Commons Sitting of 17 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Southgate Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group B),
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Northern Counties Electricity Supply Bill,
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th April; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Horsforth Urban District), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
Account presented of the Public Income and Expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1913, together with the Balances in the Exchequer at the commencement and at the termination of the year, and the Amounts received into or issued from the Exchequer in respect of Funded and Unfunded Debt created or redeemed in the said year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
Address "for Return of the Agricultural Land administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, setting out the amount of Land so administered in each county and the parish in which it is situated."—[Mr. Winfrey.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

1. "That, in the case of the Lothian Railways Bill [Lords], 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 Belfast Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

3. "That, in the case of the Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2091

4. "That, in the case of the Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

5. "That, in the case of the Dover Harbour Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'the Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers of Property in the vicinity of the proposed Wet Dock No. 2 and inhabitants of the borough of Dover,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought, to be dispensed with."

6. "That, in the case of the Arigna Valley Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

7. "That, in the case of the Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

8. "That, in the case of the Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords], 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 Tramway No. 6 is struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

9. "That, in the case of the London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Upper Egypt.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official reports of rioting in connection with the ejectment of villagers in Upper Egypt from lands recently acquired by the Viscomte Fortarce; and, if so, how many villagers were killed or
  2092
  will ask His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General for a report.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information on this subject, but will ask His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General for a report.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it be convenient if I put down a similar question a week hence?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will let the hon. Member know if I may.

  Irish Language.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many inspectors employed by the Commissioners of National Education and by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, respectively, in Ireland are competent to examine students in the Irish language; and what steps are being taken to form a competent staff for this purpose?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Twenty-one of the inspectors employed by the Commissioners of National Education, and one of the five inspectors at present in the service of the Intermediate Education Board are competent to inspect classes in the Irish language. With a view to increasing the number of inspectors so qualified Irish must now be taken as one of the subjects of the qualifying examination of candidates for the office of junior inspector of national schools in the case of every alternate appointment.

  Dublin Castle.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the permanent officials in the Court of Probate, Dublin, have recently been questioned with reference to their knowledge of crime in Dublin Castle; whether Mr. Craig Davidson and Mr. Norris Goddard have been questioned; whether since the commencement of a certain criminal trial now proceeding in London one of these Dublin officials has been given indefinite leave of absence; on what plea this has been given; and whether before his departure the Director of Public Prosecutions here was put in possession of the information at that person's disposal and now has his present address?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Although I have nothing whatever to say to the Probate Court, and have no control over its officials, I have

  2093
  referred this question to the Chief Registrar, who informs me that no official of the Court has been questioned as to crime in Dublin Castle. The Probate Court has no connection with the Castle, and is nowhere near it. Mr. Goddard informed me, in connection with a previous question, that he has not now and never had in his custody, possession, or procurement, any evidence relating to crime committed in Dublin Castle. Neither he nor any of the officials of the Probate Court have been given indefinite leave of absence. I am not aware of any reason for addressing any questions to Mr. Craig Davidson, who is wholly unconnected with and has never been in the public service.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that one of the permanent officials has been absent now for a considerable time and has recently been in Berlin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I know nothing about his movements or the capital he has visited.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the total loss to local Grants in county Longford incurred by any default to meet annuities by tenant purchasers there for the year ending 31st March, 1913?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The total deduction made from the share of county Longford in the Estate or Death Duty Grant during the year ended the 31st March, 1913, in respect of purchasers' annuities in arrear amounted to £766 18s. 4d., but in no sense of the word whatever is this a total loss.
  Mr. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if he believes this is not going to be a total loss, the deduction could not have been deferred?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have explained over and over again that when land purchase annuities are in arrear they are of course deducted from the Grant made to the county, but when the arrears are paid off, as they almost invariably are, without any delay—at the present time county Longford is only in default of two half-yearly instalments amounting to £7 16s. 8d.—then the money is returned to the county.
  Mr. FARRELLasked whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any further steps to complete the negotiations with Mr. J. W. Bond, D.L., for the acquirement of the untenanted lands of Coolcraff, North Longford?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 29th April last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Estates Commissioners have made any further communication to this landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I do not know that they have.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to do so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I will.
  Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Longford District Council asking that the powers of the Estates Commissioners be extended under the promised amending Land Bill to the seven congested divisions of Longford Union, so as to enable the Commissioners to acquire untenanted lands in county Longford to relieve congestion there; and can he hold out any hope that this will be given effect to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not received the resolution referred to. The powers of the Estates Commissioners at present extend to the whole of county Longford.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked what obstacle the Estates Commissioners are now placing in the way of the evicted tenants at Aughanish, county Limerick, being reinstated in their holdings, in view of the fact that they and the landlord, Lane Joynt, and the tenants on the estate have agreed on the purchase price of the holdings, and in addition have made up between them the £500 required by the Estates Commissioners to be lodged by them for the upkeep of the embankments on the estate, and which amount the Estates Commissioners refused to advance to them on Land Act or other terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no power to place any persons in occupation of the lands until they acquire them. As the hon. Member has been already informed, they have made their offer to purchase, and they await its acceptance and compliance with its conditions.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has not that offer been accepted, and did not the right hon. Gentleman promise me that these

  2095
  evicted tenants would be reinstated by March last, and why have they not been reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The acceptance has not yet been made.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: How is that?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet received from Mr. Ryan, Mr. Stannel, and Lord Vaux maps of their estates near Newport, county Mayo, or whether offers to sell the estates through the Board have been received from them or any of them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estates of Mr. E. A. Ryan and Mr. C. A. Stannel have been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, and the necessary maps and documents have been lodged. The Board understand that the necessary documents in the case of Lord Vaux's Estate are about to be lodged.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer for the Domville estate, near Balla, county Mayo; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted by the owners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have issued an offer for the purchase of this estate, and they are at present in correspondence with the owner regarding it.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the trustees of the Achill Mission estate, county Mayo, have yet expressed their willingness to sell the estate through the Congested Districts Board or have refused to sell voluntarily; and when the tenants of this congested estate may expect relief under the Land Act of 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that there are some legal difficulties in the way of a voluntary sale, but I hope they may not prove to be insurmountable. The Congested Districts Board are not prepared to take steps to acquire this estate compulsorily, but if maps and documents giving the necessary particulars are lodged, the Board will have the estate valued and an offer made for the purchase of it.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the pay of a constable after three years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary is
  2096
  only 21s. per week, and this figure has remained stationary for more than twenty-five years; if, during that period and since the last revision of pay of this force, the cost of living has risen to a very large extent; and if the Treasury have laid down any definite period of time which must elapse before the question of a further revision of pay will be considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers, but the question of the pay of the junior constables is part of the larger question of the pay of the force generally, and as I have said before, it is too soon to reconsider that matter, which was dealt with in 1908. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

  Coolavokig School, Macroom (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the intentions of the Commissioners of National Education in reference to the Coolavokig (Macroom) school dispute; whether the school is to be placed in charge of the teacher, Mr. Twohig, whose advent to the place led to a riot for which thirteen men have been bound to the peace; is he aware that the reopening of the school under the control of this teacher is likely to lead to renewed disturbances; will any steps be taken by the Commissioners to independently investigate the charge against the former teacher, Mr. Galvin, and to ascertain the facts connected with his resignation; and what is the decision as to the payment of salary to Mrs. Galvin, who is not a party to the dispute, during the period that the school has been closed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the manager in the appointment of a teacher in this case. The Commissioners are not aware that the reopening of the school under the control of the teacher whom the manager has appointed is likely to lead to renewed disturbances. The Commissioners having regard to the circumstances see no reason for investigating the charge made against the former teacher and no decision as to the payment of Mrs. Galvin's salary has yet been come to.

  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether he can now give the names of the fourteen witnesses who have consented to

  2097
  the publication of their evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance; and (2) when he proposes to publish the evidence of the fourteen witnesses before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no necessity for giving the list for which the hon. Member asks. The evidence which it is proposed to publish is in the printers' hands and will be issued without any delay.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any special objection to giving the list of names?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, except that I think if the hon. Member waits a few days he will have them. As a matter of fact, one of them is in question at the present moment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many witnesses altogether have consented to their evidence being published?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have said it was fourteen; possibly it may be fifteen.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Mr. Thomas P. Gill, Mr. Thomas Butler, and Mr. Joseph P. Walsh before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The answer is in the affirmative.
  Colonel BURNasked whether the Inland Revenue Department have any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Mr. Alfred W. Soward before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no objection to the publication of the evidence referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Colonel BURN: Will the evidence be published?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member should address that question to the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister what was the reason
  2098
  of the six months' delay in ascertaining whether the witnesses before the Committee on Irish Finance objected to the publication of their evidence, seeing that a majority of the Members of this House asked him to do so in October last.
  Mr. BIRRELL (for the Prime Minister): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly explained this matter. He stated to the House in May last that he did not see his way to inquire whether the witnesses had any objection to the publication of the evidence which they had given in confidence until a general desire for it on the part of the House was expressed. Although that condition was never satisfied, yet, as some Members seem to think that there was some mystery in the matter, the Prime Minister asked me on the 1st of this month to communicate with the witnesses, and I have done so.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was why he should wait until six months after the majority of the Members of this House asked him to approach the witnesses?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Because the Prime Minister entertained doubts as to whether a majority of the House is the same thing as a general desire.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, what has never been explained in this House, why a pledge of secrecy was given in connection with a public matter?
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: That is the mystery.
  Mr. BIRRELL: If that is the mystery the answer is this: We were very anxious that Civil servants should be at liberty to give evidence and feel themselves so.
  Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Sir Charles A. King before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Sir Charles King has informed the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he has no objection to the publication of the evidence referred to.

  Bee Disease.
  Mr. BOLANDasked how many cases of foul brood in bees were dealt with in

  2099
  the year 1911–12 under the provisions of the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908; what was the total allocated for compensation, and how much compensation was actually paid; have there been any suspected cases of Isle of Wight disease; and, if so, what steps have been taken to deal with this disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: During the year 1911–12 331 cases of foul brood came under the notice of the local authorities and were dealt with by them. The total amount allocated for payment of compensation was £273. Payments of compensation amounting to £36 14s. 6d. were recommended in twelve counties. Some suspected cases of Isle of Wight disease were reported to the Department during the year. Each case was investigated and suitable precautionary measures were prescribed. The Department have at present no statutory powers to enforce compliance with such measures, except in the case of foul brood.
  Mr. BOLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to enable the Department to deal with the matter should disease break out?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir, there is a Bill for England and Scotland before the House, and when it reaches Committee I have an Amendment prepared to enable it to be applied to Ireland.

  Sleeping Sickness.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent public announcement of an outbreak of sleeping sickness in Southern Rhodesia and a denial on behalf of the British South Africa Company; and, the prevalence of that disease south of the Zambesi being now acknowledged, whether any steps have been taken to warn intending emigrants to that territory?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I would refer to my reply to questions regarding sleeping sickness in Southern Rhodesia on Monday. There is no reason to suppose that the disease is generally prevalent south of the Zambesi.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the warning to emigrants?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not exactly know how the warning could be conveyed, and as the disease is only prevalent south of the Zambesi I am not so sure of the necessity for it.

  British West Africa (Concessions).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether any concessions, privileges, or rights in British West Africa were applied for by any other parties during the period covered by the correspondence with Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited; and were they dealt with in a similar manner?
  Mr. HARCOURT: During the period referred to I received no application for any concession in British West Africa similar to that made by Messrs. Lever Brothers.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any notification to the effect that no applications have been made, because it was understood that it was contrary to the policy of the Government to grant exclusive privileges?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, not within my recollection.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inquire.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the nature and extent of all rights, privileges, or concessions, other than those relating to railways, granted or promised to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or associated firms, in any West African Colonies or Protectorates up to the present time?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only grants which have come to my knowledge are those contemplated in Cd. 6561.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the fact that when the correspondence was published nothing definite or final had been decided upon, and can he say whether any progress has been made since that date?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I must have notice on the question of progress.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what licences have been granted or promised to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or their associated firms, to construct railways in any West African Colony or Protectorate?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only promise made is that contained in the letter of 18th December printed on page 45 of Cd. 6561. So far as I am aware, Messrs. Lever

  2101
  Brothers have not yet made any application for a licence.

  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the statutory returns of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia for 1912; how they compare with those for 1889 in premium receipts, receipts of interest on funds invested, gross receipts, payments on claims and surrenders, cost of administration, including directors, gross expenditure, and sum invested for security of the insured; and, if an annual meeting is ever held, when the last one was held and how many insured persons were present at it?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The returns of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, under the Assurance Companies Act for the year 1912 have not yet been received, and they are not required by the Act until the 30th June next. The last annual meeting of which the Board of Trade have information was held at Melbourne on the 22nd May, 1912, but the Board have no information as to the number of insured persons present at the meeting.

  National United Insurance Society, of Glasgow.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received the statutory returns due from the National United Insurance Society, of Glasgow; what sum is shown to have been in the bank at the end of 1912; whether he is aware that all this, except a nominal balance to keep the account open, has since been drawn to keep afloat the National Assurance Collecting Society, worked by the same persons; whether those persons in either capacity have deposited security for fidelity; and, if so, with whom and of what value; and, in view of these two societies run by the same persons, accounting to different State Departments at different dates and making the same money serve as an alleged capital for both, whether he will require an actuarial investigation of the affairs of both simultaneously?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The National United Insurance Society is a registered society, and returns with regard to it are accordingly made like those regarding the National Assurance Collecting Society to
  2102
  the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies and not to the Board of Trade. The statutory return for 1912 has not yet been received, but a notice has been sent to the society requiring it to be submitted within fourteen days from the 3rd instant. The Chief Registrar has no knowledge of the other matters referred to by the hon. Member and no power to order an actuarial investigation into either society, but, on the application of the proper number of members provided by the Statute, he has power to appoint an inspector to examine into and report on the affairs of a society.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the liquidator of the Irish Provident Assurance Company has had the property of the victims of that company under his control for two years without giving them any satisfaction; whether he is entitled to retain this property indefinitely; if not, when will the Board require a settlement; whether the Board has power to substitute a liquidator for a nominee of the failing directors; and, in view of the number of poor people suffering from this particular failure, whether he will have the assets, if any, distributed without further delay?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As the hon. Member has been informed on three previous occasions, the liquidation of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is not under the control of the Board of Trade, but under that of the Irish Courts. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will not the Board of Trade inquire into a case which has been in Court two years?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As I have said, we have no jurisdiction, but I will ascertain if we can make any inquiry on behalf of the hon. Gentleman.

  Ghent Exhibition.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date, and by whom, the decision was arrived at to exclude financial publications from the library of British journals in the British Pavilion at the Ghent Exhibition; and whether this was the original intention or the result of subsequent consideration?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It was the original intention of the Board of Trade that the

  2103
  library in the British Pavilion at the Ghent Exhibition should be confined to trade and technical journals. The question of including financial papers was given particular consideration last month by the Exhibitions Branch when the original decision to exclude all but trade and technical journals was confirmed.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an invitation was issued to financial journals to make application, and that when one did so there was a long delay before any reply was made? As there appears to have been some misunderstanding, will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details I will inquire. I was not aware of the invitation to which he alludes.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the manager of the Glasgow Labour Exchange had prevented the carpenters' and joiners' trade union from inserting in their vacant book, which is kept at the exchange, a notice to members asking such members not to accept employment at a certain works; and if he will take the necessary steps to see that the trade union in question gets the full use of its books.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will cause inquiries to be made into the statement made by my hon. Friend, and will communicate the result to him.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the managers of Labour Exchanges are sending a card marked D/L. E. 8 to employers of labour asking them when they require workmen to state the wages they are prepared to pay, so that suitable applicants may be selected; whether this is practically inviting employers to offer less than the standard rate of wages and obtaining cheap labour to the disadvantage of trade unionists; and whether he will either cancel this card or delete from it any reference to wages?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The card to which my hon. Friend refers has been in use since the inception of the Labour Exchange system. Representations were made to the Board of Trade by the Parliamentary
  2104
  Committee of the Trade Union Congress in October, 1910, urging that full information should in all cases be obtained from employers notifying vacancies as to the wages they proposed to pay. Apart from this it appears to me obviously desirable that managers of Exchanges should endeavour to obtain as much information as employers are willing to give about their vacancies in order to avoid the fruitless work of putting applicants into touch with vacancies which they will not be prepared to accept.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of certain skilled workmen the employers have in many instances offered much less than the standard rate and that owing to this notice having been sent out employers in trades which never offered less than the standard rate are offering less now?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There has been no change since the system first came into operation.

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give any special assistance to the Official Receiver in liquidating the affairs of the Peruvian Amazon Company?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All necessary assistance will, of course, be given to the Official Receiver in dealing with this case, but I understand from the Official Receiver that no cause for any special assistance has so far arisen.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is there any possibility of the Official Receiver employing Senor Arana? Can the Board do anything to prevent that?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think that is at all likely.

  Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade which his attention has been called to case of Howarth v. Knowles, decided by the judge of the Salford County Court on 9th April last, in which it was proved that a scheme officially certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies as not less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependents than the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act was in fact so much less favourable that the plaintiff and other workmen who had

  2105
  accepted and were dependent on the scheme are left without compensation or remedy for the rest of their lives; and whether it is proposed to take any, and, if so, what, steps to amend Section 3 of the Act so as to ensure that a scheme certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and on the faith of which contracting out is permitted, can be relied on by those dependent on it as a trustworthy substitute for the provisions of the Act of Parliament?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. The case raises a point of law on the Workmen's Compensation Act which is quite new, and is undoubtedly important, and I understand that there is likely to be an appeal from the learned judge's decision. So far as regards future cases, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that practically all the existing schemes under the Act expire on 30th June next, and that in considering the grant of certificates of renewal he will take steps to ensure, as far as practicable, that provision is made in the schemes for meeting the point raised in the case referred to.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to do nothing in case other schemes fall short as this one has done? Can he not possibly do anything?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will see that all these schemes expire in June next, and the Registrar-General proposes to take steps to meet future cases. Therefore the difficulty will be met.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of the Court of Appeal deciding against the workmen will the Registrar-General be in a position to make an alteration to meet the case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not until the 30th June. But I will consider the point.

