BOWLES v. BANK OF ENGLAND. (Hansard, 18 March 1913)

§ Mr. CASSEL
rose, and moved "That this House do now Adjourn."
In accordance with the leave I obtained from the House, I move this Motion, in order to call attention to a matter of very serious public importance; the failure of the Government to deal with the difficulty which will arise on the 5th April with regard to the deduction of Income Tax from interest and dividends. I am fully aware, Sir, that in accordance with your ruling I am not entitled in any way to enter upon the question of the legitimacy of the action, or want of action, on the part of the Government, but am bound to confine myself to their administrative inaction. I shall endeavour loyally to adhere to that ruling. In order to fully acquaint the House with the actual point that has arisen I am bound to show them the way in which this matter comes forward. This question arises in connection with the deduction of the Income Tax. The House is no doubt aware that a very large proportion of the Income Tax is collected by means of deduction. I believe 994 that as much as four-fifths of the whole Income Tax is collected by deduction at the source. It is a principle which is based upon the feeling of human nature that it is easier for a Government to collect its revenue by making a man pay somebody else's tax than it is to collect it by making a man pay his own tax. It is not only banks and companies that have to make these deductions; they have to be made by every person who pays rent, and every person who pays salaries The question of deduction arises in connection even with our own salaries. Moreover, the deduction in many cases is an advantage to the Income Tax payer himself, because it is a convenience to him to have the deduction made than to deal with it himself.
It must be a matter of great dislocation and inconvenience to the whole country if the scheme of continuous deduction of the Income Tax is interrupted even for the shortest possible period. The Income Tax, which dates back to 1842, was in the earlier years settled for three or five years at a time, and it was almost invariably passed before the 5th April, so that this difficulty never arose. The Income Tax Act was nearly always passed and received the Royal Assent before the 5th April until 1861, the time when all taxation was put into one Finance Act. A practice then arose which has recently been declared to be illegal, the practice of making these deductions without having any legislative authority in the shape of an Act of Parliament for the purpose. I believe that by most people in the country that was thought to be legal until the recent decision was given. There may have been some people who had fully studied the question, and who may have thought otherwise, but I believe that the bulk of the people of the country thought it was legal. Certainly, the Government in the Courts put forward the view that it was legal, and they spent a good deal of public money in trying to establish that it was legal, therefore it 995 does not lie in their mouths to say that they thought all the time that it was illegal. However that may be, the situation became acute, because of the practice the present Government developed.
From 1861 until 1910 it was usual to have the Finance Act of the year passed within three or four months of the 5th April. That was the general rule. There were not many exceptions to it. But this Government in 1910–[HON. MEMBERS: "1909."]—I am speaking of 1910; with regard to 1909 no difficulty arose, but with regard to 1910 the Government did not pass the Finance Act until the 28th November. In 1911, when there could not have been a shadow of an excuse for not passing the Finance Act within a reasonable time, it only received the Royal Assent on 16th December. That is what led to this practice, which had hitherto been regarded by the public at large as legal, being called into question, and a modern John Hampden arose in the shape of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I believe we have only two bulwarks to the liberty of the subject left, and these are Mr. Gibson Bowles and the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). We must rely upon them to protect our liberties from departmental and Governmental aggression. I am sure that the nation owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gibson Bowles for the trouble which he took and the ingeniousness of the arguments which he used, which proved demonstratively that this action, which had hitherto generally supposed to be legal, was contrary to almost every fundamental statute from Magna Charta down to the Bill of Rights. The decision was given on the 4th November last. An entirely new situation arose when that decision was given. I believe the Government have accepted it, and it is not under appeal. From that moment it was known that after 5th April no person in the United Kingdom would have the right to deduct a farthing of Income Tax from any interest or any rent or any dividend from any salary until the Finance Act of the year had received the Royal Assent. What did the Government do? Nothing but sit content on the Treasury Bench, and to-night, under your ruling, Sir, I cannot complain that they did not take any legislative action. On a future occasion I hope I may have an opportunity of doing so, but to-night I am debarred from raising any complaint that during all that time, while they seem to have found time to pass measures from which party or 996 political advantage could have been obtained, they could not find even a week in which to carry out a measure which was so necessary.
