HC Deb 18 May 1914 vol 62 cc1691-721
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

My object in asking leave this afternoon to move the Adjournment of the House was to call attention to a very important matter of principle in connection with the government of the country. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board present, and I hope that ere long we may be honoured by the presence of the President of that Department, because I wish to address to him some remarks to which I hope he will give a satisfactory reply. It will be within the recollection of the House that, when introducing the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was the intention of the Government to make alterations in the system of Grants from the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities, and that those alterations would be based mainly on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which had been considering the question of Imperial and Local Taxation. The House will agree that this is a matter of considerable importance. The whole basis hitherto in force is to be altered, and therefore the position of local authorities may be seriously prejudiced or improved according to the way in which the new Grants are allocated. I find, in looking through the Report of the Departmental Committee, this very significant recommendation:— That the necessary Parliamentary authority be obtained as soon as possible to enable the Road Board to commence a provisional classification of roads. As far as I am aware, no authority has been applied for, or obtained, from this House by the Road Board to start on that scheme of classification, and yet we find that the Road Board have issued to all local authorities a circular, dated 30th April, requesting that they will immediately start on an elaborate scheme of classification of the roads throughout England and Wales. The roads are to be divided into three classes—first, second, and third. The reason given for requesting this information is twofold. The Road Board say that they have had under consideration the question of preparing a detailed schedule of all the public roads in England and Wales with a view to its use as an aid in the selection of works of road improvement towards which Grants should be made out of the Road Improvement Fund, and that they have been requested "— this is the second reason, and I venture to say it is the real reason, as will be apparent when I have dealt with the circular— by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it could also be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the national Exchequer. If the Road Board merely want this information so that it can be used in future as a basis for allocating Grants for certain districts, why is it suddenly asked for at this particular date? The Road Board have been in existence for some years, and have made several Grants, though not as many as some of us would like. Why do they suddenly come forward in such a mad hurry to get this preliminary information before the 18th of May if it is not that they wish to carry out the second purpose mentioned in their letter, namely, at the request of the Local Government Board, so to frame their classification that it might be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the national Exchequer? Why does not the President of the Local Government Board say that is why they want it? Why bamboozle the local authorities and this House by pretending that they want it for some other reason? It is not an honest way of getting information. It is expensive information.

Mr. BOOTH

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. GWYNNE

The President of the Local Government Board slated at Question Time that this circular had been issued, not by his direction but with his concurrence. Therefore, if the Road Board are doing an illegal thing, as I think they are, the hon. Member for Pontefract can deal with the matter later on if he wishes. But I am addressing my remarks to the President of the Local Government Board, and it is his place to answer. The hon. Member is not the President of the Local Government Board, nor is he responsible for the Treasury. The President of the Local Government Board is quite capable of answering for himself. The right hon. Gentleman told me that this circular was issued with his concurrence. I am not arguing that a classification will not be necessary. If the Grants are to be made on a new basis, a classification will be necessary. But why have not the Road Board or the Local, Government Board gone through the proper legal steps to obtain consent for this classification? Why has this House been deprived of the chance of discussing the matter? Why have the local authorities been told to get on with the work? Not only have they been asked to do this, but they have been told to do it in a hole-and-corner way. They are asked to make an elaborate classification, including the supplying of maps showing in different colours the whole of the roads of England and Wales, and requiring the taking of a census of the different roads that would come in Classes A and B—a census not merely for one day, but for seven consecutive days of sixteen hours, a matter entailing a large expense. This has been done, not through the ordinary channels, but in such a hurry that the authorities have been required to send in the preliminary particulars by the 18th May. This circular did not reach most local authorities until 4th May. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be aware that county councils and other local councils, such as district, town, and urban councils, do not meet every day like we do. They do not sit for ten months in the year. They have their meetings either quarterly or monthly. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member opposite says "No!" Can he tell me of any single county council that meets other than I suggest?

Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL

The committees of county councils meet very often, and they are in charge of matters of this sort.

