of 30s.

    1287
    But what does that matter? We are a great Empire; we are a free and independent Empire. Our men want no charity; they want the opportunity to live. When are you going to give it to them?
    "Oh!" you say, "if the working men would combine, they could obtain for themselves the privileges that you come to Parliament to demand on their behalf." Yes, quite so. Do you not think that you have safeguarded the masters sufficiently well by Acts of Parliament to encourage working men to come along and ask for a share? But it is said if he does not like his job he can leave it. Yes, of course he can; he can go out and starve. What does it matter? But you have the agricultural labourer—that manly independent man. Everyone has a special agricultural labourer; they keep him up their sleeve all the time. He will be trotted out presently—the man with 15s. a week, who now possesses a farm. I have heard all that before. He has brought up a family in manly independence, and all the rest of it. It reminds me of a Scotch friend of mine who came to London and got a job at 30s. a week. He saved £1 a week, and said that if it had not been for his infernal appetite he could have saved the other 10s. But we are not dealing with that kind of man. I ask you to take the ordinary man. We talk about his independence at certain times, and we rob him of his independence at other times. Do you not feel ashamed of yourselves sometimes? I am talking to employers of labour. A manly chap comes along. He is as good a man as you are; in fact, if it comes to the moral side, perhaps you are not worthy to unlace his shoes. Ho comes and says, "If you please if you would be so kind as to be so good as to give me a job for the love of Heaven, I shall be very much obliged." You say, "I will see the steward, and see what he can do for you. In the meantime that little cottage wants repairing; you might devote yourself to mending it up a bit, instead of spending your days in laziness about the place." When it comes to the defence of the Empire he is a great man. I want him to continue to be a great man. I want him to have the right to live in happiness, decency, and comfort in the land of his birth.
    There is not a man within sound of my voice but believes in that sentiment. And Parliament can do it. Not enough money?
    1288
    Cannot afford it? If the Empire was in danger from invasion the money would be found. We should then be talking about the sacrifices necessary for the safety of a great Imperial race. But when we say that the Empire can be strengthened from within the homes and kitchens of the poor the nation cannot afford it! Do you think that the working man of to-day has lost every bit of the education that he has been having for forty-five years? Do not you forget that his grandfather knew the effect of poverty; his father knew the cause of it; he himself knows the remedy for it, and he is coming to this House to ask for it. Why do you not make the nation really great? Why do you not make it the envy of Germany and every other nation in the world? Why do you not make it the envy of the world, not because of its "Dreadnoughts" and its Army, but because of the happiness and contentment of every man, woman, and child living in it? That would be something to be proud of. Wealth! This country is richer than any historian, living or dead, ever dreamt a nation could become. In our streets and highways, in our great mansions and grand homes, we see wealth, ease, luxury, idleness, and immorality even to the point of criminality on the one side. On the other side, if you go down the highways and byways of our great cities, you see poverty, misery, squalor, and wretchedness even to the sinfulness of neglect. You ask the man who is down where he has been working? Why did he not take care? Why was he not more thrifty? Why did he not exercise more self-denial? Why did he not remember that the cold weather was coming, that trade might fall off, and that the commerce and industry of the country would have a shrinkage? My God! On the wages you pay to the poorest of the poor! See him as we know him. A brave and manly man, he was patted on the back. Then he was put off, because there was no more profit in him; his services were no longer required. The wealth that he has created can still be enjoyed, but not by him or his wife and family. He may go and beg. He is manly and independent in October. He comes and asks, "Can you give me a job? I must have a job soon." You say, "I don't know of a job." He comes again in November. "Have you heard of a job?" "No." He comes again in December. "Have you heard of a job yet?" "No." He says, "You are a Member of Parliament, I suppose; you

    1289
    are one of those fellows who say, 'Vote for me and you will never want any more.' We have heard all that before." You meet him in January, and ask him whether he has got a job. His reply, is, "No. I can't get a job, and I don't want one." What do you think of it? Your neglect has robbed that man of the only thing in regard to which he was an asset to the nation. You have robbed him of his manliness and independence. How is he going to stand up against times of unemployment? The wealth that he has created ought to have tided him over those four months and kept the manhood in him. Oh, but that is extravagance; that is reckless; that is wicked! They then talk about trips to the Continent, and so on. It is only wicked in the case of the working man.
    Then we go a little further in our Resolution, and ask that the Government itself should set an example by paying a 30s. a week minimum. Have hon. Gentleman of a statistical turn of mind ever taken the trouble to look out the number of accidents, and how they happen? They would be astonished to find that the majority of accidents happen to poorly paid men and women. The well-paid man is well organised. He meets with accidents certainly, but they are not so bad generally as those that befall the badly paid man. The well-paid man, when he goes to his work, has not the worry of the home upon him. The badly paid man takes the home to work with him. He is wondering how those at home are getting on during the day. He has ringing in his ears the cry of his wife that if he can make a bit he should bring it home early. What can be expected in a case of this kind when a man leaves wife and children hungry, and is wondering whether his children will get any food during the day, and whether his wife will be able to borrow sixpence? While he is thinking of these things he gets absent-minded; down he conies and is maimed for life. If he had been well-paid he would not have been in a state of anxiety about his home and those in it. I suppose we shall go on deliberating this subject. Amendments will be proposed, and I shall be told that my Resolution does credit to my heart but not to my head. Hon. Members will say awfully nice things about me that I do not want. What I do want you to do is to give 30s. a week minimum to the men I am pleading for; to give to every man, woman, and child in this Kingdom some-
    1290
    thing to live for. What are we asking for? We are asking for a man's share of the good things of this life, not a dog's share, nor a horse's share, nor a pig's share. Will anyone deny that this nation can afford to give it? No one can deny it. The nation can afford to pay what we ask, and some day the workers will ask for it.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Motion. It will be noted that the Resolution differs in some respect from that proposed two years ago. In the first place, it allows for a difference in wages as between the town and the country. It introduces the idea of the Wages Board, and it makes provision for Government work being done under the same conditions as to wages whether done in Government or private employment. We base our demand in this Resolution on the general principle that it is the duty of the State to prevent labour being sweated or oppressed by monopoly. We submit that that arises or should be a corollary of law and order in a community where the means of production are in private hands. Otherwise there is a disparity of fortunes, and evils grow up which are a danger to the State. That, I submit, is the condition of things in this country now. I remember many years ago reading a speech delivered some where by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He defined politics as "the science of human happiness." The right hon. Gentleman went on in the same speech to quote the well-known lines of Robert Burns:—
    "It's hardly in a body's power,
    To keep at times frae being sour,
    To see bow things are shared."
    If that was true then, we submit that it is doubly true now, because things are shared worse now than even they were at that time. We are living now in an age when science has extended her borders; when the power of producing things, I suppose, is greater than ever it was in this country or any other country. But people still struggle for bread. They pass their lives steeped in poverty. I do not say that people are worse off than they were. That may or may not be so. But I do say that, with all our wonderful power of producing all the things of life, the simple result is that of widening the gulf between the rich and the poor amongst us. Let me give the figures of Professor Bowley who about a year ago wrote an article