What have they done in regard to administrative action? They have done nothing. They might have given some directions to the Bank of England or made some statement which would have helped the bankers and the commercial community in the very difficult situation in which they find themselves placed now through the inactivity of the Government. I asked some questions about this, both of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I asked the Prime Minister: Will it not be the case that after 5th April, according to the express decision of the Courts, it will be illegal for banks and trustees and others to make these deductions, and will that not lead to a considerable degree of embarrassment? The Prime Minister, as if I was as much responsible for the Government as he was, said: The hon. and learned Gentleman can estimate that for himself. No legislation is possible before 5th April. Then my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) asked How is it proposed to deal with deductions of the tax from dividends in the interval before the passing of the Finance Bill of the year. Here is the characteristic answer of the Prime Minister: I really do not know. All I say is that legislation is impossible before 5th April."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 13th March, 1913, col. 410.] "I do not know" seems to be the new variant of "Wait and see." I tried my fortune with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I asked him whether any, and, if so, what, instructions or directions have been given to the Bank of England, with regard to deductions of Income Tax from interest on Government securities on and after 5th April, 1913. The right hon. Gentleman simply refused to answer the question. He said that he was going to make a statement at some future date—a general statement.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
No, I said at an early date.

§ Mr. CASSEL
At an early date, but he did not make it more specific than that. Let me point out that the whole time of the House is mortgaged until 31st March, and then in the next week there are only three days before you get to 5th April, and we have no statement whatever. "An early date" may mean anything. 997 Of course it is very convenient for Ministers to decline to answer questions because it may suit them better to give an answer at some future date, but it really is not giving Members of this House the opportunity of dealing with the action of the Government which they are entitled to. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given me any reason based upon general public disadvantage why the question should not have been answered, I should have been perfectly ready to accept it. He did not say whether instructions had been given to the Bank of England or not. If not, it would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to say so. It would be no disadvantage to the public service for him to say so. On the other hand if instructions had been given to the Bank of England it would have been of advantage to the public to know what the instructions were. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us what the instructions given to the Bank of England were, then the other banks and the public generally would have been in a better position to form a judgment as to what they ought to do in the very difficult and embarrassing situation in which they find themselves to-day.
I am not going to deal to-night with the question of companies because Lord Parker specially refrained from giving a decision on that question. Nor am I asking the right hon. Gentleman to say anything which would anticipate his general Budget statement, because I understand that the Government themselves propose to deal with this apart from the ordinary Budget statement. But I regret that to-night I am not entitled to go into the question of their legislative inactivity. I feel in that respect that my guns have to some extent been spiked. I think the subject is one of very great general importance, and the question whether I press the Motion to a division or not must in some measure depend on the attitude which the Government adopt in replying to me. If they are going to adopt merely a "Wait-and-see" and "I-do-not-know" attitude then I think we should be entitled to take our protest so far as a division. But I think the Government would really be rendering a service to the commercial community if they did give some further elucidation of this difficult and perplexing position. I do not see why they should not give an answer to the question which I have asked. I think they might at least indicate a little more definitely what 998 course they propose to pursue. I raise this question with that object in view.

§ Mr. EVELYN CECIL
I beg to second the Motion.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. and learned Gentleman ended his speech with the statement that the question whether he would take this Motion to a Division depended on the explanation given by the Government, but he must have felt himself that he has chosen an occasion for inviting that explanation which makes it, impossible for me to give a complete explanation to the House. It is quite impossible to state the views, and, still more important, the intentions of the Government without explaining what legislation we propose, because we cannot deal with this difficulty without legislation, and that is the very thing we cannot explain to the House owing to the particular opportunity which the hon. and learned Gentleman selected for inviting the explanation. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is not satisfied to wait until the Bill is introduced. It is the interest of the Government to introduce the measure at the first opportunity, and we intend doing so. The hon. and learned Member stated very fairly the practice, a practice of very long standing. As far as customs are concerned it goes back to the middle of the eighteenth century at least. As far as Income Tax is concerned it dates very far back. It was a practice which, as the hon. and learned Member says, met the convenience of everybody, and there was no protest practically from any member of the community. It was always more or less of doubtful legality. This is the answer given by the Attorney-General in 1848 when he was asked a similar question with regard to Customs, and it applies equally as far as Resolutions of this House are concerned. When pressed upon the question the Attorney-General in 1848 said:— He apprehended that the Resolution of the House would be recognised by the subsequent passing of the Bill to be founded upon it. The rule would be this. If the House of Commons resolved that a given duty should be imposed upon goods before entering for home consumption it was fairly to be presumed and the practise proceeded upon the assumption that the House would pass a Bill founded on the Resolution and as the Bill related to a matter of money it was not supposed that the other House would interfere with the Resolution. The Government therefore had given authority to their officers to act on that Resolution. He admitted that an action lies, but before it would be ripe for investigation the Act of Parliament would have received the Royal Assent. It was always assumed that the action could not come on for hearing before the Bill passed. At any rate for generations 999 every Chancellor of the Exchequer, every Government, proceeded upon that basis and have acted upon these Resolutions, and the community not merely accepted it gladly, but, to a certain extent, when the Budget of 1909 was thrown out, it was much more convenient for the community to go on paying these duties, and acting on the assumption that the Resolution of the House of Commons had legal validity. Here is a practice which has been accepted by everybody up to the present without challenge, because it was for the general convenience, until a citizen, referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman as the modern John Hampden—I think it is rather a poor view to take of that great man—came and upset it by his action brought in the Courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Government have done nothing in the face of that. That is not quite correct. The Government recognised, I think, as far back as July or August of last year, that probably if Mr. Gibson Bowles pressed his action it would be quite impossible for us to substantiate the old practice in the Courts. We then proposed to incorporate in the Budget a clause which would legalise these Resolutions, provided the Budget was through the House of Commons before the middle of August. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only have had a legalised cause provided by Act of Parliament, but he would have had a guarantee that the Budget would be through before the 15th August.