  Census Records.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked when it is intended that the Census Records (England and Wales) of 1861 and 1871 will be transferred from the custody of the Registrar-General to the Record Office, so that they may be made available for search by the general public and for proving the age of claimants for old age pensions?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand there would not be sufficient accommodation at the Record Office to house the Census Records of 1861 and 1871 as the hon. Member suggests.

  Representation of the People (Women) Bill.
  Mr. DICKINSONasked upon which day the Government will provide facilities for the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Women) Bill?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): We propose Monday, 5th May, and Tuesday, 6th May.
  Mr. KING: Will these days be immediately before the Recess? Would it not be for the general convenience of Members if these days were taken immediately before the holidays, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of prolonging their holidays if they liked? Will that suggestion be considered?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government always give the most careful consideration to every suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend.

  Channel Tunnel.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will give an opportunity, at an early date, for discussing the question of the construction of a Channel Tunnel?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to give facilities from Government time for a discussion of this project.
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is a question in which immense interest is taken on both sides of the House generally, and that it has not been mentioned in the House for many years; and might we not have a half-day?

  Land Transfer.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the legal expenses connected with the sale and transfer of land; and if he will, by providing for the registration of title, simplify the transfer and thus reduce the expense of such exchange, thereby encouraging the creation of an increase of the number of owners of land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole of this question is receiving the close con-

  2107
  sideration of the Lord Chancellor, but I can make no statement at present with regard to it.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer indicate that the Government intend at an early date to take some action upon the Report of the Royal Commission?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They certainly propose to take action. I think they are in consultation with various interests concerned.
  Mr. CASSEL: In dealing with the transfer of land will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the cost of transferring land has been increased by his Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter for controversy on the Finance and Revenue Act.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not a fact that a larger quantity of land has been transferred to small holders since the Budget was passed than in the preceding years?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is certainly right there. The Stamp Revenue Returns certainly prove that.

  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if it is intended to give facilities for passing the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill during the present Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 9th April last to a question by the hon. Member for Norwich on this subject.

  Income Tax (Collection).
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the right hon. Gentleman if the Inland Revenue, by direction of the Lords and officials of the Treasury subject to his authority, has suggested to the Bank of England to pay coupons payable to bearer for the interest on public funds, otherwise than in full, by making without warrant of law a deduction from each coupon in respect of Income Tax not yet imposed; has he considered the effect upon the credit of the Bank and of this country of paying such coupons otherwise than in full; and have the Law Officers been consulted on the legality of such a diminished payment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Inland Revenue has made no suggestion to the Bank of England beyond what was contained in the circular letter of 2nd April to bankers, paying agents, etc., which was laid on the Table of the House. With regard to the second and third parts, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the general question of the deductions to which he refers is being fully dealt with in the legislative proposals that are at present before the House.

  Customs and Excise Department (Surveyors).
  Mr. LEACHasked the present number of surveyors and unattached surveyors of Customs and Excise, respectively, who were serving in the Customs branch and in the Excise branch at the time of the adoption of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee; the actual number of promotions to that grade since that date, and how many such promotions have fallen to the officers formerly serving in the Customs and Excise Departments, respectively?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Of the present surveyors, 198 attached and 94 unattached were serving in the Customs branch, and 398 attached and 30 unattached in the Excise branch, at the date referred to. The answer to the last part of the question is the same that I gave to a similar question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn on 5th December last, except that the number of the Customs men referred to is now 104.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman the result of the inquiry instituted into the financial condition of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society; the number of persons insured; the total amount collected from them; the total expenditure; the total liabilities incurred; the amount secured to meet those liabilities; the nature and value of any security given by officers for fidelity, and by whom held; the amount of the endowment policies due to mature in 1914; whether the society continues collecting and canvassing in Ireland; whether approval has been withdrawn from the society worked by it under the National Insurance Act; and whether he will institute an actuarial investigation into this society's affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The complaints made by my hon. Friend and others with regard to this society have been the subject of investigation, as promised in the answer given to him on 1st January. No such irregularities have been disclosed as would justify the withdrawal of approval under Section 29 of the Insurance Act from the United National Friendly Approved Society, which is a separate section conducting business under the Insurance Act under conditions which keep the finances absolutely distinct from those of the collecting society; but the affairs of the society will continue to be under the observation of the Commissioners and the auditors. The return of the collecting society for 1912 has not yet been received, and is not finally due until 31st May next. Particulars as to the assets and liabilities of the society, as shown in the Return for 1911, were given to my hon. Friend in the answer of 1st January. I have no knowledge of the other matters referred to in the question and no power to institute an actuarial investigation into the affairs of the collecting society.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES' VALUATION.
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether the valuation of approved societies having over 5,000 members in England and less than 5,000 members in Scotland and Wales will be conducted on a system which will secure to the members in Scotland and Wales not less than the minimum benefits paid to the members of the same society resident in England after the valuation?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer is in the negative. The English, Scottish and Welsh sections of societies having members in all three countries have each complete financial independence of each other whatever their respective numbers.
    Mr. J. WARD: May we take it for granted from the hon. Gentleman's answer that there may be, after the next valuation, three scales of benefits for the different sets of members of one society?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: This is the result, of course, of the decision arrived at by the House. It does not follow, as the hon. Member infers, that the English set will always have the best of it.
    Mr. J. WARD: Seeing that they all pay the same, does not the hon. Gentleman think they should all receive the same, and that any regulation which prevents that is ridiculous?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is the Act which creates four separate funds. We cannot override that.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of dealing with this part of the business in the amending Bill?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will pass on the suggestion.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that William Butler, of Llanelly, an insured person and a member of the Prudential Approved Society, was unable to obtain the benefits of the National Insurance Act during a recent illness through failure on the part of the Prudential Society to provide him with a medical ticket after repeated applications; whether he is aware that the man is still without a medical ticket; and whether he will take steps to compel the Prudential Society to at once give Butler his card and to prevent similar occurrences in future?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the society that the insured person was a deposit contributor who subsequently transferred to the society, and that the delay in providing him with a medical ticket was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the society's local representative who was under the impression that all the formalities in connection with the transfer of the insured person from the Post Office Fund to the society must be completed before the ticket could be issued. A medical ticket has now been supplied to the member, and the position has been made clear to the society's agent.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will this person suffer any financial loss through the neglect of the society?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Parry, a school teacher at Deal, who, on the 15th January, 1913, became entitled to sickness benefit, being furnished with a medical certificate in the prescribed form stating that she was totally incapacitated from work; whether he is aware that Mrs. Parry, being dangerously

    2111
    ill, was admitted on the 22nd of January to the Victoria Cottage Hospital at Deal, being, as an insured person, only eligible for admission to the hospital as a case of urgency and on condition of paying for her maintenance and medical attendance; that she is still unable to resume her employment, but that, in spite of repeated applications to her approved society, the Teachers' Provident Society, she has been unable to obtain any payment of sickness benefit except for the first week of her illness, and although she has a blind infant dependent upon her; whether this treatment is due to a decision of the Insurance Commissioners that under no circumstances shall sickness benefit be paid to insured persons in hospital, even though obliged to provide their own maintenance; and whether he will take steps to reverse this decision of the Commissioners and to remove the injustice inflicted thereby on Mrs. Parry and other insured persons in similar circumstances?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not a decision of the Insurance Commissioners, but a definite provision of Section 12 of the National Insurance Act that sickness benefit shall not be paid to insured persons while they are in hospitals of the kind described in the Section. The same Section, however, provides for the application of the benefit, in whole or in part, for the relief or maintenance of any dependants. I am informed by the society that they were unable until last week to ascertain whether Mrs. Perry had any dependants, and that immediately on being satisfied that such was the case the whole amount of the sickness benefit calculated up to 13th April, namely, £4 10s., was paid for the relief and maintenance of the dependants, in acccordance with the provisions of Section 12. Any inconvenience that may have been caused would appear to have been due to the insured person not supplying the society at once with information as to her dependants, and not to any decision of the Insurance Commissioners.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Johanna Murphy made an application at the Aherla post office last September for an old age pension, filling up the usual form and showing her certificate of birth that she was seventy years of age on 1st January, 1913; whether she was informed in the first week of February, 1913,
    2112
    by the clerk of the Bandon (No. 1) Pension Sub-committee that the committee did not meet until the last Monday in January and that she was granted pension allowance from that date; will Mrs. Murphy be deprived of her pension for four weeks from 1st January owing to the failure of the committee to meet; and, if not, what steps must be taken to recover the amount properly due to her?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the officer's report in this case was sent to the sub-committee in due time for the usual meeting in December, but that the sub-committee did not meet until the end of January. Under the provisions of the Old Age Pension Act a pension only commences to accrue as from the Friday following its allowance by a committee, and I fear that Mrs. Murphy therefore only became entitled to a pension as from that date.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Is Mr. Murphy to suffer because of the fact that the committee did not have the usual meeting?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I admit there is a hardship but we have no statutory power to remedy it. The blame must lie on the committee.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the general Order issued to old age pension officers in September, 1908, or any substituted Order, on the value of maintenance has been communicated to every pension officer in Ireland and is now used by them for their guidance; if so, what scale the Order fixes in normal cases in urban and rural districts in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively; whether it leaves each officer discretion to increase or reduce the pension according to circumstances within the limits of the Act; what is the authority or scale whereby this discretion is always used to reduce or extinguish pensions in Ireland but not in Great Britain; whether the opinion of the medical officer is obtained in all such cases before the reduction is made; if the rent or valuation of the home where the claimant resides affects the pension, what is the practice on that point in the two countries, respectively; and in what percentage of the claims for old age pensions has the pension been reduced or disallowed on account of the value of maintenance in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No scale is in force under either the Order of September, 1908,

    2113
    or any subsequent Order, for general application by pension officers in framing their estimates of the value of maintenance, and the general rule governing the officers' practice is as stated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of the 11th instant. Pension officers have no discretion to increase or reduce a pension. This discretion rests with the local committee or the Local Government Board on appeal. So far as I am aware, it is not the practice of pension officers to obtain medical opinion on questions affecting the value of means. The rent or valuation of the house in which a claimant resides is one of several factors which a pension officer might take into account in framing an estimate in either country. The information asked for in the last paragraph of the question is not available.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is is not a fact that the circular issued in September, 1908, contained a scale; is that circular, or any one corresponding to it, still in force; and is the circular of 1908, which exempted £30 of furniture, clothes, and personal effects from the estimate, still in force?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member is mistaken. The so-called circular of which he speaks was not a scale, but simply a set of a few suggestions to officers. They never constituted a scale. The suggestions have been modified as a result of the experience acquired.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the earlier circular exempting £30 of personal effects still in force?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that special point. I cannot answer it at the moment.

    Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked if the approval of the Treasury is required to the appointment to posts in the Civil Service to which a commencing salary on a rising scale is attached at higher than the commencing rates; and, if so, whether the approval of the Treasury was given in all the cases specified in the Returns recently published of persons appointed without competitive examination in which the commencing salary paid was in excess of the fixed minimum?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The special sanction of the Treasury would be required for the appointment of any Civil servant at a rate
    2114
    of salary higher than the minimum of the scale attached to the post to which he was appointed unless the case fell within certain categories covered by general authorities given under Treasury Minutes. If in any case such sanction were not obtained, the omission would be noticed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and queried by him. I am not aware of any case among those to which the hon. Member refers in which such omission has occurred.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Board of Education employs permanent clerks at salaries less than the equivalent of £l per week; and what is the number of clerks in the Board's service receiving, on 31st March ultimo, less than £1 per week, 25s. per week, and 30s. per week, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the commencing salary of an assistant clerk is £45. The number of permanent clerks, including women clerks and typists, in the Board's service receiving on 31st March last less than 30s. per week was 199. Of these, 136 received less than 25s. per week, and of these, again, forty-four received less than £1 per week.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is any distinction made in the salaries paid to men and women for the same class of work?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him the figures.
    Mr. BARNES: What is the age of these people who start at £45 a year?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Seventeen.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether the Board's assistant clerks are eligible for special increments similar to those awarded to second division clerks?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Assistant clerks serving under the Board of Education are eligible for special increments only under the conditions laid down in Treasury Regulations of 22nd December, 1908, but the conditions of these increments are not similar to those under which special increments are granted to second division clerks under Clause 33 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for War the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose working day exceeds eight hours?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The total number so serving in the War Office amounts to 1,179, of whom 268 are receiving less than 30s. a week or £78 a year. This latter number includes 33 lady typists, 110 messengers and porters, and 100 female servants and charwomen. The normal working day for all classes is less than eight hours a day, except for messengers, who are liable for a longer period, but are rarely called up to work beyond a period of eight hours.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are the wages paid to women typists less than those paid to men typists?
    Mr. BAKER: I must ask for notice.

    School Accommodation.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that all departments of the Holy Trinity Church of England school, Wey-mouth, have been overcrowded for some years past; whether he will give the reasons why this overcrowding has been allowed to continue; whether he is aware that the latest official list of schools shows that 40 per cent. of the scholars in Wey mouth are in overcrowded schools; and whether anything will be done to remedy the present overcrowding?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Overcrowding occurred in the school referred to in 1910 and 1911, partly as a result of the reassessment of accommodation on the ten and nine square feet basis which took place in 1909 as a result of rearrangements. The only overcrowded department in the school in 1912 was that of the infants, in which the average attendance exceeded the recognised accommodation by two. No other department of any school in the area of the authority was overcrowded during the last school year.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the official list of schools shows that 100 per cent. of the scholars in Pelsall
    2116
    are in overcrowded schools, and that in the Wesleyan school and the Church of England school the average attendance is in excess of the accommodation in all departments; and what steps he is taking to provide additional accommodation as required by the code?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: For the last school year only one department of the four departments in the two schools in Pelsall was overcrowded, and the overcrowding amounted only to thirteen units. As the result of conferences between the authority, the school managers, and the Board the two schools will be reorganised, and proposals have been put forward by the local authority for the provision of a new school for 250 children.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest volume of statistics shows that after excluding all scholars under five years of age there are in all the elementary schools of Coventry only 16,188 school places for 16,719 children on the roll; whether he is aware that 32 per cent. of the scholars are in overcrowded schools, and that the average attendance greatly exceeds the accommodation in All Saints and Holy Trinity Church of England schools, and in Wheatley Street and Edgewick council schools; and what steps will be taken to enable all children between five and fifteen years of age to attend schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The figures given in the first part of the question are correct. With regard to the second part of the question, during the year ended 31st March, 1912, approximately 28 per cent. of the children were in overcrowded schools. There is no longer overcrowding in the Church of England schools, mentioned in the question; but there is some excess of average attendance over accommodation in the case of the Wheatley Street council school, and a small excess in the case of the Edgewick council school. The Board have been in correspondence with the authority on the subject of accommodation for some time. Two new council schools, making provision for over 1,700 scholars, have been opened since September, 1911, and proposals are at present before the Board for the provision of 5,200 additional places in the area of the authority. The hon. Member will be aware that there has been in recent years a rapid growth in the population of Coventry.

    Physically Defective Children.
    Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the education of physically defective children is included in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill; and, if not, whether he will extend its provisions so as to include them?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend is not at present prepared to make compulsory upon local education authorities the provision of special schools for physically defective children. The hon. Member will be aware that local authorities already have power to make this provision under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, Chelmsford, are sub-contractors to Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Limited, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxims, Limited; if so, whether this brings this firm within the Fair-Wages Clause; whether he is aware that this firm are paying adult men as low a wage as 3½d. per hour; whether he is aware that this firm print on their note-heading in red ink the fact that they are contractors to the Admiralty and other Government Departments; and whether he can see his way clear to make inquiry into the wages paid by this firm in order to discover whether they are observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The Admiralty have no information as to whether the firm mentioned are holding sub-contracts for Admiralty work from the firms named. If they do, the Fair-Wages Clause applies, and the main contractor is responsible for the due observance of that Clause. As to the third part of the question, the Admiralty have no information. As to the fourth part, this appears to be the case. As regards the last part of the question, this must depend upon a specific complaint in respect of Admiralty work, and it will be necessary to furnish primâ, facie evidence that the actual rates paid for particular classes of labour are below
    2118
    those recognised by employers and trade societies in the district, or failing such agreed rates, are below those paid by good employers. As a strike is understood to exist at the works, it would not be practicable for an individual Department to conduct an investigation under the Fair-Wages Clause unless the Board of Trade were satisfied that such action would not be generally prejudicial.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm, by its own admission, is a blackleg firm, and that prior to this strike taking place they were advertising for tool makers at about 25 per cent. less than the ordinary rate of wages, and that upon the paper inviting men to come for that rate of wages they advertised the fact, and gave it the special emphasis of red ink, that they are contractors to the Admiralty; and will he take some steps to see that the firm no longer advertises or is struck off the list?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have no knowledge of the information given me by my hon. Friend, but I will take note of it.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the firms mentioned in the question sub-let their work to another contractor without the sanction of the Admiralty?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, in some cases.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, Chelmsford, are sub-contractors to Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Limited, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxims, Limited; if so, whether this brings this firm within the Fair-Wages Clause; whether he is aware that this firm are paying adult men as low a wage as 3½d. per hour; whether he is aware that this firm print on their note-heading in red ink the fact that they are contractors, to the War Office and other Government Departments; and whether he will therefore make inquiry into the wages paid by this firm, in order to discover whether they are observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts?
    Mr. BAKER: Under the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause a contractor is responsible for the observance of the Clause by a sub-contractor. It is not known at the War Office if the firm in question is, at the present moment, supplying the firms mentioned, or other contractors, with material required in

    2119
    connection with Army contracts. But, as I stated on the 14th instant, I do not think that the War Office can usefully intervene, or require a contractor to intervene, while the present dispute is in progress.