    1291
    in one of the magazines. He dealt with the wages of labour in the year 1911. He set out in tabular form the wages of the various grades of work-people, from those with 15s. a week and less to those of £2 a week and over. The result, he found, was that 32 per cent. of the 8,000,000 of male manual workers in this country were making less than 25s. per week. Further, there was this startling fact brought out, that the condition of these people was much the same as it had been twelve years previously. There had been a money rise in wages, I think, amounting to 12 per cent. or 13 per cent., but there had been a more than corresponding rise in prices; therefore the condition of the workers was pretty much the same as twelve years before. In that period the well-to-do classes of this country had had their incomes increased from £700,000,000 to £1,400,000,000, or a 50 per cent. increase.
    It has been estimated that the national income is somewhere about £2,000,000,000 per year, which, divided amongst the population, gives £45 per head for every man, woman, and child, or £225 for a family. The manual workers do not get that £225 per family by a long way. As a simple matter of fact, they get about one-third of it. We submit that the other two-thirds goes to landlords and monopolists for the most part for absolutely no service rendered to the community. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money), who is one of the greatest authorities in these matters, has said somewhere that one-thirtieth of the population, and their monopolies, take about one-third of the national weatlh. The conditions under present arrangements are not only unjust; they are wasteful. I remember two years ago the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade about the £88,000,000. Low wages are really a cause of low purchasing power. With low wages we cannot keep the machine running. I wonder if the then Parliamentary Secretary had in his mind when he made that statement that, as a matter of fact, we lose a great deal more than £88,000,000 every year through unemployed men. I suppose, taking a long period, it will be found that at least half a million of men, willing to work but who cannot get it, are out of work every year. That is a very low estimate, but I do not want to go beyond reasonable figures. Suppose these half-million of
    1292
    men could produce wealth measured by £300 a year—there is £150,000,000, or twice the £88,000,000, which is wasted every year owing to unemployed men. Without going into the question of unemployed men let hon. Members put to themselves the condition of those in receipt of low wages.
    There are possibly millions of families in this country who have not on an average more than £5 worth of furniture in their houses. Many of them have not that. Many, many thousands of them have not got a second shirt to their back; many of them do not use table linen and do not use many other things, not because they do not want them, but because they cannot get them, and we say that if the wages of the great masses of the people of this country were increased it would bring grist to your mill which is to put it on a very low ground indeed. I was reading only a few days ago an article in "The Hibbert Journal," by Professor Hugh Walker, in which he was discussing the question of the productivity of labour now as compared with a hundred years ago. He gives various estimates to show what labour can Produce now, as compared with a hundred years ago, some he goes so far as to say that we can produce, man for man, fifteen times as much as in days past, and he puts the question, "What has become of this enormous increase of the productive power of man?" and he proceeds to reply to his own question. He says part of it goes to enrich the already rich; part of it goes to the worker; but the great bulk of it is not used at all. It is not used at all because demand lags behind supply, and demand lags behind supply not because human needs are satisfied, but because the great mass of the people have not got the means wherewith to buy. That is what my hon. Friends around me and I have been trying to impress upon the people for the last twenty-five years or more. It is satisfactory to know that at last it has got into the head of a professor, and if we live long enough I have no doubt we shall get it into the heads of the Government.
    9.0 P.M.
    We submit that the lack of purchasing power is to a very large extent the cause of our present difficulty, and that whilst you are increasing all sorts of international obligations and running into all sorts of international dangers, and talking about arming your merchant ships, you are neglecting this market upon your own doorsteps, if only your own people were better housed

    1293
    and fed. It is for these reasons we demand an economic wage minimum and we put that minimum wage at a point which just covers and no more than covers the bare physical needs of a person regarded as a human being in a civilised community. It will be argued again, no doubt, to-night, as it was two years ago, that wages ought to be left to the free play of economic law. I think that was the phrase used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade two years ago. If that argument is used again we say that economic law is blind of an eye, that it is lop-sided. What effect has economic law, for instance in regard to the Duke of Westminster or any landlord owning land on the outskirts of any large growing town? The people of that town press upon the land day by day and they increase its price so that the owner may get rich; and, moreover, all sorts of arrangements take place by monopolists and employers of labour. As a matter of fact, the railways are not now in any sort of competition, and when the miners a year or so ago managed to improve their position, for every penny they got in increased wages, as everybody knows, twopence was put upon the price of coal. And not only are there arrangements between employers as to prices, but the employers are now organised so as to deal more effectively from their point of view in making bargains with labour; so that labour is not in the same position in the economic field as it used to be. As a matter of fact, we are living now in an age when combination is rapidly assuming monopolistic form and competition is going the way of all flesh. Competition used to be preached to us, but the very people who used to preach it as the Alpha and Omega of human wisdom are now getting rid of it as fast as they can with regard to their own business in all its phases except in the buying of labour; and even there we submit the employer stands in his own light in trying to depress it. I submit that low-priced labour benefits nobody. It is quite obvious it does not benefit the poor workman, whose life is a round of daily drudgery, unrelieved by recreation or holiday or food for the mind, and who very often cannot get enough food for the body. But it is clear, if one thinks if it, that low wages do not even benefit the employer. There is no stimulus to inventiveness under such circumstances. One of the things that struck me most in
    1294
    America was the many devices used for getting things out quickly and in large volume, and, of course, this was easily explainable. The high wages were always an incentive to the employers of labour to adopt the latest and the best methods of getting out work. On the other hand, low wages have the opposite effect in inducing or enabling the employer to retain old-fashioned and inefficient methods of production. As everybody knows, the agricultural labourer has to toil in summer's sun and winter's blast for a wage hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together, and probably now we have such men working for ten or twelve shillings a week, and it may be true, as the Duke of Marlborough said, he is not worth much more. But if he is not worth much more, I submit it is the Duke of Marlborough and others who are themselves responsible, who in times gone by reduced the agricultural labourer to this condition of inactivity and imbecility. At any rate, we say the employer does not benefit any more than the workman by cheap labour. If neither the employer nor the employed benefit from cheap labour the community benefits least of all. Poverty does not pay; it imposes a burden upon the community. Take the point of view of consumption. We are told that 70,000 people die every year from consumption, and the great bulk of them die between the ages of thirty-five and fifty, which ought to be the most productive period of their lives.
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the other day stated that pauperism in this country was caused to the extent of 40 per cent. by widowhood and orphanhood. Consumption is a poverty disease, and consumption is largely responsible for this widowhood and orphanhood. But without going to the consumptives or the chronically diseased, let us take the average labourer. He has no margin for sickness; he gets sick a great deal more than the average man, and immediately that he gets sick he becomes a burden upon somebody or other, it may be upon his family or his friends, but to the extent that he is a burden he is taking something from the community. When he gets out of work exactly the same thing takes place. Old age comes on, and with diminished strength and health undermined, the workhouse is his only refuge, and in all these phases of the underpaid workman's life the man or his family is a burden upon the community.

    1295
    I was going to say a few words about prices. I cannot discuss prices in all their phases now. There are a lot of reasons or causes for increased prices which are ruling at the present time, but I am only going to deal with one. Whatever else may cause increased prices, at all events they depend upon plentifulness or scarcity of commodities. If commodities are plentiful, then prices ought to be low, and that being so, it seems to me that prices must be increased by the fact that hundreds of millions of money are taken year after year for unproductive expenditure and spent upon such things as guns, "Dreadnoughts," and torpedo boats. I am not now discussing whether they are necessary or not, but at all events the Government have the responsibility for providing these things. They have taken the responsibility of spending to an ever-increasing extent on these things every year, and they ought to see to it that in so far as prices are increased by that expenditure, wages should be correspondingly increased. As far as the practical aspect of the Resolution goes, it will be seen that we propose to set up wages boards with a view to adjusting wages at or above the standard, and therefore the charge of impractibility does not lie against this Resolution as it might have done in the case of our Resolution a few years ago.
    We do not seek by an Act, of Parliament to set up by a fairy wand all at once 30s. a week. We propose that wages boards should be set up, and that they should consider all the surrounding circumstances of the situation. We also propose the Government should start at once paying a 30s. minimum to their own workmen, and they should also impose that wage upon those who do Government work elsewhere than in Government workshops. It may be said that that is unfair to those who have to pay the taxes, but I think it might be left to those who are getting less to bring that forward, and so far as I know they have never brought it forward. On the contrary, the trade unionists have always supported the demand for a 30s. minimum wage for Government workmen, and they have been wise in so doing, because they know perfectly well that just in proportion as the conditions of labour amongst, Government workmen are improved, so their chances of coming up to that standard are also improved. In Australia the legislation dealing with wages enacts that no Government workman, either man or
    1296
    woman, shall get less than £112 per year. There is nothing new so far as the principle is concerned, in this Resolution. In 1893 the House of Commons adopted the following Resolution:—
    "That in the opinion of this House, no persons should in Her Majesty's naval establishments be engaged at wages insufficient to maintain a proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, etc., should be such as to afford an example to employers throughout the country."
    By that resolution the House of Commons, as a matter of fact, discarded competition in wages, and discarded also the idea of leaving wages open to the operation of economic laws. In the Debate on Friday last the President of the Local Government Board said:—
    "If we want to make the rural countryside better than it is, it is by wages, wages, wages alone that it can be done."
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Very likely we could do something by organisation, but everybody knows who has had anything to do with the organisation of labour, the almost insurmountable difficulty of organising the agricultural labourers, working as they do in isolation, and very often under the eye of the local mandarin. Under our method the agricultural labourers would be brought together by the operation of these wages boards. They would be trained to think collectively, and the chances of them becoming organised would be a great deal better. A few months ago the Prime Minister made a speech, in which he said:—
    "I do not believe that there is anyone acquainted with the conditions of urban and rural life who does not recognise that the first and most important step which is now to be taken towards raising the level, not only of comfort and refinement, but of civilisation itself, is to improve the conditions under which the less well-in-do classes live and work."
    These are brave words, but brave words butter no bread. We want those words translated into deeds. We want the Government to set about at once paying their own workmen a decent wage of 30s. a week. We want the Government to set up machinery, whereby the Resolution of 1893 can be put into operation, and by so doing we believe we shall be achieving something frought with good, not only to labour but to the whole community, and in the days to come we shall be setting a base line of civilised life below which none shall be submerged, and above which the people of this country can work their way to freedom.
    Mr. ERNEST CRAIG: As this is the first occasion in which I have participated in debate in this House, I respect-