§ Mr. CASSEL
No notice was given of the Resolution.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. He did not object on the technical point that we ought to have given notice. As a matter of fact no notice is ever given of these Resolutions, and I think I am the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who ever put these Resolutions on the Notice Paper. That is a precedent which I have myself set. The old practice was to only put the Resolution in the first instance from the Chair. I think I have made a convenient innovation. That was what we proposed to the House of Commons then. Who objected to it? It was not objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who recognised that the course we proposed was for the general convenience; and the Government 1000 made the very concession which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now pressing upon us, a concession that would have involved the legislative guarantee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would press the House of Commons to get the Budget through before the 15th August. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had said at that time make it the 15th July, he could have moved an Amendment. But that was not the line taken; it was objected to root and branch. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have taken a technical objection, but it is not open to him to say that the Government never proposed to take any action at all. He said we could have done it in November, after the action had been determined. I think the right and convenient time to have done it was in the Budget. After all we had to take into account the crowded character of the programme, and it was difficult to get through it in time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a different point. Hon. Gentlemen are not now objecting to the programme of the Government. That is not the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am taking into account the programme of the Government, which was determined upon not only by the Government but with the support of the House of Commons. Taking that into account, I say the right course was to put a clause in the Budget of the year.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
Why did you not carry it out?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Simply because of the general resistance of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "And your own side."] There were one or two on this side.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The action was proceeding.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It had nothing to do with the action. The hon. Baronet overlooks that fact, and it would not have interfered with the rights of the modern Hampden, or with Hampden's costs being paid. That was agreed, and that was, I think, the only point which was involved at the time. If there had been any attempt to rule him out of Court, then I agree there would have been something to have been said. We distinctly stated it should not refer to that action, and my recollection is that the Resolution was so worded. I read out the proposed Clause to the House, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is estopped by the action which he and his 1001 friends took then from complaining now that the Government did not proceed with that proposal. We recognised the importance of the matter, and that the moment any citizen of this country took the matter to the Courts that it must be put on a proper basis, and we did that immediately, but owing to the action of the Opposition it was found to be impossible to do so, for the simple reason that it was late in the Session. If there had been strong objection everybody knows perfectly well it would take a very long time to get through, and it would have prolonged the proceedings on the Budget. We were pressed by the Opposition at that time not to proceed with this matter at that time. The pressure came very largely, almost entirely, from the Opposition, and I think there was just one hon. Gentleman on this side of the House who held that view. I now come to the other point as to what action the Government propose to take, and here I am precluded by the Rules of the House from stating what action. [An HON. MEMBER: "Administrative."] Administrative action depends very largely upon the legislative proposals. Why does the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) say "no, no"? I tell him "yes, yes," and I have got this advantage over him that I happen to know, and I tell him I have been settling a circular which depends on the terms of the legislative proposals.