Mr. GWYNNE

We all know how often committees meet, but committees have no right to pledge their councils to the expenditure of funds—thousands it may be. At any rate, I do not think the President of the Local Government Board will uphold that sort of thing. In many instances the local councils do not meet at all between 30th April and 18th May, and it has been left to the clerks and surveyors to decide which roads they shall make application for to come under Class A or Class B. Let me read to the House a typical letter from the clerk to the district council of the Constituency which I represent, which I think is a fair expression of opinion from any clerk who is called upon to answer this circular letter. He received this circular letter telling him that the council must at once start to send in plans and a list of roads which they think should be included in Class A or Class B for Government Grant. He replied to the effect that the proposals were of such an extensive and complicated character that it was practically impossible to give them due attention or to submit them for the approval of his council in the time indicated, I refer to the proposals for a traffic census on or before the 18th instant, in the case of highway authorities that only meet once a month, and perhaps met before the receipt of the communication. The clerk to the Eastbourne Council wrote:— I am fully aware of the importance of the matter, and appreciate the fact that such proposals should be made by my council, but I trust to heat that the date of submitting them will be extended for a reasonable period to give them an opportunity of considering the matter carefully. I notice on pages 47 and 101 of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, recommendations that where necessary Parliamentary authority should be obtained to enable the Road Board to commence the work of the classification of the roads, but I have not yet seen that that authority has been granted. The Road Board replied to that communication—their letter being signed by the chief engineer—and I have the original letter here if the President of the Local Government Board wishes to see it. The acknowledgment concluded:— In regard to the last paragraph of your letter, the present, classification of the roads is being undertake by the Road Board at the request of the President of the Local Government Board. Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite repudiate that? We are getting accustomed to repudiations of utterances from the Front Bench, and I would like to know whether on this occasion the Road Board is to be thrown over, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will now say that they were doing this entirely on their own authority and without his authority. If not, if the chief engineer was correct, then the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to me this afternoon was incorrect. I really do not mind for the purposes of my argument. It does not matter which Gentleman is incorrect so long as I know which one I have to go for. If the Road Board is incorrect, let us know it. If not, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will amend the answer which he gave to me this afternoon. Note the position into which local authorities are being put. They have been asked to embark on this expensive scheme. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said, "It is not really a very important matter; it is not a very large scheme upon which we are embarking." I asked him if any estimate had been made as to the cost, and he replied, "No," as far, so I understand, as the Road Board themselves are concerned. May I point this out: If every authority in England and Wales has got to start with this classification and has got to take the census and supply the information required, it must run to thousands in many counties. Will the hon. Gentleman opposite say that in the county which he represents it will not be so?

Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS

I am certain it will not.

Mr. GWYNNE

Well, I do not think, at any rate, the President of the Local Government Board will go so far as to challenge that statement.

Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS

I challenge each county and every county.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member should be allowed to make his statement in his own way.

Mr. GWYNNE

We got it this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman that, although the Road Board is not to bear any of the expense of getting this information, that it is estimated it will cost the Road Board £8,000 to sift that information and to make their report. If it is to cost the Road Board £8,000 to do that it would not be unfair, I think, to allow the local authority some adequate sum which it must cost them. If it is such a small scheme, why is £8,000 required in order to go through the information that is received? How is that sum going to be spent? The right hon. Gentleman must see that it must run into thousands. How can he take a census of every road in the United Kingdom for sixteen hours a day, for every ten miles of the road, for seven days without it costing a large sum of money? Who will decide which of the roads are to be classified under A and B? Is it to be thrown on the clerks if the councils do not meet? If the councils do meet is the decision to lie with the local members of the council, who at present have no adequate information before them? My point is this: That admittedly this is going to make a great change in the whole rating system. We have only to read our Order Papers this morning, where we find a question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, in which he asked the President of the Local Government Board— Why it was that Somerset was only to have a contribution equal to half that received by Wiltshire tinder the proposed new Grant? My argument is that the new system will necessarily alter the proportions of the Grant. That may be largely due to the fact that the present system is unequal, but the right hon. Gentleman must admit that some counties may gain double what others will do, and some may lose. Therefore it is a matter of vast importance to the various counties. What is the position in which you are placing these local councils? You are asking them now in great haste to decide whether a new system, about which nobody yet knows any details, of which none of us in this House know the details, and which the the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has not yet made up his mind—as usual with his half-baked legislation!—he does not yet know himself how it is going to be worked out—yet the local councils are being called upon forthwith between the 4th and 18th of May to make up their minds as to whether and how they shall apply in respect of their roads, and what class they shall ask them to be placed in. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in general terms that he intends to make increased Grants contingent on increased expenditure, and, therefore, it may be very much to the disadvantage of a local authority to have any roads coming under Classes A and B.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The notice that the hon. Member gave to-day was not to discuss the proposals foreshadowed in the Budget, but to deal with the circular which has just been issued to the local authorities.

Mr. GWYNNE

The circular does refer to that matter, Mr. Whitley, and that is why I am dealing with it. The circular distinctly says which class the roads ought to be put in, and I am trying to point out what difficulty there must be to the local authorities to decide under which class to place their roads. I want to show how this is imposing an unfair responsibility on the clerks that have been called upon to decide, or local authorities who may have met, seeing that they do not know what the effect of it will be, whether they make application for many or few roads to come under these scheduled classes. If in the ordinary course this had been brought before the House before the classification has been made, we would have had an opportunity of discussing that matter, and getting certain information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would guide local councils in applying for Grants. The local councils are at the present time in the dark. The President of the Local Government Board says it is not necessarily binding that authorities sending in applications now to be included under Class A or B will be included. I agree that it does not mean that the Road Board must include them, but it means that if they do not apply they will not come before the Road Board to be included. They have, therefore, now to make up their minds one way or other in regard to Class A or B to get a State Grant or to remain outside, and be free from State interference, and free to take the expenditure on their roads upon their own shoulders. I am not opposing the advisability of making State Grants in this way, but I say it is unfair to ask the local councils to take upon their shoulders the responsibility without telling them what the responsibility will be.