    1297
    fully claim its kind indulgence. I do so on the ground that the question under consideration is one in which I take a great interest. It seeks to benefit the condition of the working classes, and I would say that the whole period of my practical experience in life has been one of close association with the working classes. I deeply sympathise with any effort which has for its object the improvement of the conditions of the working classes. The motion which has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich establishes a fixed minimum wage of 30s. for labourers in rural and urban areas. The reason it is necessary is in order to satisfy a demand which is urgent. The Motion is put forward by an hon. Member of the Labour party, and I would not question his authority to deal fully with this question, but there are certain conditions which I would bring to the consideration of the House in order to enable us to test the proposal in the light of past experience and of recent events. Speaking for myself, I can say that I listened with painful attention to the illustrations which were given by the hon. Member as showing the urgency of this demand, and I believe that any improvement which could be legitimately brought about would be heartily welcomed on both sides of the House and also by the community in general. But however complete our agreement may be in this respect, the proposal raises two questions which seem to me to present certain difficulties and which require grave consideration. The two questions to which I wish to invite the consideration of the House are: first, the effect which the establishment of such a minimum wage would have upon industry; and, secondly, whether the Motion, if translated into law, would meet the demands and satisfy the requirements of the working classes.
    I would remind the House that we have in recent years had experience of industrial legislation. The effect of this legislation, in addition to improving the condition of the working man, has also been to increase the cost of production of industrial commodities. The present Resolution if put into effect, would have a similar tendency, and I submit, before we take this step, it is advisable to consider the position in which we are now as the result of the industrial legislation to which I have referred. Recent legislation has perhaps more seriously and intimately affected the coal mining in-
    1298
    dustry than any other industry. I have been associated with that industry for upwards of thirty-five years, and I would therefore, with the permission of the House, submit certain results showing the effect recent legislation has had upon it. The figures that I have are taken from a colliery with which I am associated. They have been carefully taken out, and I venture to think they are to be depended upon. The first legislation to which I wish to draw attention was passed in 1909. The Eight Hours Bill was then passed. The effect of that Act was to decrease the production of coal in this particular colliery. It is a colliery which may be regarded as an average-going concern in a considerable mining district. Taking every man, boy, and official, every employé, we find that the production of coal from this colliery has decreased since the Act came into operation to the extent of 2¼ cwts. per day per man, and that the result of this reduction has been to increase the cost of production to the extent of 1s. O½d. per ton. In April, 1912, the Minimum Wage Act came into operation, and it has seriously disturbed the current of industry. It has had the effect of increasing the cost of production to the extent of a further 4d. per ton. It must be borne in mind that this legislation has an indirect as well as a direct influence, the indirect influence being due to the fact that workmen, like other human beings, are not entirely free from the frailties of human nature. I have as high a regard for the working man as anybody. His moral worth and his sterling qualities compare favourably with any class of society, and I shall not be charged with being unfair or prejudiced when I say that the lower grade section of the working men, finding themselves secure of a fixed minimum wage, no longer put forward their best efforts. As a consequence we get less work from them, and that necessitates the employment of additional men.
    In July, 1912, the National Health Insurance Act came into operation, and it had the effect of further increasing the cost of coal to the extent of per ton, due to money contributions. This is inappreciable compared with the effect which this legislation has had upon the very class of labour to which I have already referred—those whose moral stamina is not sufficient to enable them to resist the temptation to abstain from work in the case of slight ailments which

    1299
    before the passing of the National Insurance Act would not have been considered as sufficient justification for abstention from work. Therefore we see that this Act, and the Minimum Wage Act in a less degree, have had a demoralising influence upon that class of workman who are influenced more by their desire for an easy life than they are for conscientious achievement. I do not submit any estimate as to the full effect of the Insurance Act, but I am satisfied that it is considerable. I would have it understood that these remarks do not apply to those classes of conscientious workmen who constitute the vast majority of workmen, and who condemn the action of those I have already named as being blameworthy and reprehensible. They would, I am satisfied, if they were called upon to express their judgment, be more severe in their condemnation even than the employers. This may in time have the effect of modifying this evil, but I am satisfied that it is at present a serious factor, and I wish to draw attention to it for the purpose of showing that such legislation as we are considering is not wholly beneficial. It has a pernicious and demoralising element in it, and if such legislation is necessary it should be carefully considered and wisely dealt with. These three causes I am satisfied have had the effect of increasing the cost of production of coal to the extent of at least 1s. 6d. per ton. It must be borne in mind that anything which affects the coal industry also affects other manufacturing industries, as they depend largely on coal. This 1s. 6d. per ton has had the effect of increasing the cost of iron to the extent of 5s. per ton finished. We recognise that this legislation has all been stimulated for the purpose of benefiting the workman. He has benefited thereby by shorter hours and by the enjoyment of a certain fixed minimum wage, while provision has been made against the natural disturbing occurrences of life. It is in these benefits that we find the justification for past legislation.
    There is another influence to which I should like to call attention, and which is year by year more and more seriously disturbing the current of industry and has affected increasingly the cost of production of articles. I refer to the influence which the Joint Stock Acts and the Limited Liability Acts have had on the relationship between employer and employed. These Acts came into operation about fifty years
    1300
    ago and served a useful purpose. They enabled a large amount of capital to be collected for the purpose of developing large industries. But they have not been without harmful effect. The individual relationship which existed between the individual employer and the workmen has been disturbed. The individual employer has been replaced largely by a board of directors, management being carried on by arbitrary dictation from delegated authority. We find that this has not had a good effect upon industry, and that when the individual employer gives place to the board of directors, when the individual management is merged into corporate management, the cost of production in those industries very seriously increases. It is within my own experience that this is the case, and this adverse influence has a result in the effect which this change of relationship has upon the working man. It has a depressing influence upon him, and, as a consequence, it tends to a lessening of effort on his part. We see that recent legislation, as well as legislation which is more remote, has tended to increase the cost of production of industrial commodities: first, by limiting production, by increasing wages, and, latterly, if I may be permitted to use the word, dehumanising the relationship between employer and employed.
    There is a limit to the capacity for increased cost of production, and it is unnecessary for me to remind the House that when the cost of production of articles equals or exceeds the price which can be realised for them in the open market the collapse of those industries is merely a matter of time. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that an important industry in this country is at the present time not entirely free from anxiety in this respect. I refer to the tinplate industry of South Wales. That industry is being driven out of our Colonial markets because it cannot, at the present time, compete with the recently developed tinplate industry of the United States. The demand from Canada has, during the last six years, been largely supplied from the tinplate industry in South Wales. But within the last two years it has seriously fallen off and our exportation of tinplate to Canada last year instead of representing the major part of the quantity Canada requires was only 9,000 tons, as compared with 53,000 tons supplied by the United States. This loss