§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGER
You have not got your legislation and you must do something before you get it. What are you going to do?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We must pass a Bill, and before that Bill introduce a Resolution. It is upon that Resolution I am going to explain to the House what we propose to do. That circular is being issued and an hon. Gentleman says what instructions are to be given. I do not say we have a right to give instructions, but we have the right to give advice to the Bank of England. We have got the right to give the same advice to other banks, and that advice will depend entirely on what we propose with regard to legislation, and their attention will be called to that. I cannot explain that because I should be trespassing on the ruling of the Speaker. When I am able to do so in accordance with the Rules of the House, I shall explain the exact character of the proposal. Beyond that I am afraid it is quite impossible to go at the present time. In 1901 Lord St. Aldwyn who was then, I think, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1002 issued a circular to bankers and others informing them of the passing of a Resolution, and that Income Tax is deducted at the rate fixed by the Resolution in respect of dividends and interest payable after 6th April. He issued that circular upon that date on the assumption that the Resolution of the House of Commons was operative as far as Income Tax was concerned. I very much regret that convenient practice has been upset. I am sure the very best thing we can do is to legalise it as soon as possible, with the statutory guarantee for which the hon and learned Gentleman is so anxious now, but, which he did his very best to postpone for six or nine months.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I did not.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am very glad that he repudiates the action of his colleagues.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
That is not fair.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The Government proposal was a very bad one.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Does the Noble Lord remember what it was, or is he simply going on the general principle that everything proposed by the Government is bad? As a matter of fact, it was a very good and sound proposal. After all, it was only a proposal, which would have been open not only to criticism but to Amendment in Committee. Its general character was that it legalised the collection of Income Tax and duties upon a Resolution of the House of Commons, provided the Bill became an Act of Parliament by a certain date in August. That is, it legalised a practice which every Chancellor of the Exchequer, every Government, and the whole community have for many generations sanctioned.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to issue that circular before the 6th April?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, as always happens on these occasions, with great admiration for his Parliamentary art. My hon. and learned Friend was debarred by the Rules of the House from criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having taken legislative action, and the right hon. Gentleman occupied the major portion of his speech in explaining why legislative action has not been taken. It 1003 was only in the last few minutes that he referred to the point which was really raised and which alone was in order on this Motion, namely, the question of the administrative action which he might take and perhaps had taken. The right hon. Gentleman complained that my hon. and learned Friend had chosen an opportunity when the question could not be fully discussed. It is my hon. and learned Friend's misfortune, and the misfortune of the House, that the question cannot be fully discussed. But surely never was taunt less deserved. My hon. and learned Friend took the only opportunity—

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
made a remark which could not be heard by the Official Reporters.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Then I understand that that is withdrawn. Equally withdrawn is the charge with which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to conclude, that my hon. and learned Friend himself was the obstacle to legislation on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to observe that the really important question was, what were the views, and, still more important, what were the intentions of the Government? I thank him for the phrase. I like that nice distinction between the views which the Government may hold and the intentions which they have. I quite agree the distinction is important, and that it has not infrequently been illustrated by recent events. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the case had been fairly stated by my hon. and learned Friend. He said that the practice followed by Ministries on both sides had been upset as a result of the action brought by Mr. Gibson Bowles. To justify the confidence of the Government the right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of the Attorney-General in 1848. It was a practice, he said, that His Majesty's Government had pursued.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Every Government.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
No, no! But because this Government had departed for the first time from the general practice of all preceding Governments—for that reason the Bowles' action was taken: it was that which secured the decision of the Court. What was the advice given by the Attorney-General? That it would be assumed that when the House passed a Resolution in Committee they 1004 would make good that Resolution by a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Attorney-General further to say that he admitted that an action would lie, but that before it was ripe for hearing the Bill would have been passed. That is the chief difference. That is why the practice which was in fact convenient has broken down. Hitherto the Budget had always been passed at such a time as would have caused the Bill to become law before action had been taken. The Government deliberately delayed the financial business to serve party exigencies. They treated finance not as the first business of the House of Commons, as by historical tradition it is, but as the last and least important. They passed the Insurance and Home Rule Bills before they dealt with the Budget. Accordingly at last a citizen intervened to stop this abuse of the latitude that has been allowed to Governments. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the coupling of the name of Gibson Bowles and John Hampden. I cannot help thinking that the law is even more decisive and unquestioned on the side of Mr. Gibson Bowles than it was on the side of John Hampden, and I am not at all prepared to say that Charles I was a more despotic monarch than the present Cabinet is a despotic Cabinet. There is a good deal more to be said for the parallel than the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that he had been anxious to legislate in this matter last August, but that the Opposition would not allow it. He was good enough—he and his friends not infrequently are—to separate me almost ostentatiously from my friends, not so much for the purpose of recognising my limited abilities as to point a moral and adorn a tale. It is quite true that I, who held official position at the Treasury in two capacities, am, I suppose, strongly tinted with the official traditions, and am probably much more sensitive than ordinary Members of the House to the inconvenience of any breach of those old practices and the troubles that may arise from their having broken down, and it is perfectly true I was anxious, if we could arrive even then at a settlement to do so, but I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time he was asking a great deal of the House. He had the courtesy to give me private notice of the Motion he was moving. Quite true it was not in accordance with the traditions or practice of the House to give such notice to the rest of the House, but the rest of the House has 1005 the right to complain that they cannot discuss matters of that importance without having time for their consideration. I demurred to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the fact that that legislation was not to affect the particular case of Mr. Gibson Bowles made it a matter of indifference whether the action upon the subject was going on or not.