    CANTEEN POSITIONS (MALTESE).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked what is the number of Maltese holding canteen positions in Home waters?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Seventeen canteen tenancies in His Majesty's ships in Home waters are held by Maltese firms at the present time.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any aeroplanes, hydro-aeroplanes, or other types of aerial craft, are attached to any of the fleets or squadrons in Home waters; and, if not, whether he will, in view of the fact that the speed of an aeroplane is approximately twice as great as that of a destroyer, take the necessary measures to ensure that our fleets are equipped with these craft for scouting purposes?
    Mr. LAMBERT: This question is being made the subject of investigation and experiment.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the hon. Member aware that the First Lord stated last March twelvemonths that he hoped in a few months aeroplanes will be attached to all the fleets?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I can only say we are making experiments. I am sure he would not desire us to take hasty action in this Important matter.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The First Lord then was incorrect last March?
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the principal dockyards, arsenals, and naval bases in this country are within the nominal radius of action of the German airships of the Zeppelin type acting from the German coast; and whether our fleets, dockyards, and arsenals are provided with defensive equipment against aerial attack by means either of aircraft or of anti-aircraft guns?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, provided that the conditions are favourable. With regard to the second part, defensive measures are being taken for dealing with aerial attack.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the hon. Member say what is being done?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not think that would be very wise.

    WERRY ENGINES.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked if the Werry type of engine installed in a pinnace attached to His Majesty's Australian Ship "Australia" has completed its trials successfully; and, if so, whether the building of engines of similar or larger sizes is under consideration?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Werry type of engine installed in steam pinnace A2 attached to the "Australia" worked satisfactorily during its trials, but its performance was not equal to that of the types generally fitted in Service steam pinnaces. The building of Werry engines of similar or larger sizes is not under consideration.

    SUPPLEMENTARY LIEUTENANTS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the commissions of the new supplementary lieutenants are to be dated from their seniority as lieutenants, Royal Naval Reserve, or from the date that their names were actually inserted on the Navy List as lieutenants, Royal Navy?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The commissions of officers now being entered in the Royal Navy as supplementary lieutenants will be dated from the approximate date of their entry into the Royal Navy.

    Reformatories.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked the Home Secretary what is the cause of the delay in submitting the Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatories; and at what date the reception of evidence was completed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand no evidence has been taken since July last, but since that date further inquiries have been made by the Committee by means of circulars and visits to schools. The Committee now hope to have their Report ready in a few weeks.
    Sir W. BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there will be any opportunity for the discussion of the question of reformatories and cognate questions?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member knows that that matter is not in my hands.

    Street Hawking, London.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Quinn, a coloured man but a British subject, who has been prevented from hawking goods in the streets of London; and whether, in this matter of street hawking, the police have any right to make any distinction between white and coloured British subjects?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police reports that the man referred to conducts his business in the streets in such a manner as to cause serious obstruction, and he is not amenable to advice or caution. Such action as has been found necessary has been taken in the ordinary course of police duty, no distinction being drawn between one offender and another.

    Prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communication setting forth facts connected with the St. David's Mining Development Company, Limited, the Voel Mines, Limited, and the Gwyn Mines, Limited; and whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will investigate these facts and take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown about them?
    Mr. McKENNA: After the hon. Member had given notice of this question I received the communication to which apparently he refers. How many of the statements it contains can be described as facts I am unable to say; but I cannot help feeling much doubt as to the bona fides of representations first made ten years after the events to which they refer. I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman defer the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton until he has thoroughly investigated the facts to which I refer in my question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think it would be obviously to the advantage of the good administration of justice if the hon. Gentleman would defer the question until the prosecution is finished.

    Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
    Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked whether in a district it has been decided that a mason's labourer working regularly in a
    2122
    mine does not come within the scope of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wages) Act; and whether, in view of the conflicting opinions on the matter and the fact that mason's labourers in other districts come under the Act, any guidance can be given on the point or any steps taken to secure uniformity of administration?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have not seen the decision referred to, but, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the definition of "workman" for the purposes of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act is contained in Section 5 (1) of the Act. The Board of Trade have no authority in regard to the matter, which would appear to be ultimately one for the decision of the Courts.

    Mines Act (Aid Certificates).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary the date upon which the Glamorgan County Council first memorialised him asking that their first aid certificates should be recognised by him for the purposes of the requirements of the Mines Act; and what are the reasons which have led to the delay in coming to a decision, particularly as these certificates are recognised by the Board of Trade and the War Office?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Glamorgan County Council applied in April last year that the certificates which they were proposing to issue might be recognised for the purposes of the Rescue Order. It was explained to them that this would require an amendment of the Order, and they were asked to submit details of their scheme for consideration, but these were not received till the end of November. It has been necessary to examine carefully the whole question of the recognition of the certificates of bodies other than the principal ambulance associations, and this question is not yet ready for decision; but, in the meantime, the Board for Mining Examinations have decided, with a view to preventing any hardship, that a candidate for a certificate of competency who is desirous of sitting at the examination next month but has not yet obtained the first aid certificate required, shall be allowed four months after the examination in which to obtain it.

    Post Office Staff (Engineering Department).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware

    2123
    that, notwithstanding his reply to a recent memorial that no obstacle would be placed in the way of assistant clerks serving in the Post Office engineering department seeking transfers to other Government Departments, assistant clerks who have arranged such transfers are being kept back, and the vacancies for which they applied are being filled by the Civil Service Commission with new entrants to the class; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the case of these clerks?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Requests from other Government Departments for the services of assistant clerks employed in the Post Office engineering department have been complied with whenever the circumstances permitted. For some time the Civil Service Commissioners were unable to comply with requisitions for assistant clerks, and on account of the extreme pressure of work existing in the engineering department no assistant clerks could be spared for transfer until successors were available. I am not aware, however, of any case in which the transfer of an assistant clerk has fallen through owing to this cause.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet completed his inquiries regarding the demand for telephone facilities in the village of Wingham, Kent; and whether he can now say that such facilities will be provided without further delay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The estimates are not yet complete, and I am unable at present to say if the provision of the facilities will be justified. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to give a decision.

    Housing Accommodation, Potterne (Wiltshire).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the result of an inquiry by Mr. Collin, a Local Government Board inspector, on the 23rd May, 1912, into the housing conditions of Potterne, in Wilts, the Board has twice communicated with the Devizes Rural District Council, recommending, on the 5th July, the erection of twelve cottages, and again in September, warning the council that they are not justified in deferring action any longer though the erection of cottages
    2124
    might entail a burden on the rates; and whether, although seven months have elapsed since the Board issued this warning, no steps have been taken by the Devizes Rural District Council to erect any cottages for the labourers of Potterne?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I have received representations not only from the Devizes Rural District Council, but also from the Potterne Parish Council, in regard to this matter, in which the need for the provision of further cottages in the parish of Potterne is questioned, and various reasons are advanced in support of this view. In consequence, I have thought it desirable to have the matter further investigated on the spot, and one of my inspectors will visit the district for this purpose at an early date.

    Paupers (Shropshire).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the figures of the various unions in Shropshire to show the present number of indoor and outdoor paupers over and under seventy years of age, respectively; and the corresponding figures for the same date in 1906 and the intervening years?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I will send to the hon. Member a table containing such figures as I am able to supply.

    Dobbinson Charity, Willington (Durham).
    Mr. JOHN WILSON (Durham)asked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what were the original purposes of the Dobbinson Charity, Willington, in the county of Durham; and whether the proceeds of the charity are now being devoted to these original purposes; if not so devoted, what steps does he propose to take to restore the charity to its original character?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Dobbinson Charity, Brancepeth, was founded by Anne Dobbinson's gift by will of 21st January, 1662, of £2 5s. a year to the poor of Willington, and other smaller annual sums to six other townships in the parish of Brancepeth. By a scheme made by the Durham County Court on 23rd March, 1857, amended in certain details by two subsequent schemes in 1880 and 1898, the whole income of the charity was made applicable for educational purposes

    2125
    in connection with elementary schools in the townships interested. The charity is now under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.

    Development Fund (Grants).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present interpretation of a farm institute towards the expenses of which Development Fund Grants are shortly to be made available to local authorities by the Board; and whether it necessarily involves the provision of buildings, either presently or ultimately?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): A farm institute is intended to be an institution which, in addition to providing courses of instruction in agricultural subjects suitable for the district in which it is situated, shall also serve as a headquarters for one or more members of the staff of agricultural instructors employed in local peripatetic work. In cases in which buildings suitable for the purposes of an institute are not available it is contemplated that they must ultimately be provided either by single counties or by groups of counties.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the recent circular on the subject to the local authorities does not make this absolutely clear?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is very difficult to make it absolutely clear. Every individual case will be considered by the Board, and if the hon. Gentleman will bring any case to my notice it will be inquired into.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether there are any further additions to be made to the Estimate of £630,000 for the expenses of the Land Valuation Office to arrive at the complete cost of its working, besides £20,000 for rent of district valuer's offices and £15,000 for printing; and, if so, what is the amount of them, and under what Votes do they come?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total cost of the services rendered by other Departments in connection with the original valuation for the current year is approximately £50,000, made up as follows:—

    £

    Rent of offices (borne on Office of Works Vote)

    …

    20,000

    Rates (borne on Vote for Rates on Government Property)

    …

    4,500

    2126

    £

    Stationery and printing (borne on Stationery Office Vote)

    …

    11,000

    Postage (borne on Post Office Vote)

    …

    14,500

    The sum of £15,000 previously given as the estimated cost of stationery and printing is found upon further investigation to have been excessive.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on a future occasion it would not be possible to set down the estimate more clearly so that the whole cost will appear in a single estimate instead of being spread over a number of estimates?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that was done in connection with this Vote, it would have to be done in connection with all other Votes, and I think that would be quite impossible.

    Education (Necessitous Areas Grant).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a resolution from the education committee of Merthyr Tydvil protesting against the reduction of the necessitous areas Grant and claiming that three-fourths of the expenditure in excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ should be met by the Government, as originally promised, and not be subject to the limitations since imposed; whether he is aware that the notification of a further reduction in the necessitous school areas Grant was not known to the local education authority until after the estimates for the coming year were passed and will, if persisted in, mean an addition of 2d. to the education rate for the borough; and whether he will revert to the original policy of the Government to pay three-fourths of the expenditure in excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The regulations for the necessitous Grants (Cd. 6224) provide in 1912–13, as in previous years, for a pro rata reduction in case the total Grants exceed the fixed sum voted by Parliament. Ample notice was thus given to the local authorities, but it is not possible to inform them of the precise reduction of their claims until the close of the year, when all the claims have been examined.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In view of the fact that the number of areas has been

    2127
    increased, and that the Grant is consequently proportionately smaller, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to put an extra £80,000 in the Budget to meet the claims of all the areas?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole subject is at present under consideration.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many hereditaments are referred to in the objections and appeals against Undeveloped Land Duty already received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not, I regret, in a position to furnish the information desired. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 9th April to the hon. Member for the Horncastle Division.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where tenant right has been included in the total value of land which is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty under the Finance Act, he will give instructions that no duty shall be charged unless a full deduction has been allowed in respect of this tenant right from the total value before arriving at the site value upon which the duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that Undeveloped Land Duty assessed in respect of agricultural land is chargeable on the difference between the site value and the agricultural value, and that if in any case tenant right falls to be included in the former it would also be included in the latter value. Thus tenant right is automatically excluded from the net sum upon which duty would be chargeable, and the issue of any such instructions as are suggested by the hon. Member are unnecessary.

    Increment Duty.
    Sir HARRY SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a claim for £3 18s. was made for Increment Duty on Mr. F. F. Schweitzer, a man belonging to the working classes, who had purchased a leasehold house in 1908 for £270, and who had sold it two years later at a loss of £10; that Schweitzer's solicitors had a correspondence on the subject with the Board
    2128
    of Inland Revenue, the district valuer, and others, and resisted the claim; that on the solicitors insisting that no Increment Duty was payable, and on giving notice of appeal, the claim was completely withdrawn; and that the solicitors demanded payment of their costs in the matter, and the Board without comment paid these costs in full; and will he say under which Act of Parliament or authority were these costs paid, and out of which fund were they provided?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The claim was withdrawn on its being ascertained that a substituted site value had been allowed by the valuer under the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the effect of the substitution being to cancel the liability to duty. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue considered that the case was one in which the costs incurred by Mr. Schweitzer might properly be paid by them, and the payment was accordingly made out of the sums voted by Parliament for Law Costs and Expenses of Appeals, which are included in the Inland Revenue Estimates under Sub-head D. D.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether it is the practice and duty of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to set out to those who are assessed for purposes of Increment Value Duty any exemptions to which they are entitled, or whether the onus of setting out and claiming any such exemptions is held to rest on the owner of the hereditament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to draw the attention of persons who are primâ facie liable to pay Increment Value Duty to the exemptions and allowances which may be claimed, at the time when these persons are informed of the site value proposed to be adopted on the occasion giving rise to the claim for duty. Exemptions and allowances which are obviously due are granted without claim.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Law Officers of the Crown have yet had time to look into the transactions in real estate of Mr. Lindsell, the Willesden road-sweeper, who purchased a house in Kensal Rise and sold the same at a loss of over £50: and whether he will state if the claim for £4 15s. 1d. Increment Value Duty, in respect of which legal proceedings have been

    2129
    threatened by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue against Mr. Lindsell, will be proceeded with?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The transactions referred to by the hon. Member are being further investigated, and I am unable at present to make any statement in the matter.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to publish the Report of the Land Inquiry Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the reply which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Enfield.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it a fact that the Report is actually drawn up and about to be issued in two volumes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member seems to know more about it than I do.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman contradict the statement to that effect that appeared in several newspapers?

    Income Tax.
    Mr. FELLasked what amount of Income Tax was paid into the Exchequer during the first seven days in April in each of the last five years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures are as follows:—

    £

    1908

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,374,000

    1909

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,378,000

    1910

    …

    …

    …

    …

    146,000

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,853,000

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,359,000

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,923,000

    A true comparison cannot be drawn from these figures without adjustment, as in the two first years the rate of Income Tax was 1s. in the £ only; in the following two years the circumstances were abnormal owing to the rejection of the 1909–10 Budget; and in 1912 Good Friday occurred on the 5th April, and resulted in the payment of some £550,000 of Income Tax being delayed till the following week.
    Mr. FELLasked why the Super-tax which was due during the last financial year was not collected during that year, and particularly why the collectors during
    2130
    the month of March made no efforts to get this tax paid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: About £3,600,000 was received in Super-tax in the last financial year, which is approximately £900,000 in excess of the estimated yield for a full year. All possible progress was made in overtaking the arrears consequent upon the late passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, by which the tax was originally imposed. There was no relaxation in the month of March in the efforts of the Special Commissioners to get the Super-tax paid.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Government have contracted with any of the vendors of land in Wiltshire required for the purposes of their new flying ground not to charge him Increment Value Duty in consequence of the sale of such land to the Government at a profit of £20,000; and, if so, what is the reason for the exoneration of such vendor from a tax imposed by the Government upon other citizens?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: No such contract was made.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what was the price per acre paid, respectively, by the War Office to Lord St. Aldwyn for his property at Netheravon and Fittleton, in the county of Wilts, and more recently by the same Government Department for their flying ground, to St. Katherine's Hospital, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and Mr. Maton for their respective estates in parishes adjoining the above; and whether the first-mentiond proprty included less hill land and more buildings than either of the other three estates?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The prices per acre were approximately as follows:—

    £

    s.

    Lord St. Alwyn

    …

    12

    0

    Mr. Maton

    …

    26

    10

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners

    …

    13

    10

    St. Katherine's Hospital

    …

    15

    10

    The first-mentioned property included a greater proportion of buildings, including cottages, than the other estates. The proportion of arable to grass land were as follows: Lord St. Alwyn, 4,302 acres arable to 3,516 acres grass; Mr. Maton, rather

    2131
    more than half arable; Ecclesiastical Commissioners, mostly arable; St. Katherine's Hospital, about half arable.
    Mr. BATHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the statement made as regards Lord St. Aldwyn's land before the Marconi Committee to the effect that he was overpaid is not justified on those figures?
    Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member realises that the lands are different lands, and that there may be a great difference in price.
    Mr. KING: Do not these figures show that the Liberal Government is far more generous to the landlords than the Conservatives?

    SUFFRAGIST PRISONERS.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state the number of prisoners now being forcibly fed in consequence of indulging in a hunger strike; whether Hugh Franklin is among these, and, if so, has he received any special report on the state of his health; and what length of time this forcible feeding has been applied in each particular case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I only received the hon. Member's notice after three o'clock, and consequently I am not in a position to answer all his points. The number of prisoners now being forcibly fed is four. Mr. Hugh Franklin is among the number. I saw a report as to his health this morning and there was nothing in the report to suggest alarm. I cannot say how long the process of forcible feeding has been carried on in each case.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to facilitate the delivery of communications? This was handed in at the door to the messengers at one o'clock, and marked "Urgent."
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will be so good as to address questions to the Home Office I shall always receive them earlier.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man died the other day in Stafford Asylum through being forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I heard of the case this morning.