    1301
    is not due to any inferiority, it is due to the fact that, under existing conditions, the tinplate industry in South Wales cannot compete with that of the United States, and as a consequence it is threatened with short time. This is the case when trade is booming throughout the world, and we must bear in mind that our experience of recent legislation is confined to that period when the world's trade has been greatly expanding and when competition has been slacking off. We have yet to have our experience of this legislation when trade becomes depressed and when competition becomes keen, before we can give a practical judgment as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the legislation to which I have referred.
    I submit that a further increase in the cost of production of industrial commodities may have the effect of excluding them from their markets, and, if they lose their markets abroad, it means checking production at home. Full employment will give place to short time. Consider what this would mean to the industrial world. We may be called upon, if we recognise this minimum wage, to consider whether the wages already granted are not vain and idle mockeries. To attempt it by arbitrary legislation, without careful and full consideration, may prove to be suicidal. It should not be attempted without the greatest consideration, and it is necessary for us to have more time in order to complete our experience in this matter. I now turn to a brief consideration of my second question, whether this legislation, if enacted, will have the effect of satisfying the demands and meeting the requirements of the working classes. In order to consider this, it is necessary for me to assume that industrial conditions are such as will justify the payment of the minimum wage. I have, therefore, to assume that our industries will be sufficiently protected at home and that our Imperial markets will also be available to meet the increasing production. I venture to submit that if we were to grant a minimum wage such as we are asked to establish, it would not meet the requirements nor would it satisfy the demands of the working classes. If, instead of the moderate minimum wage asked we were to give the highest minimum which the favourable conditions I assume could afford, it would still, in my opinion, not meet the requirements or satisfy the demands of the working classes.
    1302
    The industrial unrest which is disturbing us to-day is, I believe, the result of influences which are higher in their source than merely the instinct for self-preservation. Increased remuneration would no doubt, in a measure, allay the industrial unrest, but it would only allay it for a time. The desires of the working men to-day are influenced by other considerations which increased remuneration will not gratify. There is a natural craving, seeking for gratification, which springs from the higher qualities of human nature, those qualities which the working man, in common with all other human beings, possesses, and has possessed for all time, but not until recently has he sought to enforce their recognition. I cannot better illustrate the craving I refer to than by taking a recent event. It is only a few weeks ago that we were discussing the possibility of a national railway strike, not for an increase in wages or for an improvement in conditions, but in order that one man should receive justice in accordance with the ideals of his fellow men. A guard had been given a printed instruction for his guidance and protection. He was ordered by his superior to disobey that instruction. He refused, and was dismissed. His fellow men demanded first his reinstatement on the ground of justice, and they offered as an alternative national industrial paralysis. Would it have been possible for such a thing to occur twenty years ago? I do not think it is possible to conceive it, but it is the fact that it has recently occurred, and no more illuminating illustration could be given for the purpose of showing that the working man to-day, realising that he has power, intends to use that power not only for the purpose of obtaining proper remuneration for his work, but that while at work he shall be regarded and treated as a reasonable, intelligent, and responsible human being. Sixteen hours in the day are divided for him into work and recreation. He finds that for part of the time he is treated as a human being and for another part he is regarded as a machine. He revolts against this, and wishes to be regarded as a human being all the time. So we find the working man to-day is disturbed by a complication of desires. They are not very difficult to understand; they are partly material and partly psychological.
    The working man desires to get better results by less effort; in other words,

    1303
    higher wages by working less time. Further, he seeks the opportunity to express, in the exercise of his daily effort, for existence, the higher qualities of his mature—his reason, his intelligence, and his moral responsibility. I submit that the gratification of those desires is to be found by the combination of those very qualities from which those desires spring. Better results from less effort, higher wages, and less work mean, in industrial communities at all events, less production and higher cost, and that is a condition we cannot face. It can only be met by more strenuous effort on the part of the workman or by higher efficiency. Little advantage is to be expected from more strenuous effort. The limit is soon arrived at in this particular. We have barely begun to appreciate the possibilities of human efficiency. By increased efficiency we may seek to achieve the increased results demanded. Human efficiency is the result of effort, directed by intelligence, and steadied by responsibility. Those elements are available in the working men to-day. They seek to find expression, and their desires in this respect should be strengthened and encouraged. You cannot strengthen a man by pandering to his natural weaknesses; you do not encourage him by dehumanising him; but you will strengthen him when you afford him an opportunity of achieving something which is well worth his while, something which is reasonable, appreciable, and practical, and you encourage him if you justly recognise his intelligence and his sense of responsibility. The elements which are necessary to be combined in order to produce this efficiency will be found when the interest which the working man has in the industries in which he is engaged is substantially increased to something which is more than merely work for wages, when the interests of the employer and the employed become identified in every particular, when these two classes are united by the common bonds of humanity and material interests, and ending this unnatural relationship with its waste and strife, co-operate in confidence under conditions favourable to the highest efficiency. The spirit of industry, which is now starved and distracted, will, responding, make possible the attainment of the most sanguine desires cherished by those who aim at improving the condition of the working men.
    Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out all from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
    "this House would welcome the setting up of any effective machinery whereby a legal Minimum Wage might be secured to the worker in all those trades in which wages are below subsistence point; and is of opinion that a minimum standard of living cannot be secured for the whole community apart from such enactment."
    I should like to thank the hon. Member who has just sat down for having delivered a very sincere and serious speech. I differ from him in some of his remarks, and I do not think that the moral lesson he has read the Labour Members was quite called for. He reminded me of a remark made by a professor of mathematics, who, speaking of a certain branch of pure mathematics said:—
    "This branch of pure mathematics has never been disfigured by any practical application."
    I do not know the hon. Member very well, but I think it will be very difficult for him to keep up to the high standard he has set the House. I want to call attention to one or two things he has said, before I refer to my own Amendment, and to traverse the figures he has given with regard to two great industries in Wales. I hardly think the records, as far as the South Wales collieries are concerned at all events, would bear out the hon. Member's pessimistic vision to-night. I believe that the dividends for the South Wales collieries are, or will be this year, record dividends. If we turn to tin plates, which he seemed to think were almost a dying trade, we are told that the export of tin plates to Canada is very seriously decreasing. In January, 1913, we exported 456 tons, in February the export is 892 tons.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about last year?
    Mr. ALDEN: If you compare the two months of last year I admit there is a slight decrease, but the point of the matter is that there is now a steady increase, and everyone who is in the tinplate industry knows perfectly well that it is extremely prosperous, and they are looking forward to being able to export a much larger quantity of tin plates to the United States owing to the revision of the Tariff. The hon. Member also spoke of the pernicious and demoralising influence of legislation which has been