I think it is unsatisfactory that the Local Government Board should shelter itself behind the Road Board. We know quite well the Road Board have powers independent of this House. I am told it is desirable that they should be independent, but it was never intended to give them power to put pressure upon local authorities and demand this classification without first coming to the House! I cannot believe that Members on either side are in favour of handing over still more powers to a bureaucracy which the Road Board and the Local Government Board are becoming, without coming to this House for further permission. If the principle is once admitted by which the Road Board can send round circulars, and invite local authorities with all the weight of officialism to start upon large schemes, look at the position in which we may find ourselves. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman says now, "I never gave the Road Board orders to do this." But what did the Under-Secretary say to me on Thursday. I asked him why the local authorities had been called upon to start this classification, and he said that "it was for the local authorities to supply the particulars we have asked for." If they had not asked for it, or if they had asked Sop it, why not say so frankly. Later on, when I asked a supplementary question, namely, "Will the hon. Gentleman say what right he had to ask the local authorities for this information at enormous cost to the counties," he said, "The information is necessary." If it is necessary to obtain this information in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get on with his Budget proposals, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman frankly admit it, and come to the House and ask permission to do it in the ordinary way, instead of doing it in this hole and corner fashion. It is not the first time a matter of this kind has arisen since the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his office, because there is another matter of a somewhat similar nature, which is, that the right hon. Gentleman is causing a lot of expense to local authorities to give him information in order to frame his Housing Bill. I think it is time to put a stop to this, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to put local authorities to expenditure of this sort, he should either get sanction or provide the cost out of the Imperial Exchequer. I think there is another matter which one might comment on in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion in these proposals, that the local authorities will likely save a sum of 9d. in the £ on the rates. It was pointed out last week that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen a very well known figure.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Gentleman has got a special privilege of leave to move the Adjournment of the House, and in doing so it is well that he should keep strictly to the terms of the notice upon which he obtained that leave.

Mr. GWYNNE

The question of this alteration of the basis of taxation surely admits of one discussing so far as we know them the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this connection.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Certainly not. The House gave leave to discuss a particular matter, and the hon. Member must keep strictly to the terms upon which he got that leave.

Mr. GWYNNE

I do not wish to argue the point, but the terms were, I think, fairly wide— To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board in endeavouring to place so heavy a financial burden upon the local authorities by calling upon them, through the Road Board, to immediately start upon a scheme of classification of roads without having obtained the necessary Parliamentary authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible so far as this is concerned, that the President of the Local Government Board is taking this action for him, for certainly if the President of the Local Government Board has nothing to do with the Road Board, as I was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, it must be to obtain information for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is working at the present moment. Does the President of the Local Government Board really think it is fair to cast this costly burden upon the shoulders of the ratepayer? If it is a mere flea bite as some hon. Members seem to think, why not place the burden upon the Imperial Exchequer instead of upon the ratepayers. If it is such a mere detail let him be generous and say, "We will bear the cost." At all events I ask, if this classification has to be made, is it a fair thing to place upon the local rates the cost of obtaining the information? I say it is not a fair thing to ask local councils to start on this costly scheme, not because the Road Board want to get information upon which to give the ratepayers a Grant, but obviously when the reason is to get information for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I think my hon. Friend has acted perfectly right in bringing this matter before the House on account of the somewhat extraordinary and unwarrantable procedure on the part of the Road Board and the Local Government Board We shall await the explanation of the Government with very great interest. So far as London is concerned, it has no interest in this question, but all Members of this House are interested in seeing that all parts of the country are treated with the respect due to them. Local authorities should be allowed to exercise their own powers in their own way for a good purpose, unless some very good cause is shown to the contrary. I think the Motion for the Adjournment may have one good result. It may help us to clear up what has been singularly mysterious for a long time, namely, the relationship between the Road Board and the Government. The Road Board has had entrusted to it many millions of money extracted from the pockets of the taxpayers. It does not contain on its body a single elected representative. We are told that it has entire control over that money, and that this House has no responsibility for its expenditure or policy, and that no Member of the Government can possibly venture to interfere with it. I will read to the House an extract from the speech of the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Secretary to the Treasury in December, 1902—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Nothing arises on this Motion except the recent action in connection with this circular, and the discussion must only deal with that as affecting the Road Board and the Local Government Board.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I bow to that ruling, and I think when you have heard me, Mr. Whitley, you will see that I am keeping well within that Resolution. We are trying to bring in the irregularities of the Road Board and the Local Government Board in imposing on local authorities expenditure of this kind. This is how the Chancellor of the Duchy described the position:— The Board is not under the control either of the Treasury or anyone responsible to this House. I am speaking at this moment for an individual and a body over whom I have no authority, and for whose policy I have no right to speak. The right hon. Gentleman further said:— It would be impertinent for any Member of the Government to make any suggestion to the Road Board. It was altogether outside the functions of Parliament if I made any kind of representation at all to Sir George Gibb or the Road Board. That is the position we have always found ourselves in when we have wanted to criticise the Road Board.

Mr. KELLAWAY

Will it be in order for us to criticise the relations between the Road Board and this House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is what I was endeavouring to point out to the right hon. Gentleman. A Debate of that kind does not arise on this Motion. This is an urgent matter or Mr. Speaker would never have allowed it, and it must deal with something that has recently happened.