    PROSECUTION OF MR. G. LANSBURY.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether Mr. George Lansbury has been summoned to give sureties and be bound to the peace under Section 1 of the Act of 34 Edward III.; if so, will he state the words of the Act under which the powers of binding to the peace are conferred upon the magistrates, and is he aware that the Act as it stands in the Statutes of the Realm is a mistranslation of the original French?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The variation between the Norman-French text and the ancient translations has been set out in all the authorised editions of the Statutes since 1810. In view of the numerous cases which have come before the Courts, it is hardly likely to give rise to any difficulty.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this High Court of Parliament makes the laws of this country or that some transcriber in the fifteenth century is to make the law by which we are to be governed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not fully familiar with the facts of the case, but I understand that in one of the copies of this law the word "not" has been omitted, but it appears in others—the more reliable editions.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer to the original text of the Statute, which is to be found in the Statute Roll (Chancery), Number 1 roll, Membrane 10, which, after referring to those who have been
    "pilours et robeurs es parties de dela,"
    goes on
    "et de prendre de touz ceux qi sont de bone fame souffisant seurete de lour bon port, et les auters duement punir,"
    and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an authorised copy of this original document in the Record Office, coupled with an authorised translation of the same?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point brought forward by my hon. Friend, but I could not without notice answer any question on the construction of my hon. Friend's early French.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Home Secretary has referred to the article which appeared in the "English Historical Review," of April, 1912, by two officials in the Record Office, making the case perfectly clear, and showing that the Act was only intended to refer to those persons who had come back from France after the long French war.
    Mr. McKENNA: Notwithstanding the authority of the officials of the Record Office, this is really a matter to be settled by decisions of the Courts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the business for next week and arrangements as to the holidays?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, and I hope we shall be able to conclude the remaining stages of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill.
  On Tuesday, we take the Budget, as already announced.
  On Wednesday, the Committee stage on the Financial Resolution for the Soudan Loan; and the Prisoners (Temporary Dis-
  2154
  charge for Ill-Health) Bill, if not already passed, with other minor Government Bills.
  On Thursday, Supply—the Post Office Vote.
  On Thursday, 8th May, we shall take the Adjournment Motion for the Whitsuntide holiday, until the following Tuesday fortnight, 27th May.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move: "That the Proceedings on the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill and on the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 126.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Hinds, John

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Alden, Percy

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Dillon, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Bughs)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bentham, G. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Boland, John Plus

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  King, J.

  Brace, William

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leach, Charles

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lundon, Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hackett, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  McGhee, Richard

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hancock, J. G.

  Maclean, Donald

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Clynes, John R.

  Hardle, J. Keir

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Martin, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Middlebrook, William

  2155

  Millar, James Duncan

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Sutton, John E.

  Molloy, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morison, Hector

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Munro, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Neilson, Francis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wardle, George J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Webb, H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wing, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Snowden, Philip

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  2156

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholsen, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boyton, James

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Campion, W. R.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cassel, Felix

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  2157

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rupert Guinness and Mr. Denniss.

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order
  2158
  (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lundon, Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Field, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Alden, Percy

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gladstone, W. G. C

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barnes, George N.

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Barton, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Martin, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Bentham, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hackett, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Boland, John Pius

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molloy, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Havelock-Alian, Sir Henry

  Morison, Hector

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayward, Evan

  Muldoon, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Munro, R.

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Neilson, Francis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clough, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clynes, John R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Dowd, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shee, James John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davles, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Joyce, Michael

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kelly, Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dillon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, J.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Doris, William

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, M.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  2159

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Waring, Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Webb, H.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Sutherland, John E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, James Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wing, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Shortt, Edward

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  2160

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Blair, Reginald

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Scott, Sir S. (Marybone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Butcher, John George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Kerr-Smiley and Mr. Hill-Wood.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    POLICE ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    "To amend the Police Acts, 1839 to 1909, and to make more secure provision for incapacitated constables and for the widows, children, and other dependents of constables." Presented by Mr. WILES; supported by Sir Charles Schwann, Sir James Fortescue Flannery, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Dickinson, and Sir Robert Price; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
    EDUCATION BILL.
    "To make further provision with regard to Education in England and Wales." Presented by Mr. WINFREY; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
    COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the provisions of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, with respect to private companies." Presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
    HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS BILL.
    "To regulate the conditions of employment of persons in Hotels and Restaurants." Presented by Mr. PARKER; supported by Mr. Pointer, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Alden, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Primrose; to be read a second time upon Monday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
  As amended, Considered.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask, Sir, whether in your opinion this is a Money Bill within the terms of Section 1 of the Parliament Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Subject to any changes which may occur in the Bill during the Report stage, in my opinion this is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Act.)
    This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This proposal is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. When the Resolutions were under discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that he would limit the Bill to duties of Customs and Excise and Income Tax. He has carried that out, but he has put the provision, as I think, in the wrong place, or in not so favourable a place as it ought to be. I understand that the Attorney-General will accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)
    This Act shall continue in force for a period of eighteen months from the date of the passing thereof.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We on this side think that this Clause embodies a very important subject, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think the matter less important because it can be briefly stated. Let me state briefly what the circumstances are under which this Bill has been introduced, and therefore what are the reasons why I suggest it should be limited in duration to a period of eighteen months. I think it is common ground that this Bill makes a new and very important departure in the law of the land and in the practice of this House. On the one hand, the Government are met with the difficulty that the system which has hitherto obtained of collecting taxes under a mere Resolution of a Committee of this House in anticipation of legislation has been declared to be illegal, and they apparently think that the best thing they can do is to introduce this Bill and for the first time in our history to give statutory effect to a mere Resolution of a Committee of this House. Many of us regard this system with great apprehension. The discussions in this House on such a Resolution must necessarily be brief. The object for which the Resolution is introduced is that it may go through quickly, and we think that the amount of discussion that can be given to what in the future will be a law authorising taxation is entirely inadequate to the importance of the subject. We fear that the Committee of Ways and Means in this House may become a mere automatic machine for registering and legalising schemes of Treasury officials. We fear also any scheme which shall give to the Government of the day, from whichever side it may be drawn, additional powers to use its party majority in the direction of minimising discussion and removing from the House of Commons its real control over the finances of the country. I believe that these fears are shared by a considerable number of Members on the other side of the House.
    Under these circumstances, what is the obvious course to pursue? The obvious course was and is to appoint a Select

    2163
    Committee recruited from those who have considerable experience of Parliamentary procedure and finance, and to get from them a suggestion as to the best means, on the one hand, of safeguarding our rights and through us the rights of the taxpayer, and, on the other hand, of facilitating for the Treasury the collection of the taxes of the country without fear of evasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has consented to the appointment of such a Select Committee. Personally, I think it ought to have been appointed a long time ago. In my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised if, as soon as the decision was given in the action brought by Mr. Bowles, when he must have foreseen the difficulties that would arise, he had at once, or within a reasonable time, appointed a Select Committee to suggest the proper course to pursue in order to obviate the difficulties in which that decision would place the Government. However, better late than never; at last we are to have the Committee. The question which really comes before the House is whether the Report of this Select Committee is to be given a reasonable chance of being incorporated in legislation. The Committee will have many schemes to consider. I have no doubt that even among the treasures of the official mind, lurking behind the "modern eye," there are various schemes which will be brought before the Select Committee for consideration. There is the procedure of many foreign countries to be investigated. Information is to be derived from the experience of the procedure in other Parliaments. There are those who think that some scheme by which, if the Standing Orders of this House were altered, the Resolutions which precede the Finance Act could be done away with, the Budget could be introduced earlier in the year, and that part of it which deals with Customs and Excise could become immediately operative, and would be preferable to the scheme of a statutory Resolution incorporated in this Bill. Many schemes will have to be considered by the Select Committee. That being so, if the Committee is to do any good, and is to devise, as I hope it will, a workable scheme, just to all, what is the common sense of passing a permanent Bill first and then asking from the Select Committee a Report as to what that Bill should contain?
    Those who have experience of this House know what the fate of a Report
    2164
    under these circumstances is likely to be. The tragedy of "Love's Labour Lost" is nothing compared to the pathetic spectacle of gentlemen of eminence passing their valuable time in devising a Report which we know and they know, as soon as it appears, will receive decent permanent interment in the Blue Books of this House, which the youngest Member does not trouble to read after his first Session in Parliament. If that is so, and I think the statement is not exaggerated, surely common sense dictates that we should limit the duration of the Bill to a period which will give proper time for the completed scheme to come from the experts whom you yourselves are going to appoint. To make the Bill permanent will discourage those who are going to inquire. Then if you desire to act on the Report when it is presented, you will have to find time for it. It may come at a time when circumstances are altered. What Chancellor of the Exchequer, from this party or that, if he has this measure ready to his hand, will be able to resist the temptation to put it into operation without troubling himself about the Report of an expert Committee appointed eighteen months before? This is the net result. If your Committee of experts reports in accordance with the scheme of this Bill, if after due examination it comes to the conclusion that this scheme is the best, the measure can be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and it will go on automatically. If, on the other hand, as we on this side ardently hope, a new and better scheme is devised, this Bill will cease to be operative in eighteen months' time, and the new scheme can be incorporated in a perfect Bill, at which I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aiming as we are. Such a Bill could be presented, and, in the ordinary course, one is entitled to hope it would go through practically without opposition. Take this as a test—I think this is a legitimate observation—of the real intention of the Government, not to get themselves out of a temporary difficulty, but to secure a perfect scheme which shall remain in operation for all future time. If they really desire that, there is no possible reason why they should not accept a Clause limiting the duration of a measure which they admit is to deal with a temporary emergency only. If they desire that the Report of the Committee should be a farce, and that this new and startling procedure should be utilised for all time

    2165
    by all parties, of course there is no object in appointing the Select Committee and still less in limiting the duration of the Bill. I hope that these arguments will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that a time limit is the legitimate corollary of that to which he has already consented. I think the whole House is grateful to the Government for having recognised that an expert inquiry into this difficult question is required, and this is a way of making the work of that Committee effective.
    Mr. A. S. WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): This Clause was moved in identical terms on the Committee stage. The Government, after some discussion, promised to appoint a Select Committee to consider the best method of meeting the difficulties with which this Bill is intended to deal, and upon that promise the hon. and learned Member, although he distinctly stated that he preferred both to appoint the Committee and to limit the duration of the Bill, stated that half a loaf was better than no bread, and withdrew the Clause.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that I said at the time that I was no party to the bargain, and that I knew nothing of it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I am within my rights in reminding him of the circumstances under which similar Clauses were withdrawn on Tuesday last. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should not merely appoint a Select Committee, but should also limit the duration of the Bill, and that the Government should undertake at once to give statutory effect to the Report of the Committee. That would be rather a rash pledge for any Government to give. Whatever Government happens to be in power eighteen months since would be bound to legislate at the time, and there might be reason why they should put it off for the time being. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has watched the whole proceedings carefully he will have found that this Bill has been very considerably limited since its first introduction into this House—at least since it was first outlined to the House; since the summary of the Bill and its pro-
    2166
    visions were outlined. Since then there have been Clauses introduced which will have the effect of limiting its operations very considerably indeed. As a matter of fact, the Bill does not represent 50 per cent. of the accommodation and facility which the old practice represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire knows that very well.
    The Amendment of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), which the Government accepted, involves the statutory guarantee that the Budget will be debated during the course of the live part of the Session. Although no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that this Government have abused the facilities which they had under the old practice, still if he looks at the precedents he will find that many Governments have put off to the end of the Session the discussions on the Committee and Report stages of Resolutions. The Noble Lord will find possibly several cases of the Report, stages of Finance Bills which were put off till the end of July. I have no doubt there was some temporary justification for it. But that will be impossible while you have this statutory guarantee. It cannot be done. There are other limitations which have been introduced into the Bill. There is the limitation which confines it to Customs and Excise and the Income Tax. There are two or three other limitations, including the very serious one in regard to the new taxes. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Select Committee reports the Report may not be in favour of further limiting the Bill, but in favour of extending the powers. I would not mind predicting that the point of view of that Committee will possibly be that of old Members of this House and of those who studied the procedure on this matter, and that the Report will be in favour of widening and extending the powers. Therefore it will be rather in the interests of the Government of the day than those who are criticising the Bill from the point of view of excessive powers. The hon. and learned Gentleman has presented his case, and has presented it very clearly and fairly—as he always does—and I hope, having done so, he will now be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I extremely regret the tone of the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given…
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh!
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Because it seems obvious to me that he contemplates not only this Bill, but still larger Bills in this direction as part of the permanent machinery of the Government and of the Executive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he was predicting just now that the result of any examination by any Select Committee would be to give to future Chancellors of the Exchequer even more powers. He will understand, then, why I regret it is so. I have taken some exception to the tone of his speech…
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh!
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Well, then, if the right hon. Gentleman will have it so, let me say I regret the outlook of the right hon. gentleman.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That outlook is a very different outlook to that which we hoped he was going to indulge in to-day. We have observed during the progress of this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has made many concessions to those who have been criticising his proposals. Amongst those concessions—I was not able to continue in the House the other evening—there was the right hon. Gentleman's consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole procedure attaching to this Resolution and this Bill. I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having promised to set up that Committee. I was one of those whom the right hon. Gentleman beneath me consulted in respect to a Select Committee in the early days, when we were debating the Resolution on which this Bill is founded, and I was strongly in favour of such a Committee being set up. If we are to have that Committee, I think that Committee, having reported, there ought to be on the part of the Government some real desire to legislate on the lines of the Report, unless they strongly disagree upon it. I cannot help thinking as it is that it is this Government, after all, that has occasioned the difficulty. By challenging action in another place they have really created this difficulty, and therefore it is this Government which ought to deal with the difficulty and extricate this House and the country from the position in which they find themselves.
    2168
    From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it seems perfectly patent when he gets these powers put into his hands, he is not likely to pay any attention to any Report of any Select Committee during, at any rate, the existence of this Parliament. Obviously this Parliament cannot last more than another two and a half years, even if it lasts its full time, and unless there is some limiting time put into the powers that are given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Bill, I am quite certain that the Chancellor will not find time to indulge in any legislation which will be found recommended in the Report of the Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself in the possession of very large powers which he will fully enjoy. He will not be at all anxious to part with them for any lesser powers such as I think will be recommended by the Select Committee. I am quite aware that Chancellors of the Exchequer will be glad of the powers which are given by this Bill.
    For my own part I have been more anxious for the rights of the House, the rights of the subject, and the rights of the taxed subject than for the rights of the Treasury and the rights of Chancellors of the Exchequer. I think it is high time that there were more in this House who were ready to take the side of the House and the side of the subject against the side of the Treasury and the side of the Executive, even although they themselves may have had some experience on the Treasury side and may in every way possible be anxious to promote the getting in of our revenue in the proper and orthodox way. I regret that the Government do not see their way to put any Clause into this Bill making it a temporary Bill. If they have no intention of making it a temporary Bill that is almost conclusive that they are hoping to make this part of the permanent machinery of the Executive and of the practice of the Treasury. I have always said that this is a most dangerous power to give to any Chancellor of the Exchequer or to any Treasury. I fully admit that these powers have been very much limited, and particularly limited by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. His Amendment seems to me a very valuable Amendment. Yet these powers, limited as they are, are enormous. I can never fail to remember, when I am speaking on this Bill, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for

    2169
    East Worcestershire, in which he himself admitted that even under the limited powers of the Bill it might be perfectly possible, by a single Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, to raise the Income Tax from 1s. 2d. to 15s. in the £—this by one single Vote. Now, however, the Amendment of the Noble Lord has been put in, of course such a Resolution would have to be debated by the whole House within ten days; and within twenty days would have to find itself in a Finance Act. At the same time I have a great dislike to, and a great distrust of, giving such enormous powers to any Government, even for ten days.
    When taxation is once on it is very difficult to take off. The expenditure based on that taxation begins almost at once, and the arguments proposed against it are not always advanced at the right time or in the right place: the tax becomes part of the taxation of the country, and it is very difficult, after it has been actually passed by Committee of this House, to oppose it; for a successful opposition would probably lead to the overthrow of the Government of the day. The Government in defence would bring up all their forces. The Members might have very much disliked the Resolution when they first heard it; but the Government would subsequently say to their supporters, "You must support us; we will make this a matter of confidence, and if you oppose us you will help to turn the Government out at a critical time." So the Government are able to use this unfair power in respect to taxation, and the whole subject is not debated in that free way in which it would be debated under the present system. I cannot help thinking that there should be some limit, and I shall strongly support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend that the operation of this Bill should be limited to eighteen months. That period would give the present Government time to legislate and extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they have landed this House of Commons. I think we ought to take every opportunity of registering our opinion that this Bill and the legislation founded upon a Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means is not legislation that ought to be passed as the permanent machinery of this country.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This Amendment is put forward not in the least degree in a spirit of complaint against the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We
    2170
    quite recognise the concession made on Tuesday evening, and the spirit in which it was made. This Amendment is merely put forward with a desire to improve the Bill. I confess, in spite of the arguments that were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it still seems to me that it would be an improvement. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You are quite as likely to have arrangements altered for the worse from your point of view as for the better; on the other hand, restrictions of this kind might be inconvenient and put forward at an awkward moment when it might be difficult to give the necessary time for the passing of the Resolution." In respect to the last matter no such difficulty could arise, for it would be always possible to meet it. No one could reasonably complain of its being put into one year in order to relieve Parliament of any congestion of business that it was suffering from at that time. So far as the other argument goes, I recognise fully that, if it was the danger the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of, nothing we do on this occasion can make that danger either less or greater. It is quite true that once having made this great breach in the constitutional security of the subject it is only too likely that it will be enlarged. Nothing is easier than to enlarge it. You do not require a new Bill. You can do it by a Clause in the Budget Bill, and you can sweep away any of those safeguards the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of. And I think it is very likely that a Clause would be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) including new taxes. He has not concealed from the House that he has a very strong opinion that the Bill is almost useless unless it includes new taxes. When we have a majority in this House, and he is the Minister in charge of the finances of the country, he would lose no time in proposing such an addition to this Bill, the necessity of which he has always urged. The Government know they cannot restrain a future Chancellor of the Exchequer. As things are, there is no doubt in any future Budget it could be extended to any degree by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it suited the purposes of the Treasury, whether presided over by a Unionist or a Liberal, to enlarge this Bill, this Bill will be enlarged. And the ineffectiveness of our resistance, not in argument, in which I think our resistance has been very effective, but the ineffec-