    1305
    designed to give a minimum wage or to increase wages. I cannot agree with him. I really do not think the average employer of labour will agree with him on this subject. I happened only yesterday to be chatting with a foreman in a very large works where a large number of men are employed, and I said to him: "We often discuss the question in the House of Commons as to whether the average working man is improving in morale and character or not. What is your opinion?" He said: "There is not a shadow of doubt that the average working man is infinitely better than he was. He is a man of better character; a man of soberer habits, and a man who does his work well without being watched, and in my own experience, while some of these men have been working for me for fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years, I find they will come to me on a job and say over and over again, sometimes once a week, 'Is it paying? Is it doing well?'" showing their anxiety, though they only get a weekly wage, that the employer should get his share and that credit should be done. If you ask the average employer who considers his men and exercises a humanising influence you will find that the employer will tell you there may be a few cases of men who shirk their work and do not do their duty, but in most cases the standard of work is improving.
    I am sorry the hon. Member did not keep a little more closely to the Resolution. I wish to move an Amendment, not because I am hostile to the Resolution, although I am opposed to the method by which an attempt is made to obtain a minimum wage. I think we are all agreed that a minmum wage is necessary, at any rate in the sense of a subsistence wage. I do not think anyone will deny that a subsistence wage ought to prevail in every trade. Of course, it is not enough in theory to believe in a subsistence wage. We ought to show in practice that we believe in it whether we employ men or women or whether we have any influence with those who employ them, or whether we are in the House of Commons and can bring influence to bear in that way. We ought to say that we are in favour of it and that we desire the actual fact to come into being. We wish every employer to pay a subsistence wage, and we wish to see all the working classes paid a living minimum wage. Let us admit that. I think we are agreed upon the subject, although the hon. Member seems to think
    1306
    that if an industry is going to suffer a man might be denied a living wage—that if you can show it is going to increase the cost of production you have a sort of right to say that he must be content with less than a living wage. I see no other alternative. If you start from the point of view, as I think you ought, that every man is entitled to a living wage, and if it is necessary in order to give him a living wage that you should increase his present wage, that must be put upon production, and somehow or other it must be paid for, though I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) that in most cases it comes out of the pocket of the working man.
    I have to deal with the Resolution and the Amendment which I have suggested. May I, without seeming to be in any sense hostile to the general principle and tone of the speeches which have been made, point out that this Resolution is inconsistent with itself? You cannot have a universal minimum wage side by side with the application of the Trade Boards Act. The Trade Boards Act presupposes a different method for fixing a minimum wage altogether, and the mistake that it seems to me the hon. Member makes is in inserting this 30s. into a Resolution which asks the House of Commons to apply the Trade Boards Act. That seems to me to be the fundamental blunder. You cannot make these two things run together. Then let us take one or two of the expressions in the Resolution—"the right of every family in the country to an income sufficient to enable it to maintain its members in decency and comfort should be recognised." Following on that is a certain minimum for every adult worker, man or woman, I suppose—married or unmarried, I suppose. I admit it is not a case of town and country, because the distinction is made in the Resolution itself between town and country, though that is the only distinction that is made. I do not think those who have framed the Resolution can mean that. Let us take the case for example—a case which I happen to know myself—of a family of which the father is earning some 28s., one of the sons is earning 25s., and one of the daughters is earning 16s. According to this Resolution every one of these three members in the family would be immediately raised to 30s., and I really do not think that was quite the intention of those who framed the Resolution in the first instance. I am not complaining of

    1307
    the actual amount of 30s.—I am complaining of the method by which it is worked into a Resolution which is based upon the Trade Boards Act.
    May I take one or two cases? A universal State minimum is almost impossible of application unless you fix a rather low minimum. I do not see how you can, for example, say that in every district and in every trade there shall be one universal minimum. I really do not think that is possible, and I fancy that if you were to apply that universal minimum of 30s. the effect would be, right away, without making any distinction, and the Resolution makes no distinction whatever between men and women, that hundreds of thousands of women would be thrown out of employment. I do not think there is any doubt whatever about that. At any rate, I should be willing to listen to argument, but is it seriously contended that if your unversal minimum was 30s. the hundreds of thousands of women who are employed throughout the length and breadth of the land would have very much chance of employment under these circumstances? Is it not almost certain that in many trades at all events men would be preferred? I am in favour of the minimum wage law, and I am in favour of the application of the Trade Boards Act. I am in favour of the fixing of a minimum wage in every trade, but it is because of that that I oppose the putting of this 30s. into the Resolution, because it effectually prevents you from dealing with an individual trade. That is the only method by which we shall ever get a minimum wage in this country. The only method is by taking an individual trade and suiting yourself to the conditions and needs of that trade in each individual district and locality. I have always approved of the working of the Trade Boards Act. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Resolution both approve of the working of that Act, and they support it by their Resolution. I really cannot understand why, having given their adhesion to the working of the Trade Boards Act, they should insert a 30s. minimum in the Resolution which practically destroys that Act.
    May I say a word about the rural side of the question, because that is also included in this Resolution? I admit that the wage of the average labourer is far too low. I was reading to-night a report of a meeting of the Norfolk County Council,
    1308
    which states that that council has refused to pay a minimum wage of 15s. a week to its road men. That would be a shilling a week more than the agricultural labourer receives in Norfolk. At present the county council is paying 13s. or 14s. to road men. I know what the hon. Member for Woolwich would say. He would say that £1 a week for an agricultural labourer is not too much. Even that is very different from what the Resolution proposes. There are some small provincial towns where 20s. a week goes as far as 30s. in London. London is altogether different in character. The Norfolk County Council says that it will not pay 15s. a week to its road men. You have at the same time agricultural labourers in that county who are being paid 13s. and 14s. a week. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Resolution surely would not contend that road men and agricultural labourers in Norfolk are at all in the same position as agricultural labourers in some portions of the country, or road men in other portions of the country. The conditions are quite different in different parts of the country. In the North of England the agricultural labourer is paid a higher wage than in Norfolk, and I contend that £1 a week to an agricultural labourer is not too much. I think the industry would bear it. That only goes to prove that the agricultural labourer is engaged in a special trade, and that you should separate him from other labourers like those who work for the county council. You cannot lay down one hard and fast definite rule for all trades, industries, and localities. It seems to me that the result, if you tried to do that, would be to throw a very large number of people out of work.
    10.0 P.M.
    I do not wish to go into the question whether the wage proposed by the Resolution is anything more than a subsistence wage. Personally, I do not think it is. It is only a wage which would enable the average man to live in a state of physical efficiency and keep his wife and children. We all believe that there are a large number of families in which there is no such thing as physical efficiency. About 12,000,000 people in the country do not live in homes in which the whole income is more than £1 a week, and in many cases the amount is less than that. No one seriously contends that that is adequate. I do not think anyone would get up and say that in London or any large industrial centre £1 a week is a sufficient income for

    1309
    a family. Everybody knows that the children in those families, as the result of this low income, are inadequately fed and clothed. Let me give one illustration, because the hon. Member for Woolwich spoke about the food of the average child. The average home with two small children should spend 3s. 6d. or 4s. on milk if the children are to grow up strong. How is it possible for a labourer to spend that amount on milk? If you remember the amount which has to be spent on clothing and boots, you will see how little there is to spare for food. I trust those who sit on the Labour Benches will see their way to accept some modification of their own Resolution. I am sure there are in this House a large number of men who would like to vote with them, and who believe that a minimum wage should, if possible, be fixed by law. I speak for myself, and I say that there is nothing I want to see more than a minimum wage fixed in every trade, and certainly in every trade where the workers have low pay. There are men on both sides of the House who would vote for such a Resolution. I would urge hon. Members not to put us in the position of voting against this Resolution which we cannot consistently support. I have always declared myself in favour of extending the Trade Boards Act. Part of this Resolution approves of that very method. I say, therefore, it would be better and wiser on the part of those who moved the Resolution to omit 30s., which makes it impossible for us, or for any Government, to apply it under the Trade Boards Act. Let us try to get something which is possible, and not something which is impracticable.
    Mr. WING: I beg to second the Amendment. There have been two or three admissions made to-night as to things which may be regarded as fairly settled. One is that poverty is very unpopular, and that there is a growing distaste of it on the part of all classes. That seems to me a significant sign. The present system under which poverty prevails has been impeached, and an inference has been drawn which I think is correct, namely, that the poor are exploited in the largest market of the world, where there are openings for industry not to be found anywhere else. The reason that these are not availed of is the inadequacy of the payment which a very large number of our workers receive. I support very heartily the position taken up by the hon. Member for
    1310
    Tottenham in the Amendment which he has just moved. It accepts the principle of a minimum wage without asking for the legal enactment of a universal amount. To make a minimum wage, that would be by Statute applicable to all industries, is really a very old exploded view, which has been dropped. In this country we not only gave fixity of wages, but also fixity of occupation, and fixity of district, and it was only as the result of a very great struggle that all this was fought down in order that men might have the free opportunity to state the amount of money they should receive. The principle of minimum wage, as I understand the hon. Member for Tottenham, is that each industry should be able to consider the difficulties surrounding that industry, for instance, that it should be able to consider the position taken up by the hon. Member opposite as to foreign competition. The minimum wage also introduces an element, which is a great improvement upon what you would call an industrial strike for increase of wages, namely, the principle of an independent authority between the two parties, to consider the claims on the one hand and the possibility of granting them on the other. That seems to me to be a very great point gained.
    The hon. Member for Woolwich, along with his other Friends have partly left the idea of a universal fixed minimum, but I may compliment them upon their being able to use it very largely in the country. "Thirty shillings a week minimum wage" is a good electioneering bill. I have experienced that, and I wish to ask them if they are going to continue to maintain their position without alterations in this particular matter? If they are altering their position in this particular matter, are they going to cease to abuse the Government? If they include five and two in the Minimum Wage Act, then they are going to leave the fixity of wages to Statute, and they are condemning the conditions necessary to carry out the idea which they now accept. I have just passed through a contest in which this principle was made by my opponent the great central principle of the fight, namely, the fixing of a minimum wage by Parliament. No matter where you went by road or rail, or into what shop or home you went you found it there always facing you, and the electors were called upon to consider the possibility of five and two. Experts on this particular question went