Mr. CHAPLIN

Is it not competent for us to-night to ask if the Government have power to do this through the Road Board? That is one of the questions raised in the Motion for which we gained the right to move this Adjournment, and that question is specially raised. The complaint against the Government is that they have been endeavouring to place a financial burden on the local authorities by calling upon them through the Road Board to perform certain duties. Have we not the right to raise the question whether they have the right to call upon the Road Board to do this or not?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is what I am trying to confine hon. Members to and I am not allowing them to stray from that point.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

The Resolution is:— To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is exactly what I am doing. Hon. Members are not Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker of this House, and they are very noisy. The Resolution is:— To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board in endeavouring to place so heavy a financial burden upon the local authorities by calling upon them, through the Road Board, to immediately start upon a scheme of classification of roads without having obtained the necessary Parliamentary authority.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That does not in any way raise the question of the constitution of the Road Board or its relations with the Government. Those are matters which have been going on for several years, and could not be raised on a Motion for the Adjournment. These Motions are only allowed on the ground of some immediate and urgent matter newly arisen; therefore, old matter must not be brought up in the course of discussion.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Is it not in order in this discussion to point out that the action of the Road Board and the Local Government Board has been irregular and improper in this matter?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is what I am saying. If hon. Members will be good enough to address themselves to that point they will not be interfered with, but they must not go into the matter of the constitution of the Road Board, which is a subject which has been before the House over and over again.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

The right hon. Gentleman opposite has always maintained that the Government could not exercise any power over the Road Board through the Local Government Board. I was proceeding to show that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding those declarations, has issued directions through the Road Board, and that is exactly one of the positions we want to clear up. There is no doubt that in this circular the name of the President of the Local Government Board gives weight to the orders of the Road Board to these local authorities to incur this expenditure, and what we complain of is that the President of the Local Government Board should have lent his name and got into communication with the Road Board and made suggestions to them that the Road Board should send out circulars to all these different local authorities, thus compelling them to embark upon heavy expenditure. That is our complaint. According to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that was the grossly irregular action of the Local Government Board. I believe they are gross irregularities on the part of the Road Board, because, after all, the Departmental Committee, a very learned body on local matters, came to the conclusion that the necessary Parliamentary authority would have to be obtained to enable the Road Board to commence the work of classification. No Parliamentary authority has been obtained, and therefore I cannot help thinking that if the Departmental Committee is right then the Road Board has very greatly exceeded its authority in sending this circular down to the local authorities.

The circular is dated the 30th April and the Budget was not actually introduced until the 4th May. If Sir George Gibb had such an accurate forecast of the amount of money that was going to be placed at the disposal of these local authorities for roads, where did he get it from, if not from the President of the Local Government Board? Therefore, it appears that there is that close communication between the Local Government Board and the Road Board, which we have always been told did not exist between the Road Board and any Department of the Government. A circular goes down to these road authorities which says, "You are to set your surveyors to work, and you are to classify your roads, and you are to do it very quickly." There is no oppportunity for the ratepayers' representatives to discuss the question, and very likely this classification may be of no value to these local authorities at all. Who can tell? The House has not even decided whether the roads should be classified under four heads or under three. The Departmental Committee recommended three, But there are a great many people, including Sir George Gibbs himself, who recommend four. Yet, long before this Budget is ever introduced, before we have ever accepted its principles or even debated them, a circular goes down from this irresponsible body, the Road Board, responsible to nobody in this House, at the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board to the local authorities and tells them that they are to classify their roads under three heads, when possibly it might have been better to have classified them under four heads, and without any opportunity being given for the ratepayers' representatives to discuss the question. These orders are given in this way. It is a new sidelight on the action of His Majesty's servants, which we see peeping out only too often in superseding the local authorities and setting aside local government, and in riding roughshod over the ratepayers' representatives. It is another sidelight on that, and it is also a sidelight on the way in which financial control has been drawn by the Government from this House; and is being continually drawn from this House. We await the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board. Perhaps, after he has spoken, the offence may not appear to be so great, but still I think my hon. Friend was quite right in bringing this matter before the attention of the House.

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

Let me report to the House, if I may, what the position is with respect to these increased Grants for roads, in order that they may understand the necessity for the issue of a circular such as that which is now complained of. For a long period it has been pressed upon the Government and upon this House that additional Grants should be given to local authorities to assist them in bearing the cost of the maintenance of the roads. It has been said that this is a national purpose, and that Parliament ought to contribute. The Government now are prepared to ask Parliament to vote an additional sum of about £1,250,000 for the benefit of the local authorities who now bear the cost of the roads. For that purpose, it is admitted on all hands that a classification of roads is essential. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said that in his opinion the classification of roads, distinguishing between those which should be assisted from the central Exchequer and those which need not be assisted, was essential. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation reported in 1901, thirteen years ago, that there ought to be a classification by a central authority of the roads in this country in order that those which served a national purpose should be specially—