    2171
    tiveness of our resistance to having this thing done, shows how helpless those are who seek to put any limit upon the growing authority of the Executive Government. It is merely a question of how much the Treasury likes to ask for; they will get it. I think the main value of making the Bill temporary is the moral effect. By making it temporary we recognise that we are doing something which is a very serious change. We pay, at any rate, that debt of hypocrisy, which, as we know, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and we maintain, at any rate, the externals of the Constitution, and therefore, if there is any reaction of opinion which really thinks that the Executive Government has more power than they ought to have and that Parliament has less power than it ought to have, we are ear-marking this as one of the things on which reform should be made.
    There are many alternatives by which the convenience of the public might be served besides this breach in the Constitution. You might do it by getting importers to give security where a Resolution was passed, or you might allow the rapid passing of a temporary Act of Parliament which would be infinitely less harmful to a Constitutional procedure if you are to preserve the procedure resembling that which is sanctioned by tradition in this country, and you might allow a Bill to pass through all its stages in a short time if you have to deal with an emergency. I mention this to show that there are other alternatives. Therefore, if a Select Committee considered it thoroughly, it might well be that while they might report favourably as to the convenience of this particular Bill, they might also report amendments in our view desirable and they might also report that there are alternative schemes. Then you might have a reaction of opinion and if Parliament should think it was desirable to put a check upon the extraordinary power of the Executive Government, then you would have this scheme urged and this Bill ear-marked. On these grounds I think it would be better to make it a temporary Bill. We ought to maintain the forms of great deference to the ancient Constitution and show upon the Act of Parliament that we are conscious we are doing a thing which, even though it be necessary, is a matter of regret to those who wish to preserve our ancient constitutional procedure.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think it is a matter of great importance, having regard to the enormous change that this Bill would undoubtedly introduce, that it should be only of a temporary character. I go further than the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I think it would have more than a moral effect and I think it would have a great protective effect as regards the maintenance of the true spirit of our Constitution in the future. Take the case of the Army Act. Why is that temporary and renewable from year to year? It is that this House of Commons—not the Government—should maintain the control which would enable it to enforce whatever it thinks right as to public policy by the Army Act being passed only from year to year. It might be thought at the present day that the time has passed when it is necessary to keep these old safeguards. According to my view, there never was a time when it was more important to keep these old safeguards than at the present moment. It is just the same with regard to the Budget itself, because, according to constitutional practice, we only grant Supplies for one year. Why is that done? In order that this House may have the control, which it ought to have, in directing the public policy of this country, and that theory is the right one, because as long as we retain the power of the Purse, as it was known in the old days, nothing can be done contrary to our view of public policy, because in such circumstances we would not vote the necessary Supplies.
    Let me consider the present position of this constitutional question. It is no longer the House of Commons on the one side and the Executive in the form of the King on the other. It is the House of Commons struggling—and I want to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to this—to maintain its effective and independent control against the Executive which gets its power from the majority of the House itself. That is the great difficulty at the present day. Can we ever effectively enforce the rights of the House as against the views of the Government supported by a particular majority? In old days, when these safeguards were formed, extreme party spirit was not the dominant factor, and the House of Commons view was that we were here as the representatives of the people in order to preserve control of taxation and in order to see that the rights of those whom we represented were not unduly interfered with. I have

    2173
    been looking to see if I could find a precedent for the action of the Government in the present Bill which gives statutory effect to a Resolution, and I have looked through the constitutional law books, and I can only find one precedent anything like the present, and that only endured for a very short time, and was, in fact, temporary. That was in the time of Henry VIII. Henry VIII. was not a very squeamish monarch as regards constitutional matters, but this was an Act passed in his day and it was repealed immediately afterwards. It was in these words:—
    "The King for the time being, with the advice of his Council, or the most part of them, may set forth proclamations which shall be deemed as if they were made by Act of Parliament."
    What are we doing now? We are doing exactly the same if we substitute the words "Resolution of the House of Commons" for what were called "Proclamations" by one of the most tyrannous monarchs that ever sat upon the throne of this country. That is the only precedent I can find for putting on one side the Crown and constitutional rule, because although the House of Commons or Parliament have the sovereign power, they can only express that sovereignty in a constitutional method named in an Act of Parliament which has gone through the form, at any rate, of being agreed to by the Second Chamber, and also by the King, who represents the third element in our Constitution. In fact, this proposal as it stands is a direct attack on the prerogative of the King, because you are giving statutory effect to a Resolution in which he takes no part at all. It is also, of course, a direct attack upon the rights of the Second Chamber, even a Second Chamber in its mutilated form as it exists at the present time, because you are overruling the Parliament Act. I thought the Parliament Act gave sufficient powers to this House, and although I am very much opposed to the idea of the Parliament Act, you are now overruling that Act. It is like the "Rake's Progress," once you give too much power, you are always seeking to make it worse, you are always seeking to make it more tyrannous against the principles of freedom and liberty. What is the difference between the proposal of Henry VIII. and what you are now doing? Let me put into my own language what was done in giving the power of an Act of Parliament to the proclamation of Henry VIII. It is "this House, for the time being, with the assent
    2174
    of the majority of Members, may pass a Resolution which will be taken to have statutory effect." That is paraphrasing the brutal Act passed giving these powers to Henry VIII., and applying it to modern times. I have protested against this and shall do so on every occasion, and if you insist on doing anything of the kind, surely you ought to put in some such limitation as is suggested by the Amendment now before the House! I do not say for a moment that any limitation would reconcile me to the upsetting of the whole basic fabric of our freedom and liberty in this House and country which is involved in making a mere Resolution of any body, whether the House of Commons or any other body, to have statutory effect as regards the imposition of new taxes upon the subject. When we come to consider the point which we constantly deplore, but which we do not go to the root or reason of, namely, why it is that we are losing our popularity and our hold upon the affections of the people of the country, of course the answer is because we are sacrificing and giving up the very duties that won us the affections of the people and made us popular in past history. It is as the sole guardian of the freedom of the people of this country that the House of Commons won its position, and to the extent to which it gives up that position it loses its hold upon the affections of the people. I feel most strongly the retrograde doctrines which are embodied in this Bill. Of course I must not go into that in any detail at the present moment, but at least let us do this: Let us put it in a temporary form in order to emphasise the fact that we are dealing with a temporary difficulty owing to the dilatory action of the present Government in introducing a particular Budget. Is that any reason for sacrificing the basic fabric of the right of this House and the liberties of the subject? I deny that. I say there is no difficulty whatever in dealing with what has been suggested as regards the claims of the Treasury without bringing forward a Bill of this kind, which ought never to have been initiated and the principle of which ought never to have been admitted, having regard to the spirit of the House of Commons. I do not care whether Liberals or Unionists sit upon the Front Bench. I draw no distinction between one side or the other. It is always the interest of the Executive of the party in power to run down the rights and liberties of this House, and they have done it to such an extent by the gag and the guillotine that

    2175
    we have only got a mere fragment of our old rights in existence at the present moment. It is because I look upon the House of Commons as the sole and real guardian of right government in this country, and because I regard the House of Commons with a deep affection, and believe historically that it stands in a unique position, that I hope this temporary Amendment may be introduced in order to emphasise the fact that we are only sacrificing our liberties and our rights for a temporary difficulty brought about by exceptional conditions.
    Mr. CASSEL: I feel somewhat in a difficulty on this Amendment because I moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to appoint a Select Committee I was beguiled into withdrawing my Amendment, and therefore in any Division on this Amendment I should not feel at liberty to vote for it. I would like to know, however, whether the

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [5.3 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley. W. W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Perkins, Walter

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rutherford, John (Darwen)

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Snowden, Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Croft, H. P.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duffy, William J.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hume-William and Major Willoughby.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Arnold, Sydney

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Government are going to appoint this Select Committee at once, because it is important that it should be appointed at the earliest moment. My desire in asking for the appointment of a Select Committee was not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think. It was to ascertain whether there were not alternatives which would enable us to deal with the situation without violating the Constitution in the way which has been so eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friend. What convinces me that there must be such alternatives that no country in the world has yet been cited except the Isle of Man, which has legislation similar to this. On these grounds I hope we shall be told, before the discussion on this Amendment concludes, when the Government are going to appoint this Select Committee.
    Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 258.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barton, w.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Shee, James John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brady, P. J.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Radford, G. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Reddy, M.

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robinson, Sidney

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roch, Walter F.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    King, J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Leach, Charles

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Crooks, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Delany, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Donald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Doris, W.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sutton, John E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Field, William

    Molloy, M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gill, A. H.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ginnell, L.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morrell, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morison, Hector

    Waring, Walter

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Goldstone, Frank

    Muldoon, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, R.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Webb, H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gulland, John William

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wing, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hardle, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

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

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

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

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to take Security in Lieu of Taxes.)
    "The Treasury may accept, in lieu of any taxes due to be collected under this Act, deposit or security to such amount as the Treasury may deem sufficient, having regard to the total amount of the duties to be collected under the authority of a Resolution or of the Bill founded on the said Resolution."
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    This new Clause is intended to give the Treasury additional powers, and it is not intended to rule out those already conferred. As the House will see, its real effect is to give the Treasury power to take security from the unfortunate taxpayer instead of mulcting him at once of taxes which are not legally due. It may rather appear as if legislation on this subject in the House and the Committee were of a wonderland variety, because this is now submitted as an addition, just as the Select Committee, which might have preceded the passing of this legislation, is now to be set up as a tribunal afterwards. I submit that it is very advisable as an addition, quite apart from the fact that to give the Treasury power, if they wish it, to take security from the possible taxpayer instead of making him absolutely pay the duty in the first instance is a good alternative. It does affect the whole position, the question of which has been argued at very great length before the House and the Committee, and this Clause does permit of the revenue of the year being safeguarded without the necessity of actually exacting taxation before the Finance Act of the year is passed. That is to say it permits of a better alternative if the Treasury find it possible to apply it. One objection which may be urged against it is that, whereas it is peculiarly applicable to Customs and Inland Revenue and duties on consumption, it is not so applicable to the Income Tax. All I would submit is that so far as this alternative of taking security from traders, instead of making them pay the tax in the first instance, is not applicable to Income Tax, the objection could quite easily be met in various ways. It could quite easily be met by an extension of the Income Tax year, quite apart from an alteration of the date of the beginning of the year. When it comes to the Customs and Inland Revenue, then I submit that it forms an infinitely prefer-
    2180
    able alternative which the Treasury should have it in their power to exercise in addition to those they are at present taking under the Act. Unless they have powers of this kind, how will the Treasury or the Inland Revenue deal with the case of new duties? We have had new duties excepted from the operation of the Bill. Whatever risk there was to the revenue in regard to other taxes has now been stopped, but whatever risk has existed with regard to new duties will still continue to exist, and that in a fuller measure than ever before.
    The very fact that the House passes legislation in order to prevent a leakage of revenue in regard to old duties, or the variation of old duties, practically constitutes an inducement to the trader to object to the paying of taxes on the strength of a Resolution in the case of new Customs Duties. Consequently, the very fact that you have legislation with regard to the variation of old duties makes it all the more necessary to safeguard the revenue with regard to new duties. The alternative which I suggest meets the difficulty without raising the objections. You are not met with the difficulty of collecting taxation without an Act of Parliament in the case of the new duties. All that you do is to safeguard the revenue by taking security from traders that those duties will be paid as soon as the provision comes into force as an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the exclusion from the Act of new Customs Duties makes additional powers of this kind all the more desirable. It may be objected that it will be difficult to work such an alternative system. But, when all is said and done, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in that financial year of difficulties 1909–10 when the Finance Act was delayed till 1910, the very procedure which I suggest was for the time being adopted by the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue with perfect success. For a considerable period of that year, although they had not got legislative power, the Commissioners of Customs, I believe, did take security from traders in respect of goods that were dutiable under the Resolution. They found it to be a good and reasonable way of protecting the revenue. When the Budget of that year was rejected in December the Commissioners of Customs had to give notice that from the date of the notice the taxes would cease to be in force, and from that time they found they

    2181
    had very great difficulty indeed in collecting their revenue. But, if anyone will take the trouble to read the Report of the Commissioners of Customs for that year, they will find that in the end they were able to collect the whole of the revenue without any deficiency outstanding whatsoever. I believe there was considerable difficulty with regard to a certain amount of revenue which had to be collected in Ireland. I think I am right in stating that the collection in Scotland proceeded with due dispatch. Reluctant as persons were to pay the money, yet the naturally good financial character of the Kingdom enabled the Commissioners of Customs to get their revenue in properly.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It was the same in Ireland.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and learned Member says that it was the same in Ireland. I fancy it was in the end, but they did not pay perhaps quite with the same willingness or dispatch.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There was only one Belfast man who objected.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Whether he objected or not, the money in the end was got in by this means. It would not under any other means have been equally easy to get in the money, and I submit to the Government that unless they have got quite convincing reasons to the contrary it would be very wise for the Treasury to have additional powers of this kind. The objections which have been brought against the rest of the Bill do not apply to them. They do stop a leakage which even now exists, and which may exist with regard to new Customs Duties, and as far as the best advice which a private Member can get goes, they give a perfectly good and desirable alternative to the other methods which otherwise the Treasury may be obliged to employ under the powers given them by the Act. We should be glad on a point of this kind to have some answer dealing with the actual merits of the case. I admit gladly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us very fairly in many cases, but the Government have not met the objections that have been urged on this side of the House with regard to some points, and practically no reason has been vouchsafed to us whatsoever. A great deal of advice has been taken in this matter and the Clause is submitted as a
    2182
    real working alternative which might be useful to the Treasury. I therefore think the House would do well to accept it, and I hope, if the Government find it impossible to do so, that we shall be furnished in some detail with the reasons which make it imperative for them to refuse.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Motion.
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I am not in a position to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, I speak with some anxiety lest he should say that I have been unable to supply him with adequate reasons for declining to do so. I will do my best to explain why it is regarded as undesirable to give this alternative power to the Treasury. He has fairly stated that this power does not in the least bit limit the existing power of the Treasury under the Bill. It increases the power of the Treasury, because it gives two alternative methods of proceeding against the person whom the hon. Member describes as "the unfortunate taxpayer." I do not say that it would be inconvenient—it might be convenient—to the Treasury to have this additional power, but, in asking for such exceptional powers as we do ask for under this Bill, we ought carefully to safeguard the interests of the unfortunate taxpayer. Above all things the trader wants certainty. He wants to know that in the ordinary exercise of his business the routine to which he is accustomed in his dealings with Government offices will be continued. He has throughout his business experience paid his Customs Duties when taking his goods out of bond. He has not been accustomed alternatively to giving security, and he certainly would not desire that the Treasury should ever exercise a discretion and allow one trader to take out his goods on giving security whilst insisting upon another trader, whose security the Treasury might not think equally good, paying the full amount of the taxes. The taxpayer wants every-trader to be treated alike, and he wants to know definitely and certainly what is the treatment which he is going to receive. This Amendment does not touch what has been called the "vital defect of the Bill." The Bill authorises the Government to exercise powers over the citizen under a Resolution instead of under an Act of Parliament. The new Clause of the hon. Member has precisely the same vice.