    1311
    down to the constituency in very large numbers, and discussed it night after night and all day long, and I may ask if you are going to put yourself in this position of adopting a Resolution to-night for a wage board for the settlement of wages, where do you stand in fighting this Particular matter, while at the same time accepting the provision which the Government have adopted in the Miners Minimum Wage Act? You either accept the one and reject the other, or your position becomes in my mind inconsistent. I stood by the Government all the time, and the miners were called upon to give their verdict, and their verdict was given, and given in this sense.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Your majority of 6,000 came down to 3,000.
    Mr. WING: That shows that you did not rob us of the majority of the votes that you got. I want to point out to you that the Conservative stood in exactly the same position as myself. Therefore, the majority still stands very largely against you. I stand by the minimum wage, because I believe that it is the best means of settling the question of wages, and I think that the House is entitled in considering a matter of this kind, to realise that the welfare of the masses of the people is not the monopoly of any particular party in this House. It is quite possible for this to be extended to all parties, and it would be a very gratifying thing, I believe, to workers outside, that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tottenham should be one upon which this House should have the possibility of giving a vote. I give it my wholehearted support, because I believe that it offers no cruel illusions to the people by lifting up their hopes, and then sending them away unsatisfied, but that it gives an opportunity to industry to settle the amount on the conditions of these industries, and is better than saying "vote for so and so and 30s. a week," where the one gets the vote and the other gets nothing. There is a possibility of this being extended from industry to industry until there comes about pretty nearly something of the kind of minimum for which we know our Friends are fighting. But I want to say that this will not settle industrial unrest. There is no finality to wages. There will be no finality to wages. Wages will be as much as the
    1312
    labourer himself can get, and I do not see why you should limit it to 30s.
    The largest amount of industrial unrest in Government Departments is not among those who receive under 30s., but among those who receive over 30s. There is no finality to dividends or profits, and I see no reason why there should be any finality to wages. Further, I do not think that there will be any settlement of industrial unrest until each man earning in some way becomes the master of his own destiny, so that, by an alteration of the law, he is enabled to get closer to his employer than he is at the present time, and a man shall be able to say to himself, "If I employ myself, I can earn so much," and unless a man will offer him more than he can earn himself, he will not offer himself for employment. But that is no reason why we should not try to relieve the pressure, abolish poverty, and alleviate wrong, as far as possible. Again, at the same time, I think we should keep our mind fixed upon some ideal in relation to an alteration in our land laws. That would bring about wider opportunities for the people, because what men want is an alternative to their present opportunities. Very large numbers are seeking it in emigration. I would add to that also the opening up of land, in order that men should have something for themselves. I have pleasure in seconding the proposal.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: As this House has more than once refused to fix a definite standard of wages, I will not discuss that question. I cannot but agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich when he says that the time has now arrived for the extension of the Trade Boards Act. Whatever opinion may be held as to the advisability of State interference in matters of wages, I think it is possible to travel along the road very far by means of a common principle, and I think we must all agree that the wages should be such as to maintain the highest efficiency of the worker, and that human labour is only efficient on adequate means. Unfortunately, in this country there is on the fringe of every industry, however well paid and however prosperous, a body of inadequately paid labour. Take the Returns of the Board of Trade. In the textile, the clothing, the building, and metal industries, and in the public utility services, at least 10 per cent. earn less than £1 a week. Blackburn, so far as I know, is not a place where you

    1313
    would expect to find a great number of very ill-paid workmen—in fact it is one of the most prosperous places of industry in the country. I have here a description of how the poor in Blackburn live, and it is apparent that there must be large numbers of heads of families there who are only earning £1 a week. It may be interesting to the House to hear how these people live. According to the statistics of the Trade Boards, in a family of eight each member was fed on less than 2d. a day, the actual sum spent being 1s. per head per week. If that be so, it is quite evident that the heads of families in Blackburn and elsewhere are keeping them at much less than the subsistence level. If a large number of our workers are being maintained at less than the subsistence level, and if they are so poor and miserable and weak that it is not possible for them to combine and improve their position, I do not see why we should not agree that the State should step in to help to improve their position for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. Cooper) thinks we should be able to effect this by means of a black list. The black list, I cannot help thinking, would be dilatory and unsatisfactory.
    In 1909 the Minimum Wage was applied to several industries by means of Trade Boards, and, so far as I can gather, has proved successful. It is working more successfully in some cases than in others. It is not working so successfully in the lace trade, which is not in so prosperous a condition as formerly, owing to the vagaries of fashion. In Cradley Heath the minimum wage given by the Trade Boards Act is from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. more, and the workers there were never in a more prosperous condition, everybody being much more happy and comfortable than before. My objection to the black list arises from the fact that the Trade Boards Act is particularly suitable for dealing with two special difficulties in regard to these lowly paid industries. The first difficulty in these lowly paid industries is the great variations in the price of labour. I am told that in the East-End of London a factory at one end of the street pays a good average wage, while workers in a factory at the other end of the street, carrying on the same industry, are paid a low rate of wages. There is then this in the way of the workers, that it is difficult to get certain employers into an agreement, and when they are in they very often break away.
    1314
    As an illustration of that I should like to refer to the condition of the bakers in Birmingham, into which there was an investigation lately. Eighty per cent. of them work from seventy-four to eighty-four hours per week; at least 10 per cent. of them work one hundred hours per week, and the rank and file only average from 22s. to 26s. per week. On Saturdays they work from sixteen to twenty-two hours. There is no fixed meal time, as many have to get their meals while they work. There are many employers who deplore those conditions, but they cannot improve them because of the very keen competition from the smaller bakers. I contend if the Trade Boards Act was applied to the bakers in Birmingham there would be a general improvement all round, because, after all, the Trade Boards Act only seeks to level up the bad employer to the level of the good. In nearly every industry in this country there is a very good standard to which to level up.
    I should like to say a few words about the condition of the agricultural labourer. If it is not exactly a sweated trade, there must, I think, be general agreement there is a large number of workers who are not receiving a wage which is such as to maintain them in adequate efficiency. For instance, Miss Davies investigated the conditions of the labourers in a village in Wiltshire, and she found 144 people in all were in the winter of 1906 living in a condition of primary poverty. There is also the famous investigation of Mr. Mann as to the condition of a village in Bedfordshire. He found that 41 per cent. of the workers there were without means of sustaining life in a state of physical efficiency. But, it is argued, to increase by means of Trade Boards the wages of the agricultural labourers to any large extent would put a very severe burden upon industry. I am not sure that that is an argument which will stand examination. For instance, if you compare Durham and Dorsetshire, two counties with much the same proportion arable and pasture, you will find that in Durham the wages of the labourer is 22s. per week, while the labourer in Dorsetshire only receives 16s. 6d. per week. In Durham it takes nineteen labourers to cultivate a thousand acres, while in Dorsetshire it takes thirty-six labourers to cultivate the same amount of acres. That seems to me to prove that the farmer in Durham is not paying any more for his work than the farmer in Dorsetshire, and