It was notorious that the Government resisted this claim up to the last moment, that then at last being brought into Court and forced to defend their position they asked for time to defend it. They appeared resolute up to the last moment, and then they came down to the House of Commons to say in effect, "We have no defence, for Heaven's sake let us pass legislation at once so that we may have a defence"; not a defence, indeed, to that particular action, but to similar actions in the future. Legislation of that kind must always be viewed with suspicion, and I think my hon. Friend had a good case when he objected to it on that ground. But that is not all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed he was not only to have this legislation, but that he must have it with hardly any time for discussion. That was undoubtedly his claim; he declared he was not going on with it if it raised any lengthy discussion; that is a very important point. A measure which proposes to limit rights or wrongs raises very serious considerations, and to tell the House in the month of August that they are to take or leave a Resolution they have only just heard read from the Chair, and that if they want to discuss it it will be dropped is not fair treatment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer treated the House and the Opposition in that way and then six months later he comes down to the House of Commons and says that it is owing to the action of the Opposition that the matter has not already been dealt with by legislation, whereas the truth is it is owing to the necessities of purely party objects as distinct from National objects that the House of Commons has never had time fairly to consider it. I said so much upon the subject of legislation because I could not have replied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer without saying so much. But after all what we hoped from the Chancellor was that he was giving us that enlightenment as to the administrative action which he is now taking which he himself said he could not do, in answer to a question, and which we 1006 assumed therefore he would deal with when he had a little more elbow room and time to develop it. He has prepared a circular of advice to the Bank of England and others. Surely the House of Commons ought to have that circular communicated to it and this is the place which, first and foremost, ought to have it. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what it is?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I cannot do so without referring to the Bill which I propose to introduce. If Mr. Speaker tells me I can read it I am ready to do so, but I am afraid I should not be in order in referring to legislation merely under the guise of reading a circular to the House, because if it is read to the House surely it may be criticised. That is the real reason.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to explain his Bill, but I understand that he is going to issue a circular in advance of the Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Will the right hon. Gentleman let the House of Commons have the circular? He is going to the banks before the Bill is introduced and why should he not issue the circular before the measure is introduced. There is no subject which roused those sitting on the Benches opposite to greater wrath than the alleged occasional disregard of the dignity and importance of the House of Commons by the then Government. If a statement was made in the other House and not here it was denounced as an outrage upon the House of Commons. We have got accustomed now to picking up bits of information from newspapers, from deputations to Ministers, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately refuses to give this information to the House of Commons.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. The right hon. Gentleman says I have refused this information, but I have done nothing of the kind. I said I wish to submit the circular to the House of Commons, but I cannot discuss the matter in this Debate. If Mr. Speaker takes the view that I can give to the House of Commons the purport of the circular which gives the effect of the legislation which I propose to introduce, then, certainly, I should do so.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any objection on the grounds of order to the Chancellor of the Exchequer reading the circular which he proposes to issue?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The objection would be that if the circular be read, hon. Members would wish to criticise it. I understand that this circular contains proposals which will be embodied in legislation to be laid before the House at an early opportunity. Therefore if hon. Members criticise what is in the circular, they will then be criticising the Bill which will be introduced at a later date. I have not myself seen the circular.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Although an hon. Member criticising the legislation in the circular is out of order perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be in order in reading the circular?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That would not be in order.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
When the circular is finally settled in the course of a day or two I will—

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Then it is not ready?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the Noble Lord will look at my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see I stated that the circular would be ready in the course of a day or two. I will undertake to issue it 1008 to the House of Commons in the form of a Paper or otherwise.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I really think if the right hon. Gentleman would have said that in answer to my hon. and learned Friend when he asked whether any instructions had been issued to the banks, it would have settled the whole matter. He has very correctly said that he is not in a position to issue any instructions. If, however, he had said "No advice has been tendered, but I propose to issue a circular, and as soon as it is ready I will lay it on the Table of the House of Commons so that the House of Commons may have first information," we should never have had this Debate. I accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman now to give the circular to the House of Commons as soon at least as it is given to anybody else.

§ Mr. CASSEL
In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will let us have the circular before the 5th April, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Motion.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
indicated assent.