    2183
    The Treasury is allowed to interfere to exact security from the trader under a Resolution.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has really misstated the position. The Amendment, if he himself had not taken exception to it, would have been put forward as an alternative, and his present argument, therefore, is hardly fair. With regard to the other points, it does not exact taxation. It avoids that objection in taking security, instead of exacting taxation.
    Mr. McKENNA: I corrected that and said that it exacts security. I quite admit that, excepting in one small particular, the hon. Member is strictly accurate, but I can only deal with this new Clause now as it stands upon the Paper as an alternative Clause.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: An additional power.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, I mean as an additional power. I quite agree that when the hon. Member moved the Clause as an alternative, I took exception to it in Committee as being out of order, but I would remind him that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not rule it out of order on the ground which I advanced, but on entirely different ground. I can only deal with this Clause as an additional power to the Treasury, and I have to ask the House not to accept it. I do not know whether the hon. Member would consider that I was treating him more fairly if I argued the case on the basis that it was an alternative to Clause 1, but I should clearly not be in order in doing so. I can only argue it as an additional power. I do not think the matter is of very serious consequence, but it would be undesirable to give the Treasury the power of dealing with different traders in different ways. I hope those are sufficient reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted as it stands, and I trust the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to press the Clause to a Division.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal with all the points contained in my hon. Friend's speech, but unfortunately he left off just as he began to be interesting. I wanted to know particularly what the Government proposed to do with regard to the cases of new taxes.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment he will see that we cannot touch the case of new taxes, because the words are "in lieu of any taxes due to be collected under this Act." New taxes, therefore, are not included.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No doubt that is a short answer to my point, but I fancy it would be quite possible, if this Clause were read a second time, to so amend it as to cover the cases of new taxes. On the merits the Government should have some alternative plan dealing with new taxes. I realise that one cannot improvise such a thing in a day or two, and I therefore hope that this is one of the points which the Select Committee will take into consideration. It is, I think, almost doubtful whether the Commissioners of Customs have not this power already. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 30 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, and the following Section he will find it provided that if any dispute shall arise as to the proper rate to be paid on any goods it shall be admissible for the importer or consignee or his agent to deposit in the hands of the collector of Customs at the port of importation the duty demanded by the collector, all such deposits to be paid to the general account and to bear interest, in case of recovery, at 5 per cent. What I really want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether it is the intention of the Government that in the interval between the proposition of a new tax and its full regulation by the Finance Act of this House, it is not intended to collect anything by any procedure in respect of it?
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I cannot imagine anything more unfair than that the Government should have the power of exercising such an alternative when dealing with Customs. It may be called an additional power, but undoubtedly it is one which will always be exercised by the rich trader. It will give him an enormous advantage over the poor trader. If he is called upon to pay a large amount of duty, he will say, "I will not pay the money until the Finance Act has been passed, and, therefore, I will give you security." He will, consequently, have no duty to pay for some months, and he will save the interest on that money, while the poor trader who has to pay cash will lose the interest on his money. I

    2185
    cannot imagine anything more unfair. The power would always be claimed by the man who can afford to deposit security. Of course where cash has to be deposited it will not matter so much. This provision must tend to the benefit of the rich trader. It is not an alternative power; it is an additional power which will always be claimed, and there will be increased cost to the Government in dealing with these things. I do not think it is a wise suggestion on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the Government have acted wisely in this matter. I should like to point out that the Bill of Rights has never applied to Ireland. Apart from the question of Income Tax, I have always taken the view that at common law there is, so far as Excise Duties are concerned, some such power as this. It was for this reason that I strongly held the opinion that this Bill was ultra vires. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has declined to introduce such an invidious provision into it. With regard to the Bill generally, I must say that the Amendments the Attorney-General has put down have met many of the objections I felt in the early stages of the measure.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I hope the hon. Member opposite will not press this proposal to a Division, because it would, if carried, involve very serious injury to the revenue, and inflict a grave injustice upon a very large number of small traders. Let me give an illustration showing how it would work. Take a person owning multiple shops—hundreds of shops. He would go into the market to get his tea; it is a well-known fact that sometimes persons in this position pay an enormous sum, as much as £50,000, in the form of Tea Duty. Under this scheme they would be enabled to get credit for four months as between the time of the introduction of the Resolution and the legalising of the duty by the passing of the Finance Act. What occurs? They obtain the duty from their customers week by week. The tea is sent out to the different shops throughout the country, and the duty is collected the same week and transmitted to the head office. Thus the dealer, while collecting the duty, is obtaining credit from the State for a period of four months. The same principle applies to the Sugar Duty. For hundreds of years the Inland Revenue authorities have had the power to charge the duty
    2186
    when tea or sugar or any other article subject to it has been taken out of bond. That is fair to all customers without exception, and I think it is an advantage to every customer that he should know he is equal in the eyes of the law with other men. One man should not have credit and another be compelled to pay his duty straight off. There is another thing, a large buyer might deposit securities which at the end of four months turned out to be valueless. What would occur then? The revenue would be bound to suffer the loss, while the customer would have paid the dealer the duty in the form of the increased price of tea. I think the hon. Member, under these circumstances, would be well advised not to press this Clause, even with regard to new taxes. I do not think it is possible under this Bill that any new indirect taxes can be enacted, and I do not see how, when you leave out the new taxes, to enforce them and to allow the traders to purchase goods between the time of the introduction of the Bill and its passage into law. I am quite sure, if this Clause were passed, it would involve a very severe loss to the Exchequer.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Liability of Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue to be Sued.)
    The Commissioners of Customs and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall be liable to be sued in respect of any moneys which ought to be repaid or made good by them under this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    Mr. CASSEL: The object of this Clause is to render the Commissioners of Customs and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue liable to be sued in respect of any money which ought to be repaid or made good by them under the Act. The scheme of the Act is that the duty shall have statutory effect from the moment the Resolution is passed. If that Resolution is ultimately rejected, or if it is not embodied in the Act of Parliament, any duties which have been paid will have to be repaid. Suppose the Customs Duties have been paid and have found their way into the hands of the Commissioners of Customs and thence into the Consolidated Fund, what is the remedy of the subject? So far as I can

    2187
    see, his only remedy is a Petition of Right. It has been established that no action or mandamus would lie against the Commissioners. But the Petition of Rights is a very cumbrous procedure. It cannot be taken in the County Court. Why, in the cases where small sums are involved, should not the more simple procedure of the County Court be applicable? It certainly would be preferable, and it would be cheaper for the subject. This Clause is put forward really as a protection for small people in getting back their money. It is a fact that nowadays people pay Income Tax over and over again beyond what they are liable to pay. Hundreds of people do so, and they simply do not recover it because of the expense which would be involved in the process. We ought to have the simplest kind of procedure to recover moneys which have been paid under the provisional effect of the Resolution. With regard to the Petition of Rights, it rests with the Attorney-General to say whether or not he will allow it to proceed. It is a matter solely within his discretion. Of course, I should not suspect any Attorney-General, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of exercising the power except with perfect fairness. But, as a matter of fact, it is simply an act of grace or favour; it is not a matter of right. I see no reason why the ordinary procedure should not be available to the subject. Why should he not have the procedure of the County Court open to him? Under the National Insurance Act a Clause was specially inserted enabling the Insurance Commissioners to be sued. If it is not below the dignity of Insurance Commissioners to be sued, why should it be below the dignity of the Inland Revenue Commissioners?
    Mr. TOUCHE: I beg to second the Motion.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think there is any necessity for this Clause. The provisions of the Act are not new; there is nothing novel in the procedure which is laid down; the only difference is in the authority which is affected. These provisions have actually been in existence for a considerable time. My hon. and learned Friend knows that they are to be found in other Acts of Parliament, and I would suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable in this particular Statute to introduce provisions for a different kind of
    2188
    procedure. I will not argue the question whether there may or may not be something to be said for enabling the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be sued. But I am quite sure it would be very undesirable to devise a means of procedure to recover money under this Bill different from that provided for in Statutes already in existence. There may be a good deal to be said for securing a better form of procedure than the Petition of Rights. But that plan acts very well. When a Petition of Rights is presented it goes in the ordinary course before the Attorney-General, who advises first the Home Secretary and then His Majesty. That is the constitutional procedure and, if the right is allowed, then the Petition comes before the Court in the ordinary way. The fiat is always granted, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. What I should strongly deprecate, from every point of view, is that you should introduce a special kind of procedure in regard to this Bill differing from any other under which you have to recover money from the Treasury, the Inland Revenue or Customs. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see fit, in view of that, to withdraw the Clause. It may be a proper subject matter for discussion on a more general question on another occasion, but we certainly ought not to single out that form of procedure for application to this Bill.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: There can be no doubt that the Petition of Right as against the Commissioners of Customs is an archaic form of procedure, and very unusual when a man wants to recover money. I understand the Attorney-General's view that this is a matter which might well be considered if we were dealing with this subject as a whole, and not with this particular Bill. But my hon. and learned Friend is really well advised to raise the question here, because we are dealing with a very exceptional case, the case of money which has been paid or collected under the terms of a Resolution, which is subsequently overridden either by no Act being passed or by an Act being passed in a different form. Take the position of a person who in these circumstances, having paid the money, desires to get it back. The particular individual may be very poor, and it is utterly impossible for poor individuals to obtain a remedy by means of a Petition of Right; I think the Attorney-General will agree with that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know some poor people who have recovered on a Petition of Right.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: They must have had very exceptional nerve. Sometimes I have been asked to advise, and I have said, "If you do not want to get into bankruptcy you had better put up with your loss than put forward a Petition of Right, which is a very expensive form of remedy." In Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1874, which deals with all questions relating to duties and Excise, it is said:—
    "The duty paid in the first instance shall be deemed to be taken to be the proper duty payable unless an action or suit shall be commenced by the importer within three months after."
    I am not sure whether that means that the suit or action must be by Petition of Right. Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us that. So far as the terms of the Section are concerned, they seem to contemplate an ordinary suit or action. What we are seeking to get is a remedy very much like the remedy under Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act. That is a case where the duty payable in the first instance is afterwards found to be wrong in amount, and then an easy form of remedy is given to the importer by which he may recover the amount from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If that is a true reading of Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1874, there is a stronger case for giving an easy remedy such as is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, because the whole assumption here is that the payment has been wrongly made or the sum wrongly collected, and so wrongly collected that a subsequent Act of Parliament has determined it is so. You may have men who want to recover anything from a few shillings to a small number of pounds, and you ought to afford them the easiest form of remedy the law allows. The easiest form of remedy the law allows in respect to small sums is the County Court. Why should not a man who wants to obtain repayment of a small sum of shillings or pounds go to the County Court against the Inland Revenue Commissioners, just as he would against any other man who owes him money? The old notion is that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are the Crown. They, like every other public body who have taken money wrongly, ought to be made to refund it in the easiest possible way
    2190
    known to our law. Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the Bill, an exceptional and easy form of remedy might be allowed.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The Attorney-General seems to overlook the fact that under this Bill he is taking exceptional powers which have never hitherto been given, and which are now being embodied in a Statute which is quite new to our present procedure and to our system of collecting taxes. I appreciate the difficulty he has foreshadowed as to our dealings with the whole question of the right to recover from the Crown. No doubt that is a very serious difficulty, and would properly be considered on broader lines than it is possible to consider it now, but we have in this Bill a provision which takes care to make it plain that where there has been a modification of the Resolution or a modification in the Act of the tax as originally introduced under the authority of the Resolution, the money which would have been payable under the new conditions shall be repaid or made good, and consequently in Clause 1, paragraph (d), any deduction is deemed to be an unauthorised deduction. The matter stops there. The Government have made it clear that where the conditions have been varied there is an unauthorised deduction or payment. What possible remedy at the present moment has the subject in respect to these payments or deductions? I take the case of the Income Tax. If he applies to Somerset House he can obtain certain forms, and after going through a considerable amount of torturous procedure he may get the money back, but he has to possess his soul in patience during weeks and months. I should like the Attorney General to say that this matter will be considered by the Inland Revenue Commissioners from the point of view of the subject, in order that they might give some notice that there was this right to claim money which could be pursued by the taxpayer. It is a matter of some importance, because it is all very well to declare a right in Act of Parliament, with which very few subjects are familiar, and to say it is a deduction which ought not to have been made and shall be repaid or made good. It is not likely to arise very often that the Resolution on Report or the Act does modify the tax, and it would be satisfactory if we could be assured that the Commissioners in these cases would, either by public notice or in some other

    2191
    way, indicate that easy facilities for the repayment of money would be given. If the Attorney-General could make some statement of that sort it would meet the difficulty. I recognise that it would not be fair to press the Government to accept the new Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should like to say one word in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), who made a very good and reasonable suggestion. I think it is quite right that the Commissioners should make all provision they can to bring to the notice of those who have paid, if the Resolution is modified in any way, that the money can be claimed and that the Commissioners would be bound to return it. I think that suggestion is a very good one. It would not be possible to put it in the Bill, but I agree with him that it ought to be done. I will certainly take care to bring to the minds of the Commissioners that I have said it should be done, and that, whatever money has to be returned in these circumstances, great care should be taken to give very full notice. I see that the Bank of England, in the form they are now issuing, state that they are deducting the money, but if any persons object they will be bound to return the money as the law stands at present. They could easily put in a notice stating that if there is any change in the Resolution or in the Bill which is subsequently introduced which in any way gives the subject a right, that the money would be returned. That might be sufficient to bring to the notice of poorer persons that they were entitled to return the money. The Commissioners would not desire to keep one penny of the money which was not lawfully due. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the suggestion.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of his promise to take the general question into consideration, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Resolutions Imposing, Varying, or Renewing, Tax to have Statutory Effect for a Limited Period.)
    (1) Where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons providing for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any tax
    2192
    in force or imposed during the previous financial year, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, and the Resolution contains a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that the Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the Resolution shall, for the period limited by this Section, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament, and where the Resolution provides for the renewal of a tax all enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution.
    Provided that—

    (a) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period it is not agreed to by the House when considered on Report within the next ten days on which the House sits after the Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means, and if a Bill varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution is not read a second time by the House within the next twenty days on which the House sits after the Resolution is agreed to; and

    (b) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or an Act comes into operation varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, or the Resolution is rejected by the House when considered on Report, or the provisions giving effect to the Resolution are rejected during the passage of the Bill containing those provisions through the House, and if modified when considered by the House on Report shall have effect under this Act as so modified; and

    (c) Where the Resolution so ceases to have statutory effect, or the said period terminates, before an Act comes into operation varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money paid in pursuance of the Resolution shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and

    2193

    (d) Where the tax as varied or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable under the new conditions affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been authorised under the new conditions affecting the tax, be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and

    (e) When during any Session a Resolution has had statutory effect under this Act, statutory effect shall not be again given under this Act in the same Session to the same Resolution or to a Resolution having the same effect; and

    (f) This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax.

    (2) The period for which a Resolution shall have statutory force under this Section shall be a period expiring at the end of four months after the date on which the Resolution is expressed to take effect, or, if no such date is expressed, after the date on which the Resolution is passed by the Committee:

    In this Act any expression referring to the renewal of a tax shall be deemed to refer also to the reimposition of a tax.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Commons" ["Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons"], insert the words ("so long as it is a Committee of the Whole House)."
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "during the said period" ["if during the said period it is not agreed"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    In paragraph (a), after the word "to" ["is not agreed to"], insert the words "with or without modification."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "when considered on Report" ["by the House when considered on Report"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    Amendment proposed: In paragraph (a), leave out the words "of Ways and Means" ["Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Why does the Attorney-General take out the words "of Ways and Means" here and not earlier? As a matter of drafting, I should think they ought to be left out earlier.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not necessary. We have already shown that it must be a Committee of Ways and Means, as we have named it. I inserted it earlier in order to meet the objection of the Noble Lord.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "and" ["and if a Bill varying"], insert the word "also."
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words "during the said period" ["if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or prorogued"].
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution" ["renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution"].
    Leave out the words "when considered on Report" ["is rejected by the House when considered on Report"].
    After the word "and" ["and if modified when considered"], insert the words "the Resolution."
    Leave out the words "when considered" ["and if modified when considered by the House on Report"].
    Leave out the words "on Report" ["when considered by the House on Report"].
    In paragraph (c), leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
    In paragraph (d), leave out the words "when considered" ["either when considered by the House"].
    Leave out the words "on the report of the Resolution."
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the words "under the new conditions affecting the tax," and to insert instead thereof the words "if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment."