    1315
    if the farmer in Dorsetshire would only increase the wages, it would have the same effect as in Durham. I cannot help thinking that a rise of wages to the agricultural labourer would be a benefit to the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer; and I am perfectly ready myself to receive any proposal dealing with this matter by the Trades Boards in a sympathetic spirit. I cannot help taking this opportunity of making an appeal that the condition of agircultural classes, both as to wages and housing should be received by this House as a non-party question. We owe a deep debt of reparation to the agricultural labourer who has been victimised and exploited many times in the course of his career. He has been victimised and exploited in the Enclosure Acts, the industrial revolution and the poor law. I am afraid there is a danger now that he is going to be victimised and exploited in order to make party capital at the next General Election by the party opposite. But I hope that that will not be so. There is a great deal of sincerity both in the country and in this House on the question, and whoever may bring the subject forward I shall give him my hearty and unbiassed support.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I have no doubt that advocacy of such an ideal as has been discussed tonight, an ideal which some may look upon as unpractical and Utopian, is from many points of view not an unprofitable way for the House once in a way to spend its time. I, at any rate, am always willing to hear the case restated and reargued. I think, however, that the matter might have been considered a little more from the practical point of view than it is in the Resolution before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), in his brilliant speech, the wit and pathos of which, as usual, attracted and fascinated the House, apparently suggested that he alone in this Assembly, or those for whom he stood, are intent on doing some real work on behalf of the underpaid workers, and that while the rest of us have only phrases of sympathy, he had a real working programme. Is he quite so sure? After all, his eloquent speech was really not much more than a brilliant expression of sympathy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) has pointed out how absolutely contra-
    1316
    dictory the Resolution is. It proposes an extension of the Trade Boards Act, and demands that that extension shall take the form of the establishment of a minimum wage of 30s. for urban districts and a corresponding rate for rural districts. That, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is an absolute destruction of the Trade Board principle. If you fix a figure, whether for urban or for rural districts, there is no need for a Trade Board at all. What are you going to call a Trade Board together for? A Trade Board exists to adjust the wages in a given trade in reference to the conditions of that trade, both masters and men being represented. If you are going to lay down a rate in advance, there is no excuse for calling a Trade Board together. The Resolution is self-contradictory, inasmuch as it proposes to establish by law a 30s. minimum, and at the same time suggests that the Government should set an example. If you make a universal rate compulsory, how can the Government set an example? The Government would only be falling into line. But I do not want to argue the question on these inconsistencies. Perhaps the House will take it for granted that I share in the sympathy which has been expressed by previous speakers. I cordially subscribe to every ideal which has been put forward by the different speakers to-night. What is the House asked to do? I will take the proposals in the simplest form in which they are made, eliminating the questions of contradiction. I will take the case in what the hon. Member for Woolwich regards as its strongest aspect. He claims that labour produces wealth sufficient to give a minimum wage of 30s. His argument is that the thing can be done. He says that Parliament can do it. Will the proposal really bear any examination? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars alluded to a figure given by my predecessor in office—he seemed to ascribe it to me—to the effect that £88,000,000 would be required to carry into effect the proposal to raise all wages to a minimum of 30s. per week. That figure was given before we had the advantage of the Census of Production. Now the Census of Production is available, and we know that that figure is immensely short of the mark—that £200,000,000 is nearer the mark. But I am glad to be able to cite in my support the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). If I be suspected of any want of sympathy in stating that this is an impracticable proposal, let

    1317
    me remind the House of what my hon. Friend said at a meeting of the Yorks Divisional Council of the Independent Labour party in July, 1911, when this question of a 30s. minimum week was ventilated. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn pointed out that if you set up such a law the effect would be—and he was assuming that the power of the capitalist and of the landlord remained as it was to-day—that
    "within a week of your 30s. per week minimum wage law every cotton mill in Lancashire would be closed."
    That is perfectly true.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the hon. Member for Blackburn did not also say that if we had a tariff it could be done?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid the sense of humour of the hon. Member somewhat fails him. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was obviously speaking ironically on that point. It is singular to find that the two Amendments by hon. Gentlemen opposite implicitly admit that those concerned are afraid of the importation of goods made by sweated labour in tariff countries. That is an admission—
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The question of tariffs does not enter into our discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep to the question before the House.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I only replied to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite in his interruption. To return to the main issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn entirely agrees that if you establish a minimum wage of 30s. you would practically close every cotton mill in Lancashire within a week. To give adequate subsistence in the terms of the Resolution to those concerned would be to take away the income of tens of thousands of people. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Woolwich, a few of the facts broadly proved by the Census of Production. We can compare the figures of the product of some 7,000,000 of persons, mainly adult. Of 2,000,000 of these 7,000,000 the output over the whole industry does not amount to £75 per head per annum. If you take two young persons as equivalent on the average to one adult, you would make the average a little higher, but it would make very little difference to the total calculation. Of 2,200,000 more the total output is under £100 per annum.
    1318
    So there you have 4,200,000 persons out of 7,000,000 in all, where you do not get the production per head of £100 per annum. It is perfectly obvious in the case of 2,000,000 you do not get a product of £75 per annum. I grant there are other industries and trades where wages are unusually low, but if you paid a 30s. minimum wage in the first set of industries I have taken, you not only would have no profit and no interest on capital, but there would be no rates and taxes and no wages for clerks; there would be nothing to write off against depreciation of machinery, and you would devote the whole net profit of the industry to the wage-earners alone. I grant, if you put down every two young persons for one adult, you get a small difference in the figures, but even taking every two young persons as equal to one adult you will still find the industry is not able to pay. In face of that, is it feasible to propose a minimum wage of 30s. The broad proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars is that the wealth is there, but is he not misled by the figures of national income. If you take the figures of national income as giving a fair clue or a sound clue to a possible distribution you will soon find yourself in difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars found that by dividing the alleged national income you would give £225 to each family; but does he suppose that if you divide the purchasing power and the income in that fashion you would get anything like what £225 now represents? I cannot calculate at the moment how much, but it is obvious that the rise in price of everything from the enormously increased demand would immensely lessen the amount of the distributed wealth. My hon. Friend is really mistaken in taking the amount of national income as representing real national wealth. I hope I will get the hon. Member for Woolwich to agree with me one day in another ideal which might be stated in these words: The business of national betterment is, in the first place, the avoidance of wasteful expenditure, and, further, the increase in the production of real wealth per head of the population. The mere method of the arbitrary creation of a wage of 30s. per week will certainly never attain the object. Much of what the hon. Member for Blackfriars said as to what harm was done in the past by a bad land system is not very relevant to the proposals before the House. To say