Mr. AMERY

On a point of Order. Is the general history of the question of the Road Board and the classification of roads since the year 1901 in order on this Motion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to explain the circumstances, since he has just been asked to do so.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Both sections of that Commission reported that a central authority ought to be invited to prepare a classification. The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament on Financial Adjustments two or three years ago recommended that there should be a classification of roads made by a central authority. The Kempe Committee, which has just reported, also held that it was essential for the purposes of these local Grants that a classification should be made by a central authority and they recommended the Road Board. The reason the Government share the view that it should be made by the Road Board is precisely because the Road Board is independent of a Government Department. I think it was the Noble. Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) who, when its constitution was before the House, urged, and very properly urged, that it should be a body not subject to the ordinary pressure of Parliamentary exigencies. Therefore, this is the very body of all others which can properly be trusted to determine the basis on which Grants should be distributed by a Government Department, precisely because it is of that independent character. As soon as the Government had decided that this year it would make proposals to Parliament for increasing the Grants to local authorities, naturally it devolved upon me—it was my plain obvious duty—to take measures to secure that this policy could be carried into effect, and I consulted with the Chairman of the Road Board as to the steps which were desirable and practicable.

Mr. HEWINS

Before the Budget was introduced?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Yes, certainly, as soon as the Government had decided upon their policy.

Mr. HEWINS

Before Parliament had granted it?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Certainly, it was an administrative matter. The position as regards the Road Board was this: They already in the ordinary course of their duties have obtained particulars from time to time on the lines which are now suggested should be made general with respect to a very considerable number of roads. A census has been taken probably in about 1,000 cases at different points of the roads of the country for the purposes of the Road Board, in order to enable them to know what is the amount of traffic along the various roads for which they were requested to make Grants. Frequently, when local authorities make application to the Road Board for Grants, the Road Board, instead of accepting the proposals, make alternative suggestions which, in their view, are improvements, and for that purpose it is necessary for them to have these statistics of the traffic upon particular classes of roads. For their own purposes, apart altogether from any Grants under the Budget, the Road Board has contemplated for a certain time back that it would be necessary in order to enable them to perform their functions efficiently to generalise the partial and almost haphazard census which they have obtained in this way, in particular cases and at various times. They contemplated having a general survey, but they held it back and they issued no circular for the very reason that all the world knew a Departmental Committee was sitting on the question of local taxation, including Road Grants, and that the day was probably not far distant when a classification of roads, as recommended by the Royal Commission thirteen years ago, and as recommended by the Joint Select Committee three years ago, would become necessary, not only for their own purposes, but also for the purpose of some future Grants. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution said that it was an odd coincidence that just at the time when the new Grants were about to be made, the Road Board should be making their survey for their own purposes. It is not a coincidence at all; they deliberately held back the proposals that they had in mind for a long time, until the moment should come when a classification might be necessary for purposes of Road Grants.

Mr. GWYNNE

Is the hon. Gentleman now answering for the Road Board, because when I asked him a question this afternoon, he said that he had nothing at all to do with it.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I am answering the attack the hon. Member has made upon me for having directed the Road Board to do a thing which he says is illegal for them to do. It is necessary for me to answer this attack, unless, indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself does not think it worth answering.

Mr. GWYNNE

The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the point. I asked him whether, in giving the explanation in the way he was doing, we were to take it that he was speaking officially for the Road Board—a body with which, earlier in the evening, he told us he had nothing to do. He is now making excuses for what that Board has done,

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I did the hon. Member the courtesy to answer the attack which he has made upon me. He asked me, as President of the Local Government Board, by what authority I required the Road Board to call upon the local authorities to give certain particulars. I am replying to that question. I did not require them to do so. As a matter of fact, the Road Board were contemplating getting certain particulars, and I am now endeavouring to put the House in full possession of all the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said he thought it was odd that this step should have been taken by the Road Board before it was known that any measures were going to be taken to deal with Road Grants—before, in fact, the Budget Statement was made. But the House of Commons was informed at the beginning of this Session, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government intended to make proposals this year in order to deal with the question of local Grants.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

They were not informed in detail.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

The information was of the vaguest kind.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

In any case, it was essential, as soon as the Cabinet had decided upon its policy, that the Departments concerned should take such steps as were necessary to pave the way for the execution of that policy. It has been suggested that I said that the Road Board had not acted at my request in this matter. This is the first of many inaccuracies in the statement of the hon. Member. I said nothing of the kind. I said they had not acted by my directions, which is a very different thing. They had, for some time, been contemplating the issue of a circular, and I requested that that circular should be framed in such terms as would make it of service also for the purpose of classifying the roads for Grants. I did not direct the Road Board to do anything whatever, because I have no authority to do that. Perhaps I had better read the actual circular, or rather some of the passages in it.

Mr. GWYNNE

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also read the answer he gave me this afternoon.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I will read the important passages of the circular in order that hon. Members may see precisely what it was that the Road Board asked the local authorities to do, and precisely under what circumstances they had done so:— I am directed by the Road Board to inform you that they have had under their consideration the question of preparing a detailed schedule of all the public loads in England and Wales, excluding for the present those within the county of London and county boroughs, divided into classes according to the relative importance of each class for traffic purposes, with a view to its use as an aid in the selection of works of road improvement towards which Grants should be made out of the Road Improvement Fund, and they have been requested by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it could also be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the National Exchequer. Then it goes on to say—[Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides think they have any point of Order, I must ask them to kindly address it to me.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The circular proceeded:— I am directed by the Board to invite the assistance of all highway authorities concerned in the preparation of the proposed classification by sending certain particulars.