    2195
    The Attorney-General will be familiar with these words. On the last occasion he very nearly agreed to accept them. He thought they were better than those of the draftsman, and his only objection was that in a consequential Amendment I had not provided for a difficulty which ought to have been provided for. I have taken the trouble to see that my consequential Amendments are in consonance with the Amendment that I now move. We are dealing in this paragraph (b) with the circumstance that there may be a modification, either upon Report of the Resolution or when the Act itself is brought in and carried through the House, of the original Resolution and the terms of the tax imposed by that original Resolution. When you have got the modification in the subsequent stages either of the Resolution or of the Act, you have got a difference between the tax which was originally imposed by virtue of the Resolution and the tax imposed or continued by the amended Resolution on Report or by the Act which is in fact passed. But in all these cases the tax is imposed by the authority of an Act of Parliament, and I desire very carefully to preserve not only the theory but the practice, that the tax is imposed by an Act of Parliament, and is not imposed by a mere Resolution, although for certain purposes statutory effect may be given to a Resolution. Where there has been a modification of the original Resolution the draftsman describes that situation as "new conditions affecting the tax." There never were any original conditions affecting the tax, and when the tax has been altered or modified by the Resolution on Report or by the Act that does not impose new conditions at all. It merely alters the terms of the tax that is imposed, and in the interests of careful drafting and good legislation, it is very unfortunate to use words which are certainly inapt to express what is intended. I propose to substitute words which would make the Clause read:—
    "Where the tax, as varied or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act varying or renewing the tax, any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at
    2196
    the time of such payment shall be repaid or made good."
    If I may finish the Clause with the consequential Amendment, it would run:—
    "And any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been authorised if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act has been in force at the time of such payment shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction."
    Inasmuch as there are no new conditions and the tax is imposed by Statute and not really by Resolution, I submit that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman ought to come over to the view I presented to him before and agree with me, as he did as to certainly nine-tenths of the way, that the words I propose to put in are more happy than the words chosen by the draftsman. Although I admire his continual loyalty to his draftsman, I trust on this occasion his loyalty to good legislation will cause him to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question between my hon. and learned Friend and myself is really a very narrow one. It is entirely a matter of phraseology, and, although he says he likes his own drafting, and rather suggests that I like his drafting better than the Government drafting, I am not prepared to go quite as far as that. I am prepared to say I think his words are very apt, but I think they would require a little alteration in order to make them completely effective. But I also think the words which have been used by the Government draftsman are very apt. I have given very careful consideration to the Amendment, but I adhere to the view I expressed on the last occasion, that there is no necessity to change the words we have here, which are quite incapable of misapprehension, and, although it may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman's phraseology is a little more elegant than that in the Bill, still I think the words are really not capable of misconstruction. They are very short, and I think they are simple as they stand, and I therefore must adhere to them as they are at present.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out "and (f) This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "four" ["at the end of four months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    I attach considerable importance to this, because this fixes the final date by which the Finance Act of the year must be passed. As the Bill stands, it is 5th September. That is too late. The 5th August is quite late enough. It is 5th September for this reason, that within one month of 5th April the Government must introduce their Resolution. The Income Tax expires on 5th April, and they have a month under Clause 2 during which payments and deductions can still be made, although the tax is not renewed either by Resolution or by the Act, so that their Resolution may be introduced as late as 5th May. That is the last date when they can safely pass their Resolution. So that they have four months from that date, which would take them to 5th September. So far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, in recent times, before the present Government, there has never been a Government which has passed its Budget later than August, and I think there have only been very few cases where the Finance Act of the year has been passed as late as August. Even the very controversial Finance Act of 1894, under which the Estate Duties were for the first time imposed, received the Royal Assent before August. The Finance Act of 1909 was quite an exceptional case, and, so far as we are concerned, we contend that it was not a Budget at all. Those provisions in it which were really contentious could very easily have been put into a separate Bill. The contentious provisions were the Land Duties and the Licence Duties, to which this Act would not have applied at all. The Resolutions to which you wish this Act to apply must necessarily be simple Resolutions, because otherwise you would not have the machinery to bring them into operation at once.
    There are two reasons why I think it is of very great importance that the Finance Act should be passed at the earliest date consonant with a reasonable opportunity for adequate discussion. In the first place, assuming that you once impose a duty by Resolution under this Act, and you ultimately vary it or do not carry the Resolution into an Act of Parliament, it is almost impossible to find out the right people to pay. So that you ought to continue the period of suspense for the very
    2198
    minimum that is possible, having regard to the necessity of adequate discussion. The other reason is that under the general Resolution that it is expedient to amend the law of Customs and Excise, the whole financial position may be reviewed, and if hardships can be shown there is an opportunity of getting them rectified, but if you carry that very late into the year a large part of the year is already gone and you cannot remedy the injustice for that part of the year. On that point the Amendments which the Government have introduced into paragraph (a) really do not help, because that only carries you into the Second Reading, and what is of importance is that the Committee stage also, when Amendments are made on cases where hardships have been discovered, should be taken in such time that advantage can really be taken of them during the current financial year. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a case where the fact that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill was taken late in the year operated with very great hardship, and that was in connection with the Licence Duties. As soon as the attention of the Government was called to a particular defect in the Finance Act of 1910, they admitted that an Amendment was necessary. They took the Finance Bill of that year so late that the Amendment really was of no use for the financial year which was under consideration. From that point of view also I submit that it is extremely important to have the Finance Bill through as early as possible, and that circumstances are hardly conceivable under which, if financial business is proceeded with with due dilgence, it would not be possible to carry the Finance Bill through by that date. If ever circumstances arise again like the Finance Act of 1909 it will be possible to deal with the contentious parts of a Bill of that kind by a separate measure, and I do not regard that as a Finance Bill at all. I think oven some hon. Members opposite, now that they have got it through, almost admit that. For any Finance Bill to be really a Finance Bill, 5th August as the limit is quite long enough to allow for its passage.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that his object was merely to embody in this Bill what has been the practice for generations. Let me take the last generation—the period from 1880 down

    2199
    to the present time. In that period of thirty-three years it will be found that, except in 1910 and 1911, in no case has it been necessary to have so long a period as four months which would be given to the Government under Sub-section (2). Four months would bring the period up to September. The dates at which the Royal Assent was given to the Finance Act since 1880 were:—1880, 24th March; 1882 and 1883, in the early days of August; 1886, 4th June; 1887, 5th July; 1888, 16th May; 1889, 31st May; 1890, 9th June; 1891, 3rd July; 1892, 20th June, 1893, 12th May; 1894, 31st July; 1895, 30th May; 1896, 7th August; 1897, 15th July; 1898, 1st July; 1899, 20th June; 1900, 9th April; 1901, 26th July; 1902, 22nd July; 1903, 30th June; 1904, 1st August; 1905, 30th June; 1906, 22nd June; 1907, 9th August; and 1908, 1st August, Having regard to these dates it is quite clear that the practice of Parliament which is to be embodied in this Bill does not require anything like so late a period as September. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's oft repeated statement is, "I merely want to embody in this Bill the true practice which has been followed for generations and more." The dates I have given are conclusive, that in no case has it been necessary to take so long a period as is proposed in the Sub-section.
    If the Attorney-General feels any difficulty about accepting the actual form of the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel), what would meet the case would be to put in a date, let us say, not later than 1st August, or 5th August, or something of that sort. That would really establish and give written sanction to what undoubtedly has been the practice of the House, namely, that it should not rise for its summer interval until it has disposed of the primary duty for which it is called together—the passing of the Finance Act of the year. A great many of us feel continued deep hostility to the whole of this Bill, and one of the gravest reasons we have for that hostility is that it gives so wide a margin of time to the Government of the day. We want to establish that the Government should be under the control of this House, and that they should attend to what is their primary function, namely, the passing of the Estimates for the year, and the embodying of them in the Finance Act. I appeal to the Attorney-General not only on the grounds so ably stated by my hon. and learned Friend, but also on the
    2200
    ground that, looking at what has been the practice for thirty years and more, so long a period as is indicated in the Sub-section is unnecessary. Some words such as I have suggested are necessary to tie the Government down—whatever Government is in power—and keep them under the control of this House.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question raised is one which has been discussed at every stage of this Bill. It was discussed on the Resolution, on Report, on the Second Reading, and in Committee. I am not complaining of that, but the House will understand that I do not propose to go at any length into this matter again. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment dealt a good deal with the practice in relation to the various Budgets which have been brought forward, but I would remind them that the object of the Bill is to cut down the elasticity which has hitherto been given in this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are not extending it by any means. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to-day, we have accepted a number of Amendments of great substance which were proposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and to whom we have been indebted for suggestions which have made the Bill better than it was when introduced. The Amendment now before the House deals with a matter on which the view of the Government has already been expressed quite clearly. An Amendment which was moved by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) and accepted by the Government was a very drastic proceeding, and it is in the Bill now. It is an Amendment which helps very much to limit the facilities given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from whatever side of the House he may be drawn. The Resolution must be introduced first of all within one month of the end of the financial year, otherwise he does not get the protection of Clause 2. That is the first limitation. The second is that the Resolution on Report, if it is to have statutory effect, must be agreed to by the House within ten sitting days after it has been passed by Committee of Ways and Means. That is another safeguard introduced for the first time in our practice in this House. There is a third, namely, that the Bill must be read a second time within twenty sitting days of the Resolution on Report being agreed to by the House. All these are,

    2201
    no doubt, very valuable protections which have been introduced in the Bill, and which will reduce the facilities hitherto given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When it is further proposed now to reduce the period from four to three months, the answer I would make is that when we accepted the Noble Lord's Amendment it was on the strict understanding that, so far as we were concerned, we would adhere to the four months' period. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not bound by that, but it is right to state that we had that in view when we accepted the Noble Lord's Amendment. Under these circumstances the Government is bound to hold to the four months' period.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No one would complain of the attitude taken up by the Attorney-General as to the matter of form. I admit that the Government have all through acted in a friendly and conciliatory spirit with respect to this Bill. I admit also that there would be difficulty in substituting three for four months, because it would bring the date rather earlier than has been the practice hitherto. As has been pointed out, the Royal Assent has always been given before 1st August, except in a few cases, and the exceptions are so rare that they do not show that the ordinary practice has been otherwise than to bring in the Finance Bill in time to receive the Royal Assent before 1st August. There are a certain number of cases when the Royal Assent has been given to the Finance Act during the month of July. I should have liked the Government to consider whether an Amendment naming 1st August would not have been strictly consonant to their own principles, while meeting the case submitted by my hon. and learned Friend. If a proviso were put in, "In no case later than 1st August," that would make the Bill conform to usage. I would suggest to the Government that they might conveniently put in these words in order to carry out the purpose they have in view.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I had an Amendment down substantially for the same purpose as that now before the House. I thought two months instead of four should

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Barton, W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    be the period, but I shall not seek to raise that point now. The main purpose of those who support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend is to insure that the House shall have substantial and adequate discussion during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The Government accepted the very valuable Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, but that Amendment stopped short in the sense that it gave a date on which you should have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Something more than that is necessary. Supposing you had the Second Reading of the Bill and left over the Committee stage to what is practically the holiday period, then in substance and truth we should lose that control of finance which we are all agreed the House should retain in an effective way. I think undue pressure should not be put on the Attorney-General, as representing the Government, after what has passed, to accept any other period than the one we find here, namely, four months, but I hope this matter will receive further consideration. I am afraid we shall not have much chance of discussing it here again, but I hope the Attorney-General will consider that what we want is to have a Committee stage when the conditions are such that we may hope for effective discussion.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It really does not appear to me to make any material difference as I read the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that 5th August might be put in, but I should have thought that it was hardly worth while to make that Amendment. I certainly am glad that the Government have said that it is their intention, so far as they can, to resort to the normal practice and conform to the conditions which previously prevailed as regards the Budget. The Attorney-General has assured us that September is not the date which the Government have in contemplation for passing the Finance Act.
    Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 114.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Boland, John Plus

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brace, William

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hinds, John

    Pointer, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hodge, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Radford, G. H.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clynes, John R.

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Roch, Walter F.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kelly, Edward

    Rowlands, James

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    King, J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crooks, William

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

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Delany, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Shortt, Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, W.

    McGhee, Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremian

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Kean, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Falconer, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomas, James Henry

    Field, William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    France, G. A.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philip

    Gill, A. H.

    Molloy, M.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ginnell, L.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Waring, Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Munro, R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Guliand, John William

    Neilson, Francis

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wing, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

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

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

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    2204

    2205

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, J. L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilion)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewing, William Albert Samuel

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentla, Viscount

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Croft, H. P.

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Denniss, E. R. B,

    Mount, William Arthur

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Mills.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    CLAUSE 2.—(Payments and Deductions made on Account of Temporary Tax before Renewal of Tax.)
    (1) Any payment or deduction made on account of a temporary tax within one month after the date of the expiration of the tax shall, if the payment or deduction would have been a legal payment or deduction if the tax had not expired, be deemed to be a legal payment or deduction, subject to the condition that if a Resolution is not passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons within that month for the renewal of the tax, any money so paid or deducted shall be repaid or made good, and that if the tax is ultimately renewed at a different rate, or with modifications, any amount paid or deducted which could not properly have been paid or deducted under the new conditions affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good.

    (2) 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, with the substitution of a reference to that Finance Act, for any reference in that Section to "this Act,"

    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to propose to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I do not think that the meaning of this Sub-section has been sufficiently appreciated. What it means is that in cases where there is a temporary tax and the power to levy such tax has to be exercised within a given time, then, although the time within which that statutory power-might be exercised had come to an end, under this Sub-section the time would be extended for one month after the date of the expiration of the existing powers to levy such a tax. It appears to me to be a very strong proposal, when this House after full discussion as to imposing a particular tax has limited the time within which the sanction for that tax is to operate, that then under the operation of a general Bill of this kind in every instance—subject to what I am going to say in a moment—the time within which that tax can be levied should be extended to the extent of a month. It may be very important, after full discussion in this House, to limit the time for the incidence of a particular tax, and when the period of time in which there is power to levy the tax has come to an end it may be of great importance for this House to

    2207
    consider whether that tax should be imposed again, either in its existing form or in a modified form. But what this Clause does is this: however carefully the House may have thought over and discussed the matter before deciding that the levy of the tax should be limited to a particular period of time, there is to be in all cases under this Sub-section power to extend the time limit after it has expired. It is a very strong proposal to override by a general provision of this sort a special provision introduced in a particular case after full discussion. This proposal is quite unnecessary. In fact it is not in accordance with the rest of the Bill; and so far as there is any difficulty it could without question be easily dealt with by merely making the tax run for a sufficient time when you impose it in the first instance. The only reason why the Government are asking for this extraordinary power of extending the time for which this House has imposed a tax, is that they do not introduce the new Resolutions as regards the new financial year sufficiently early.
    If they introduce a Resolution sufficiently early, and if they make the tax which they impose for a sufficiently long time, Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 is wholly unnecessary. One of the worst features of the Sub-section is that it enables the Resolution as regards imposition of the new tax, to be postponed for one month after the time the old tax has expired; whereas it ought to be the essence of your practice that if the Resolution is to have statutory effect, it ought to be brought into operation before the power as regards the old tax expires. Everyone must know perfectly well that there is not the least difficulty about making a provision of that kind. This really goes beyond all the suggestions which have been made as regards the power to prevent forestalling and matters of that kind. It deliberately aims at upsetting what may be the deliberate proposal of this House after full discussion. What is the good of our saying that a particular tax is to be limited to a certain time, or that Customs Duties are not to be levied beyond a definite time, if we find that in each case the Government—and I am speaking of the Government on either side—may postpone what is the proper date for introducing the new Resolutions on which to found the Budget. By postponing the date they get fresh legislative authority
    2208
    for a month in reference to powers which otherwise would have expired. In my view we have given up a good deal of our control under this Bill.
    We have deliberately fixed a limit of time, and then, merely because the Government do not introduce their Resolution sufficiently early, that time is extended for a month. It is all very well to put in a provision of this kind, but if the House does not renew the tax, in substance everyone knows that, when deductions of this kind have once been made, there is great difficulty, expense, and trouble in ever getting the sums repaid or made good, once they get into the hands of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue. I cannot see what reason there can be for this novel suggestion. It is not really wanted as regards the obligation which we are putting in the Bill. We have given this power under the Resolution to levy a tax just as though it had statutory effect, and, under those circumstances, you seek power to postpone your Resolution in order to raise your tax under a power which has expired. Our control is really being limited in every possible direction, and not only is it being limited, but it is being made a mockery. We first of all limit the period of the tax, and then we pass a general provision that the limitation is not to be observed. What is the good of legislating under conditions of that kind? We have discussed this matter more than once, and I can see no reason whatever for this Sub-section, the omission of which I move.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have already stated my views on this point in previous discussions and have endeavoured to make them clear to the Government, who, I think, in this Sub-section, are infringing all constitutional rights. They are deliberately and without any necessity outraging all the principles of the Constitution. They have deliberately placed the whole of the bankers of this country in a difficulty, which has existed since the 5th April. Ever since the 4th of November I have urged that it was necessary for them to deal with this question before the 5th April; they would not do it. They insisted in going on with the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and the Franchise Bill, and the dislocation since the 5th April is entirely due to that. So far as this particular Bill I is concerned, they have not even the excuse

    2209
    that they had with regard to Customs Duties and the possibility of forestalments, and it is an outrage upon the Constitution.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have listened to the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friends, and one would imagine from what they have said that we were introducing some novelty. I am quite sure if anybody had come into this House knowing nothing of what had happened previously, either in Committee or on Report or on Second Reading, would have thought, from the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, that both were correct in what they said. The fact is that what is here proposed is in accordance with the practice that has existed for the last sixty years, and previous to that for perhaps 150 years; but to hear the speeches made by both hon. Members they do not seem to be aware that—except in the year 1900, which was during the war, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach came down in March and asked this House to pass Resolutions before the Income Tax and Tea Duty had expired—it has been the practice of this House, and not of this Government only but of Unionist administrations equally, to propose Resolutions for Income Tax and the Tea Duty during the month of April or during the month of May. Except in that one instance during the war, when the their Chancellor of the Exchequer came down at the beginning of March, it has been invariably the practice after the expiration of the financial year or of the Income Tax year, to bring in those Resolutions. I do think we have just cause of complaint when we listen to the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps), who must know better, and it is most startling to hear him make these observations. My hon. and learned Friend, who possibly knows as much of this subject as anybody in the House, solemnly stated that this was a novel suggestion.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Hear, hear; so it is.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has himself told us that it was the practice in his time, and he took over that practice; and what we are doing is simply to put into statutory shape what has been rendered necessary, because of the decision which has been given in the Courts. If the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) meant by his reiterated charges of outrages on the Constitution and
    2210
    by his strong language that this Sub-section is proposed in consequence of the decision of Lord Justice Parker, and that we have been compelled to put into statutory form what hitherto has been recognised as the usage under the Constitution, though not recognised by the Courts of Law—if that is what he meant, I agree that he is practically right; but we are not only not doing anything which is novel, but we have nothing in our constitutional usage which would prevent us from proposing the Resolutions in June or July. It was done by the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1901 and in 1902, when Resolutions were proposed in June and July. I do not think they were Income Tax Resolutions, but they were financial Resolutions having relation to variations of the Sugar Duties; they were the ordinary Resolutions for the continuation of taxes. Anybody looking at the matter will see that you must have some provision of this kind for the collection of taxes. Let its see what we are legalising under this form. The Income Tax year expires on the 5th April, and unless you have a provision of this kind the effect would be that the banks would not be able to deduct the money for Income Tax, and the Treasury would be left to follow the persons and collect it from them. Everybody agrees that that is a very bad principle; certainly everybody who has been at the Treasury is familiar with the difficulty of following persons to get the Income Tax from them.
    The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks says that what we can do is to introduce our Resolutions before the end of the Income Tax year, but both Liberal Governments and Unionist Governments for many years have followed the usual practice, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following this practice, which is based on sound common sense, must at the end of the financial year make a survey in order to see how matters stand before proposing his Resolutions. If he adopted what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, he would be in the position of having to propose the Resolutions before the end of the Income Tax year, of having to make his financial statement before he had considered what was required, before he knew whether he should lower or raise a duty, and before he knew whether he could take anything off the Tea or Sugar Duties, or had to raise those duties. Surely that is not advisable. All we ask is that we should have this