    1319
    that all the harm can easily be remedied by Parliament, and that Parliament has only to enact it and make it law, is a proposition which cannot be maintained. Hon. Members talk of the evils of unemployment, but they propose a scheme which will multiply those evils. This proposal would multiply unemployment on the admission of the hon. Member for Blackburn. The arguments put forward in support of this Resolution are not practical. I do not know whether we need occupy ourselves with what was said in an interesting maiden speech by the hon. Member for Crewe, who drew a dismal picture of the harm wrought by recent legislation. He actually said that the Insurance Act had raised the price of coal by one shilling a ton—
    Mr. ERNEST CRAIG: No, no!
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is what the hon. Member actually said. I do not know whet her that was what he meant.
    Mr. ERNEST CRAIG: I meant one penny per ton.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member said 1s. per ton, and I am pleased to have given him this opportunity of making the correction. As for the picture he drew of the tinplate trade, some nine years ago we heard a good deal of what was called the rattling of tinplates at that period, and we were told then that the trade was doomed. That announcement, however, was followed by a far greater development in that trade than it had ever experienced before. We hear a good deal about the tinplate trade and the dumping of American tinplates, and any temporary check is always fastened upon as giving a new justification for a change in our fiscal policy. The last news I have had of the tinplate trade in this country is contained in yesterday's "South Wales Daily News," which states that an order has just come from the Standard Oil Trust for £40,000 worth of tin plates. I do not accept responsibility for that statement, but looking to the general state of the trade I think that item is more in consonance with the real development than the gloomy picture the hon. Member has presented to-night. I do not wish it to be supposed that I am presenting a rosy picture of industrial prosperity as against the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Woolwich, and I hope he will not suppose that I am suggesting that the lot of labour is some-
    1320
    thing splendid. I have never indulged in that kind of argument.
    Mr. J. WARD: You wrote a book on the economic fallacy of saving.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member has read my book he will know that I do not mean that thrift is a fallacy; but that the economic doctrine that saving for investment to any extent, benefits all, is a fallacy. As regards economic science, let me remind my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars of the view which was expressed in an article on this question in the "Nineteenth Century" for last month by Professor Pigou, who is one of the foremost and one of the most acute of the younger generation of our economic professors. My hon. Friend will find that he gives a very guarded endorsement of the methods of the Trade Boards. As to other forms of minimum wage, he not only does not share the optimism of my hon. Friend, but he is still more guarded in his endorsement of any experiment of that kind. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division spoke of an economic law being blind with one eye. I think even a labour leader might labour under that infirmity at times. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) has indicated a practical way in which the hopes and the ideas of hon. Members can, in a moderate degree, be realised; and to that Resolution I do not think the Government would have anything to object, save perhaps as regards the somewhat too sweeping character of one phrase. I merely suggest that it would be imprudent to apply the Trade Board system to every industry where the wages are too low; it might, in one or two cases, close down the industry altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a good job too."] More unemployment and the income of the family gone! Some of my hon. Friends view light-heartedly the effect of some of their schemes. The policy of extending the system of Trade Boards to chosen industries is the policy to which the Government has committed itself, and is the policy upon which on every ground the House ought to concentrate itself.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: We have had a very interesting discussion, but I want to try and bring it a little bit into a practical form on the lines indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board

    1321
    of Trade in his last few words. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham is one which does, in my view, put the question in a practical shape. What have been the opposing views which have been presented this evening? We have, on the one hand, had the view presented on behalf of the Labour party that every man is entitled as a right to 30s. a week; and we have, on the other hand, had the view presented by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. E. Craig) that any action at all is very dangerous, that it is essential to leave it to arrangements made by freedom of contract, and that without such freedom you run great risk of ruining industries and causing great unemployment. I affirm, as a proposition which will command the assent of the House, that it is the moral duty of the nation to see that every man who works well, who works hard, and is in continuous employment, shall earn enough wages to make it possible for his family and himself to live in health and comfort, to have a reasonable amount of leisure and of pleasure, and to be able to save a little. That I venture to assert is the only standard which a civilised nation can accept. If that be the standard of our duty, then it follows necessarily that it should be the first, or one of the first, aims of practical statesmanship to take active measures to achieve that end. I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade that you can do very little because of the grave risk of causing unemployment. The whole trend of the Debate has seemed to me a little bit too theoretical, too much inclined to say that the difficulties are so great, and we can do so little that nothing need be done. We ought to face this difficulty at the earliest possible moment in order that we may remove this great hardship, which blights the lives of so many of our citizens and which injures so terribly the really effective power of the nation. Some ten or fifteen years ago Mr. Rowntree made inquiry into the cost of living of a number of working families in the city of York, and the results at which he arrived were confirmed by Mr. Charles Booth from his experience with regard to the London poor. These results are as true to-day as they were then, and they are of striking significance. Many hon. Members present will remember that he took 26s. a week at that day as the deciding line.
    1322
    He took a number of typical working families in receipt of less than 26s. a week. He made detailed inquiry into what was their food during a large number of weeks for each family, getting the wife to keep a tabulated statement day by day, writing down every pennyworth of food bought. The results he measured in certain medical terms which have been accepted as satisfactory and authoritative. These families received in nourishment about 25 per cent. less than is necessary to keep a family in active life in reasonable physical health. Take the rise in prices that has followed in the fifteen years that have elapsed since that inquiry. It is put at 15 per cent., and 15 per cent. on 26s. comes to about 4s. which, added to the 26s., makes 30s., and goes to show that the 30s. taken by the Labour patry as its justification for putting forward a minimum which affords a reasonable standard of life from a moral and physical point of view. Then there was this further fact ascertained by Mr. Rowntree that more than 50 per cent. of the primary poverty—and by primary he meant poverty so bad as not to give sufficient to maintain actual physical well being—was due to low wages. There were other causes for the rest, but more than half was due to low wages. Taking those facts into consideration, I submit it must follow that it is wrong, and when I say wrong I mean morally wrong that that should continue if it can be stopped. What measures can be taken? It is obvious that any wholesale legislation adopting 30s. as a fixed figure would destroy the industries of the country.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Why?
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: It would cause such a great dislocation it would ruin a big percentage of the industries.
    Mr. J. WARD: It has not done so in the industries to which the minimum wage is applied.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: There is no time to argue that. My suggestion is this, that in those trades where there is unfair competition the Trade Board system might be applied under certain conditions, and in agriculture, for instance, steps might be taken to ascertain, whether in some districts wages could not be raised by that system. I believe also that it would be applied to the public utility services, such as railways and transport. There is no direct foreign competition there. Under the Act

    1323
    passed recently any additional cost of production which results can be put upon the community at large. Beyond that point we are met at once with the difficulty of foreign competition. There, expressing what I believe to be the unanimous view of hon. Members on this side of the House, I say you can only increase wages beyond the point where an increase of wage brings no return in an increase of efficiency if you have the power of imposing a protective tariff on foreign goods, which otherwise will destroy the trade when you increase the cost of proudction. These are shortly the practical advances which can be made in dealing with the subject. You should inquire at once what trades are suitable for the application of the Trade Boards Act, and what trades, such as public utility services, are free from foreign competition, in which you can utilise the existing Conciliaton Boards—which largely exist as boards for dealing with wages and are comparable to those under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act—and consider to what other trades you can apply it, and then wait until we have Tariff Reform.
    Mr. CROOKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. HUNT: I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that his own colleague, the present Under-Secretary of State for War, stated that the reason we could not have high wages was because of foreign competition. He said it was better to have low wages than no wages. That is what we get from a Free Trade Government.
    Mr. CROOKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. BOOTH: I sympathise almost entirely with the case put by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), yet, in
    1324
    taking a complete view of this position, we must remember that one effect of the setting up of a minimum wage is that employers are compelled to join an employers' federation. That was the effect of the minimum wage as applied to the mining industry. Firms which had not joined the employers' federation were compelled, for their own protection, to join that federation in order to get representatives upon the boards, otherwise they found themselves in the position that certain employers were putting forward the views of the trade, and they were not represented upon the boards. Sometimes that is inconvenient because the majority of the employers in a particular locality may be in that specific trade only, but some of the firms—
    Mr. CROOKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. BOOTH: Some of the firms may have an interest in that industry—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

    PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Clause 1; which Amendment was, after I the word "prisoner" ["by order authorise the temporary discharge of the prisoner"], to insert the words "on licence."—[Sir Alfred Cripps.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 14th April.
    The Orders for the remaining business were read and postponed.
    Adjourned at Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.