Mr. CHAPLIN

That was for the purpose of the Budget, I suppose?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The right hon. Gentleman can see the circular. The Road Board were good enough to adapt their circular in order to fit it for the purposes of the Budget Grants, and so they requested the local authorities to classify the roads, and they made their suggestions for the division of the roads into three classes. That was the recommendation of the Kemp Committee—a recommendation which the Government intended to adopt, and, if my memory serves me rightly, it was also a recommendation of the Royal Com- mission on Local Taxation. It might be that if the classification was not to have been used for this purpose, the Road Board might have asked for a larger number of classes, and not have issued a request for classification under three heads. Careful inquiry was made whether or not it was necessary to obtain special statutory powers to enable the Road Board to issue the circular and obtain these particulars, and the Departments concerned, and the Road Board also, agreed that it was not necessary for them to ask Parliament for any legislative powers, as it was well within their ordinary competence and within the sphere for which they had been created. This is the point I wish hon. Members to consider. The Road Board was about to issue and had for some time contemplated issuing a circular inviting particulars of roads in order to classify them for their own purposes. The Government was about to propose to Parliament the classification of roads into three classes, for the purpose of additional Grants to be made by the Treasury. Hon. Members opposite complain because I got into communication with the Road Board. But suppose I had not done so—suppose I had left the Road Board to issue their schedule in such a form that it could not be used for the Road Grants we contemplated making. What would hon. Members have said then? What would they have said if I had adopted the course they seemed to approve? I am sure they would have been the first to accuse me of gross administrative incompetence, because I had not been able to foresee that the classification would be necessary for the Grants, to be made by the Exchequer, and because I had allowed a classification on wrong lines to be made without any action on my part or any communication between the Local Government Board and the Road Board. They would have said, "What are we to think of a Government Department which is unable to communicate with other bodies established in its own neighbourhood, and dealing with similar topics, which has not sufficient common sense to co-ordinate the action of these several authorities for a common purpose."

Mr. GWYNNE

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Road Board would have had no power to make any classification on their own behalf on these lines, because the Departmental Committee recommended that the necessary Parliamentary authority be obtained in order to make this classification. I asked the right hon. Gentleman this evening, and I now repeat that question, why was not the necessary Parliamentary authority obtained for making the classification?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. Member quotes that extract from the Re port of the Committee, as though it had legal authority. We examined into the question whether Parliamentary authority was necessary—

Mr. GWYNNE

Who are we?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The various departments concerned—the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and the Road Board, and we came to the conclusion that the Road Board was fully competent to act.

Mr. HEWINS

Under what section.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

In the ordinary discharge of its duties. It was competent to obtain such information as was necessary for the discharge of its duties.

Mr. GWYNNE

Under what Act?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Roads Improvement Act. Suppose there had been no question of a Government Grant, suppose the Road Board were dealing, as they had been dealing for some years, merely with its own Road Improvement Fund. It has found it necessary to obtain these census particulars at about one thousand points on different roads. Suppose there had been no question of any Treasury Grants, it still would have gone on to issue a general circular on these lines, within its own statutory powers, under its own constitution, and for its own purpose.

Mr. CHAPLIN

was understood to ask: What will be the cost?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I am coming to that in a moment. That is not the point with which I am now dealing, and on which the hon. Member has challenged me. He said that the Road Board, apart from all question of cost, had no power at all to make any classification of any sort for this purpose.

Mr. GWYNNE

Classification such as this.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Very well. My point is that the Road Board have power under the statutory authority which constituted it, for their own purposes—not for Exchequer Grants, but for Grants from the Road Improvement Fund—to obtain, not to require, not to force upon local authorities, not to insist upon them supplying, but to invite local authorities, if they wish, to supply particulars of 3,000 or 4,000 points, just as they have already invited local authorities to supply particulars with regard to 1,000 points, and the local authorities have gladly done so. Since it was possible for them to make this classification for their own purposes, obviously it was not impossible for them to make that classification in such a form that it should be useful simultaneously for the Grants in aid of rates, which the Government contemplated distributing. That is the whole story.

Mr. GWYNNE

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. Member, who has made one speech at the beginning of this Debate and a great number of supplementary speeches since, has continually asserted that we are requiring local authorities to supply particulars, or that the Road Board is requiring local authorities to supply particulars. The Road Board has done nothing of the kind. No local authority need supply any particulars if it does not wish to do so. There is no statutory power to require local authorities to supply particulars—none, and no compulsion is exercised or is contemplated to be exercised on the local authorities.

Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)

Or will be exercised?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Or will be exercised. The Road Board has never exercised such compulsion, and never will. The local authorities are well aware that since the whole purpose of this classification is to enable them to receive £1,250,000 more annually than they have received before, they are probably most willing to co-operate with the Road Board in the future as they have done in the past by supplying any particulars that may be desirable or necessary. Next, hon. Members asserted that a great cost will be imposed upon the local authorities. That has not been the experience in the past. These local authorities have had experience of similar circulars, or rather similar requests, dealing with particular cases, and a census of this kind has been taken frequently and at very small cost. The local authorities will not be required to employ numbers of highly-paid officials. As a matter of fact, when these censuses have been taken hitherto they have usually employed their own road men—sometimes their own policemen and sometimes police pensioners—at a very small cost, and it has been found in the past that the average expenditure for each census point is about 30s.

Mr. SANDERS

For how long a time?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For the whole period. I believe it is only for one week. All that is required is that a man or two men shall stand at a given point. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many hours?"]

Mr. GWYNNE

For sixteen hours a day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must again protest against hon. Members interrupting the Debate by interjections. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) had a full half-hour, and what he could not get in in that time he ought to be content to leave out.

Mr. GWYNNE

rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Docs the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. GWYNNE

Yes, Sir. I desire to say I was answering the question the right hon. Gentleman had put to me as to the time. He did not know the details of the circular, and, as I was well informed on that point, I gave the time to him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member had a copy of the circular in his hand, and so had the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. GWYNNE

He had not read it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It was a perfectly unnecessary interjection.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For sixteen hours a man has to stand at this particular point during seven days; consequently, it would be necessary to employ two men. As the local authorities employ their own road men, or policemen, or police pensioners, it is found in practice, and I am informed that this is the experience, that the average cost is about 30s. per point. As the Road Board only requisitioned for particulars at one point in every 10 miles on a rural road, and as, probably, 4,000 or 5,000 points will be sufficient, for the whole country, the expenditure for taking the censuses themselves will be in the neighbourhood of £6,000 or £7,000 divided among about sixty-four county authorities. There may be some small additional expense for maps and for other purposes, but the whole amount is quite trivial in comparison with the immensely increased Grant of £1,250,000. Let the House remember that this expenditure is once and for all, or, at all events, would cover a period of years, while the Grants of £1,250,000 are not single Grants, but will go on annually until Parliament otherwise ordains. Let me further point out—I mention this incidentally—that it is advisable for their own purposes that the highway authorities should have some scientific knowledge of the amount of traffic upon their roads, in order that they may have the best guidance as to their maintenance. There is one other point. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said that we had insisted upon local authorities supplying information in the utmost haste upon which the classification was to be based; that we had left it to the clerks and surveyors to decide which roads they were to ask should come into Class A and Class B; that that was unfair to the clerks and surveyors; that the local authorities did not meet except at comparatively infrequent intervals; and that it was absurd to commit local authorities, with so-little period for consideration, to so grave a matter as the classification of the roads in their counties. That would have been a very serious and a very cogent charge if it had any basis at all. As a matter of fact, we have asked the local authorities to do nothing of the kind. The local authorities have not been asked to send in their proposals for the classification of their roads by the 18th May or any fixed date at all.

Mr. GWYNNE

Read the circular.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

They have not been asked without consulting with their local authorities to send in any such particulars. The hon. Member ejaculates that I should read the circular. The circular says, and this is the point:— Any highway authority intending to make proposals for the classification of roads within its area should on or before the 18th May in the present year send for approval of the Road Board a list of the points at which such highway authority proposes to take a traffic census. Not roads as classified, but a list of the points at which such highway authority-propose to take a traffic census.

Mr. GWYNNE

The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to the House what taking a traffic census means. It means that every road which comes under Class A or B has to have a traffic census taken, and the clerks and surveyors have to decide, if it falls to them to decide, which roads come under Class A and Class B.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

In the first place, I do not agree that the Committee cannot meet. They can meet at short notice, and are competent to deal with a preliminary point like this. The selection of census points does not in the least degree pledge the local authorities to any particular roads as either first-class or second-class roads, and the Road Board will be perfectly prepared to receive from any local authorities any supplementary list of census points or any variation of their original list which they have sent in. But it is necessary to have census points, and it is necessary that the Road Board should have cognisance of them, so that by their general knowledge of the roads of the country they can tell whether or not the census points chosen are likely to supply a fair test of the traffic passing along the roads which are the roads with which they deal.

Mr. SANDERS

May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman officially that a supplementary list will be allowed, because that is a point which is raising a good deal of difficulty. If we could have that cleared up it would ease the situation a great deal.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Certainly, I can give that assurance.

Mr. SANDERS

On behalf of the Road Board?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Yes. They inform me that they will accept such supplementary census points if the Local authority thinks it desirable to submit them or to alter its original list. Also the local authorities can send it in, if they so desire, later than 18th May if they find themselves not in a position to have done it by that date. The reason why it is advisable to have the information as soon as possible is this: In order to get the fullest traffic along the roads it is necessary that the census should be taken during the summer months, and that has been stated in the circular. If it is postponed too long the months will have passed when traffic over the roads is the heaviest; therefore it is desirable to have the census points chosen as quickly as possible. Secondly, the Government desire to distribute, if the House of Commons approves, a very considerable in- crease in the Grants this year. These Grants cannot be distributed until the classification is made, or, at all events, until the provisional classification is made, and therefore if you postpone the classification you necessarily postpone the Grant, and if you have no classification at all you can have no Grant.