    2211
    power with regard to the reimposition or renewal of taxes which have existed in the previous year, and which are not taxes for more than eighteen months. The whole object is to confine the provision to the Income Tax and Tea Duty, which come up for discussion every year. We are not seeking by this Clause to do anything novel. The only novelty is that by Sub-section (1) we are limiting the period to one month, and we are only claiming the period of one month in order that there may be time to survey all the circumstances before dealing with the Income Tax or Tea Duty. It is admitted by almost everybody in the House that a Statute must be passed to legalise the practice which has existed, but we say that by what we are proposing we make the period more limited, and we put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the obligation to introduce his Budget within a month, as provided by the Sub-section. I submit we are amply justified by the practice which hitherto existed.
    7.0 P.M.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Attorney-General's speech is an astonishing revelation of the mind of the Government that it makes no difference that you are altering custom and usage into a Statute. I think it makes an immense difference, and that my hon. and learned Friends are justified in describing it as a complete novelty. Instead of a custom which rested on general consent you are taking coercive power by Statute which makes an immense difference. It is to miss the whole point of the discussion to say that you are leaving the thing just as it is now. My hon. and learned Friends suggest that it is not necessary and that it is a very bad thing to do, inasmuch as the Constitution depends on the authority of Parliament and certainly not on the authority of a single Resolution of the House of Commons, and therefore taxation should be paid on the authority of Parliament. Is this necessary in this particular instance, and are we driven by force of circumstances to do what the Government, I think, would agree is a very undesirable thing in itself? Surely not. Supposing you made your Income Tax or Tea Duty last for fifteen months instead of twelve months, the whole difficulty is met. The Attorney-General said it would confuse the finances. It would do nothing of the kind. The Attorney-General also used the argument that the Chancellor of
    2212
    the Exchequer would have to make up his Budget without knowing what was the return of the tax. He would not. He would know what the return was every year, which is all he wants to know.
    The fact that the tax would have legal validity for three months more would not bring about the smallest element of confusion. In some respects now that is the practice with some temporary taxes which last up to the 30th June or the 31st July. Without the Amendment what it really comes to is this, that you do alter your constitutional way of taxing by Act of Parliament, and you adopt an unconstitutional way by giving the power to tax by Resolution. The Attorney-General said that the use of the Resolutions rested on general consent. Therefore it differed from what you are doing now. You are giving the House of Commons legal authority to tax by mere decree. That is an immense novelty, and, instead of trying to cut that down and to make the innovation as small as you can, you deliberately refuse to adopt machinery which would be perfectly constitutional, and which would give you all you want without trouble or inconvenience. In the wantonness of oppression you insist on having this Clause, which is not in the least necessary, and which is an outrage on the constitutional traditions of the country. I do not think the language of my hon. Friends was at all too strong. This shows how very indifferent the Government really are as to preserving the traditions of the Constitution. The Attorney-General tells us "we accepted some of your Amendments." The Government cannot get over their moderation. Like Lord Clive, they stand astonished at their own moderation. The Supreme Cabinet has so far condescended that the suggestions of the House of Commons are not rejected altogether. Some Amendments have been accepted, and we ought to be thankful for the crumbs that fall to us from the rich man's table. We are still to try and imagine that they are our industrious servants carrying out the government in accordance with the behests of the representatives of the people. We are not yet accustomed to the servile state to which they are anxious to reduce us, and protest against their arguments.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I do really regret the language which has been used by the Attorney-General in reference to my hon. and learned Friends. It is all very well

    2213
    to talk of usage, but the usage was abused by the Government, and the Attorney-General must not be surprised if a certain number resent, and very strongly resent, the necessity of passing a Clause like this, because of the abuse by the Government of a power hitherto given to them by ordinary practice. May I also remind the House that this Clause does not merely refer to the Government deducting the tax, but it gives power to everybody to make the deduction from Income Tax—power hitherto used sparingly. That is a vital difference, and it is to me a matter of great surprise that the Attorney-General did not appreciate the observations made by my hon and learned Friend. This Clause, for good or ill, legalises any

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [7.9 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Arnold, Sydney

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Joyce, Michael

    Barton, William

    Field, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Flavin, Michael

    Kelly, Edward

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    France, G. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Black, Arthur W.

    Furness, Stephen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Boland, John Pius

    Gill, A. H.

    King, J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Brace, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Leach, Charles

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gulland, John William

    Maclean, Donald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hackett, J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hancock, John George

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    M'Kean, John

    Clough, William

    Harvey, T. S. (Leeds, West)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Clynes, John R.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Cotton, William Francis

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meagher, Michael

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Meehan, Francis B. (Leitrim, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Crooks, William

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Hinds, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Delany, William

    Hodge, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morison, Hector

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Dillon, John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Muldoon, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, Robert

    Doris, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    deduction, whether by mere habit or under the authority of a Treasury Minute or how it comes to be made. Once you deduct a certain sum and call that Income Tax, that deduction is made legal. It is only fair that the House should understand what is being done, and that legality can be claimed not only for a Government Department, but by a bank or agent or any person on those grounds. I think the observations of the Attorney-General are not called for.
    Question put, "That the words, 'any payment or deduction made on account of a,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 109.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Norton, Captain C. W.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wadsworth, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Dowd, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Waring, Walter

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Malley, William

    Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Shee, James John

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Webb, H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sheehy, David

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Shortt, Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Whyte, A. F.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Snowden, P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Winfrey, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wing, Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Sutton, John E.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    2216

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Baird, J. L.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Royds, Edmund

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Rigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Harrison-Braodley, H. B.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewing, William Albert Samuel

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher, John George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Horne, E. (Surrey Guildford)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Tryon, George Clement

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Yale, Colonel C. E.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Cripps and Major M'Calmont.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Amendment made: After the word "the" ["passed by the Committee of Ways and Means"], insert the words "House of Commons or by the."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, after the word "Commons" ["Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons"], to insert the words

    2217
    "(if that Committee is a Committee of the Whole House)."
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I was absent from the House just now, I think it is only right that I should take this opportunity of thanking the Government for the way in which they have met me. There was considerable feeling on both sides of the House as to the possibility of a very unfortunate precedent being set up, and I thank the Government for the action they have taken.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "tax" ["renewal of the tax"], insert the words
    "or if such a Resolution is passed within that month but ceases to have statutory effect under this Act."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the words:
    "For the purposes of this provision, the expression 'temporary tax' means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months, and was in force or imposed during the previous financial year."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This is really a remarkable Sub-section. I think that what the Government meant to say was: "This Section shall apply to payments and deductions made before the passing of this Act." But instead of putting it in that way, they have adopted the involved wording of this provision. The Sub-section deals with two separate matters. The first is the Finance Act of this year. We have been accustomed to having to amend the legislation of this Government very soon after it has passed. We have had cases where their legislation has had to be amended in the same Session, and other cases where it has had to be amended in the next Session, but this Sub-section proposes to amend an Act before it comes into existence at all. It is not merely counting one's chickens before they are hatched; it is cutting their legs off before they are hatched. What is the effect of this Sub-section? It says that duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year shall have a certain effect. But they cannot have any effect until the
    2218
    Finance Act of this year is passed. What do the Government really intend so far as the Finance Act of this year is concerned? I submit that the proper procedure would be to put the Section into that Act when we know what the contents of that Act are. The Government might as well insert the words "any future Act." They have not accomplished the purpose they intended, and the bankers of the country are anxious to know what is really meant. I submit that this Sub-section does not legalise any deductions made between 5th April and 22nd April, assuming that the Income Tax Resolution is passed on that day until the Finance Act of this year is passed.
    With regard to previous years, what is the object of the Government? Some of the old Finance Acts contain provisions making them retrospective, but in a great many cases those provisions were omitted. I suppose that the reference to previous years in this Sub-section is inserted because of the apprehension that somebody might bring an action to recover sums which have been deducted in the past under those Finance Acts from which the retrospective Clauses were omitted. If that is so, I should have thought that this was really a charging section. I wonder why the Government attach such special importance to the words "Finance Act." The term has only been in use since 1894. If the proposal was necessary for those years when the Finance Act was called by that name, it would be equally necessary for the years in which it was called the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. The House is entitled to know what the Government really mean by this Sub-section.
    Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Sub-section by no means imposes a charge, nor is there anything in the words of the Section incorporated which imposes any charge. What the proposal does is that it legalises deductions which have been made, and it makes the operation of this Sub-section conditional upon the duties being imposed by the Finance Act of this year or of previous years. In so far as it relates to this year, all that it does is to say that if the duties are imposed by the Finance Act certain results will follow. As regards previous years it makes really the same provision, not that Income Tax

    2219
    shall be charged, but that if deduction has been made in respect of it, that it shall not be deemed to be illegal. I explained when we discussed the matter in Committee, what the main objects of this provision are, but I will explain it again as the hon. and learned Member asks me to do so. If you do not pass a Clause either in these words or to this effect, the result would be that for past years, now that the Courts have declared that the bank cannot deduct until the Act has been passed, those who are properly liable to the Income Tax would be able to claim against the banks, or the brokers, or the agents who deducted the tax as in previous years before the Act had been passed, on the ground that they had no right to make that deduction at that time. It does not affect the liability to pay Income Tax. That is imposed by previous Acts. What it does is to say that no one shall be able to claim against the bank for the past sixty years—subject to the Statute of Limitations—for acting upon what was the recognised practice during all this period, and which had continued up to the last two or three years, when it was said that the Government had begun to introduce its Budget very late.
    Take, if you do not make a provision of this kind, the case of some person who is abroad, and who at the time had securities in the hands of the bank. The bank, assuming that the Income Tax was properly chargeable, might deduct according to the practice which has prevailed, but that the Courts have now said had no validity. Consequently, if the bank were sued, the bank would be held to have made a deduction that it had no right to make. How, then, do you propose to get the Income Tax from such people? It is clear that they are liable to pay, and have paid, and it is quite clear that the new Statute which we are now passing imposes no liability which did not exist before. How do you propose to reach those persons who have gone out of the country in respect of the Income Tax for which they are properly liable? Hitherto you have rested upon the practice. Now that you cannot you must do something in order to give validity to what was the practice, and to amend an Act which was defective, though the usage was that recognised! I cannot see that anybody can suggest that all persons in these circumstances should be entitled to get back their Income Tax! That would be the effect of it if they sued the bank, and
    2220
    the bank would naturally say to the authorities, as every lawyer knows, "You must pay us back the money for which we have been sued." The Treasury would be left in the position of having nobody to recover Income Tax from, and people who were liable for it would go scoot free instead of paying their proper contribution in respect of the tax which was imposed upon them, properly validated by Act of Parliament. It is clear that it is necessary that some such Clause as this should be put in. Whether there might possibly be some other Clause devised is really hardly worth discussing.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has not appreciated the points of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, or he is unable to answer them. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that this Section should not have any effect as regards the duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year, and until that Act had been passed. Therefore the Section is quite useless to meet the time between 5th April last year and the time the first Resolution passed on the 22nd April; it does not operate to legalise what is done during that period in any sort of way at all. What I am putting to the Attorney-General is this: The desire is to legalise, I take it, first of all in this year, duties which may be collected or Income Tax which may be deducted between 5th April and 22nd April—which we suppose is the time that the real Resolution will come into operation. This particular Sub-section then cannot have that operation at all. It does not operate or attach until certain duties have been imposed by the Finance Act of this year. The proper time to introduce any proposal of this kind would be in the same Act in which were imposed the duties. As regards the main difficulties, this does not meet them in any sort of way. In face of the explanations that the Attorney-General has given, I want to say that this proposal is not only objectionable, but very strongly objectionable.
    I wonder how many hon. Members have looked into Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1910? That was passed in a Bill which in itself was passed under very exceptional circumstances and conditions in an extraordinary week to deal with irregularities—because, as we all know, very special irregularities attached to the Finance Act of 1910. The Dissolution

    2221
    took place between the introduction of the Budget and the passing of the Act. Section 95 goes quite outside what is necessary in any normal case and is directed to extraordinary conditions which are not likely to recur. The only way in which this Section would operate would be in regard to duties imposed by any Finance Act of this year. There are no irregularities which we have got to make right. There is not the slightest question in regard to matters of this kind, nor has this point been raised. But you have here a most complicated suggestion going far beyond the necessities which the Attorney-General suggested, and having no operation whatever, because until the duties have been imposed it does not attach; whereas the difficulty arises before the duties have been imposed and, indeed, before the Resolution is passed on which these duties will be imposed. It is absolutely waste paper. The Sub-section

    Division No. 56.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hinds, John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Dillon, John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Roil. Charles E. H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hodge, John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Doris, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duffy, William J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barnes, G. N.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Barton, W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Falconer, James

    John, Edward Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Boland, John Pius

    Field, William

    Janes, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Brace, William

    Gill, A. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Brady, P. J.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Kelly, Edward

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    King, Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leach, Charles

    Chancellor, Henry G.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clough, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hackett, J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Narmanton)

    McGhee, Richard

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, J. G.

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hardie, J. Keir

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    M'Kean, John

    Crooks, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Delany, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    gives a sort of indemnity against irregularities which we ought never to admit in the very large and exceptional form and under the special conditions of the 1910 Act. I do not suppose a single hon. Member, except the legal Members, have looked into that Section 95. If they do they will see it goes far beyond the necessities referred to. It is a long Section, containing many Sub-sections, and belonging to abnormal conditions which attached to that year and are never likely to arise again. I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words, '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,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 96.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Pointer, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutton, John E.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Mooney, John J.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Reddy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Morrell, Phillip

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Munro, R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Neilson, Francis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wardle, George J.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Waring, Walter

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Webb, H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Malley, William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Shce, James John

    Shortt, Edward

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wing, Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Snowden, Philip

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Stamen, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Royds, Edmund

    Bernston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bird, Alred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Blair, Reginald

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bridgman, William Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher, John George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

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

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lyttelten, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    False, Bertram Godfray

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hohler and Mr. Denniss.

    Fell, Anther

    Nield, Herbert

    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "this" ["Finance Act of this or any previous year"].
    I move this Amendment for the purpose of endeavouring to get an explanation from the Attorney-General, which he did not give me on the last Amendment.
    2224
    This is a matter in which the bankers are very much interested. They want to know what has to be done between the period of the 5th and 22nd April. During that time the interest of millions of securities is falling due, so it is a very large question, and I should like to have an explanation, as this Act will really have no effect in

    2225
    protecting the bankers with regard to the deductions made during that period until the Finance Act of this year passes. If it does not protect them until the Finance Act of this year is passed, what is the use of putting it into the Act? It is quite a novel principle to amend an Act before it is passed. That is the arrangement which the Government is proposing. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us specifically whether the bankers can rely upon this quite apart from the Finance Act of this year, so as to be protected between the 5th and 22nd April.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I said of The object of this Amendment is to of this Sub-section is not to impose a charge, but to give an indemnity in respect to any deductions made. The duties imposed by the Finance Act will be legalised by Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) would impose the duty in the Finance Act, and then the deductions made in pursuance of that will be legalised. Of course, they will not be legalised by this Sub-section until you have imposed the duties.
    Mr. CASSEL: What effect will it have?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It will have effect once the duties are imposed. It does not impose duties, because, if it did, it would be a charging Section. But what it does is to say that when the Act is passed and the precise duties have been imposed that if deductions have been made in the previous fortnight or three weeks there shall be authorised deductions, and it gives indemnity for deductions so made.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The point really is that on the 22nd April they would be illegal, but that the subsequent enactment may make them legal. If the world came to an end on the 22nd April, these taxes would have no effect.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And no action could be brought.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That is true. I see no objection in putting that into the Bill, because in the interval they are illegal.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of the explanation given, I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "but so as not to prejudice or affect any pending proceedings on the decision of any Court of Law, or any matter in respect of which the decision of a Court of Law was given prior to the passing of the Act."
    The object of this Amendment is to save the position of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I am sure the Government would not wish to retrospectively legislate so as to entitle the Bank of England to bring an action against Mr. Gibson Bowles, and to recover the very sum which in his action it was decided they were not entitled to. I tried to make that clear in the Committee stage, and I hope, so far as Mr. Gibson Bowles is concerned, it will be made clear.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot accept the Amendment in these words, but I will accept an Amendment to give effect to what the hon. Gentleman wishes. If there is any fear that by reason of this Sub-section some action might be brought by the Bank of England against Mr. Gibson Bowles of the same nature as that in which he succeeded I have no objection to putting in words which would guard against that. There is no intention by the Bank of England of taking any such step. There are other means of reaching Mr. Gibson Bowles and compelling him to pay the tax properly due. Although I do not for a moment anticipate that such action will be taken. I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to this extent, to insert words to prevent this applying to any past proceedings in a Court of Law. There are difficulties in regard to pending proceedings, but so far as I am aware there are no pending proceedings, but in view of the discussion in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, there might be proceedings before the Royal Assent is given to the Act. I think the better words would be the words on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), and if the hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment in this form, "but this provision shall not affect any past proceedings in any Court of Law," I shall be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. CASSEL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "but this provision shall not affect any past proceeding in any Court of Law."
    Question put, and agreed to. Mtn.

    TITLE.
    "To give statutory effect for a limited period to Resolutions varying or renewing taxation, and to make provision with respect to payments and deductions made on account of any temporary tax between the dates of the expiration and renewal of the tax."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, at the end to insert the words "and to amend the laws of Customs and Inland Revenue including Excise."
    I think the title must be amended by putting in the words which are in the Finance Act in regard to amending the law of Customs.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any necessity to amend the Title. All we are doing is to provide for deductions which have to be made, and for the provision and collection of taxes. It is not necessary to insert these words, and I am quite sure it is not desirable to add to the Title of a Bill any unnecessary word.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not desire to press this to a Division if the Government refuse to take advantage of a proposal to have their Title put right for them. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next (21st April).

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eight o'clock.