Hon. Members opposite are continually pressing me for information as to the amount of additional Grants which will go to each locality in the country. It is impossible to give that information until there is at least a provisional classification of the roads. Therefore, for the convenience of the House of Commons itself, it is very desirable that this information should be obtained as soon as possible. I am informed by the Road Board that no local authority has refused to give this information. No local authority has even complained in respect of it, and the Local Government Board also has received no complaint and no representation from any local authority. On the contrary, a vast mass of material has come to the Road Board from the various local authorities. They have not yet had time to tabulate it, but so far as we are aware there is no reluctance on the part of the highway authorities of the country to assist the Road Board in every way they can with the utmost expedition in their power, in order to secure at the earliest possible date a large increase of Grants for road maintenance, of which they have so long stood so sorely in need.

Mr. CHAPLIN

The right hon. Gentleman told us in ominous tones that if you postpone this classification you postpone the Grants, and if there is no classification you will get no Grant at all. Why is it that all these questions, which have got us in such a tangle to-night, have not been considered and thrashed out before? All these proposals were made in the Budget. Apparently we now learn for the first time that they were all made completely in the dark, without any knowledge whatever on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what the basis of distribution was to be, how the Grants were to take effect, and who would get them and who would not. The right hon. Gentleman handed me the circular which has been the subject of so much discussion. The first thing I find in it is that they have been requested by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it could be used as a basis for Grants-in-Aid of maintenance and expenditure. That shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the first time in the history of any Budget I have ever heard of—and I have heard some five and forty—had no idea of what was going to be the effect of his Budget than the man in the Moon. He did not even know what was to be the basis of distribution of all these Grants, which we are told are to be given in aid of local taxation. If I had elicited that alone, I think I have done quite enough to more than justify the Motion. I am entitled to remind the House what it was that my hon. Friends complained of, and what were the questions upon which they desired to elicit information. The first was, had the Government a right to place any burden on the local authorities without having obtained Parliamentary authority to do it? The second was, had they the right to do it through the Road Board. The third was, have they the right to do it for the purpose of immediately starting a scheme for classification. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that there was to be no imposition by the Government of any burden upon the rates at all. I understand that the work, whatever it is, is to be carried out, of course, through the rates. Is that so?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly interpreted what I said. There is no imposition upon the local authorities. They have not been required to do anything at all. They have been asked to furnish information. It will be collected at their cost, which we anticipate will be very small.

Mr. CHAPLIN

They are expected to do it at the cost of the rates. I am old-fashioned enough to remember the days when there was a strong party in favour of the reform of local taxation, which generally managed to get their way, and any proposals of any kind to add fresh burdens to the rates, when they were imposed for national purposes, were always opposed, objected to, and, as a rule, thrown out at once. These good old days are over. That is why hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who still preserve some of the old traditions, have been led to believe that burdens imposed on one class of property only were most unfair. Those who hold these opinions have every right to be watchful when we see the action which is being taken at this moment under a Government which, if it has been remarkable for anything at all, has been remarkable for overriding the powers of local authorities in all parts of the country, passing Bills day after day for imposing further burdens on them. They have actually been getting powers to impose those burdens on them over their heads and against their will by Acts of Parliament. You cannot be surprised that there is great watchfulness on this side of the House now. Why have we got into all this tangle to-night? Why has this question arisen at all? It is because we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduces a Budget with all kinds of proposals, which may be good for all I know, and possibly some of them may be the reverse, without having taken the trouble to ascertain in the least what the effect of his proposals is going to be. It is on that account that he has been obliged to take the course indicated in the circular which was handed to me by the President of the Local Government Board.

Mr. ALBERT SMITH

I understand that the motive for moving the Adjournment was to ascertain whether the Government had power to put this expense on the local authorities without the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has cleared that matter up. I wish to say a word in regard to the local authorities in connection with this matter. It has been stated that the Government has no power to put any expense whatever on local authorities to ascertain the nature and condition of their roads in regard to the Grant they are to get from the £1,250,000. I would like to know what local authority there is in the country who would refuse to spend something to ascertain the nature and condition of their roads with the view perhaps of getting what would be equal to a threepenny rate in return! With regard to the argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made these proposals in the dark, I would ask any hon. Member who has had to do with a local authority whether he does not know quite well of the heavy burdens imposed on the ratepayers at the present time. I feel perfectly sure that the relief offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be welcomed by every local authority, and I think the House would do well to reject the Motion for the Adjournmen.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Smith) seems to have missed the whole point of the Motion before the House. He seems to suggest that this Motion was directed against the Grants proposed to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relief of local taxation. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of the ground of the Motion. The ground of the Motion was not to prevent local authorities from getting a share of the Grant, but to prevent the Government by means of the Road Board putting burdens on the local authorities without Parliamentary sanction. It is no use hon. Members saying that the cost that is to be put upon the local authorities is comparatively small when viewed in relation to the largo Grant which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to give to the local authorities. That is not the point we are discussing. What we are discussing is, whether the Government has any right at all to cause the Road Board to put this expense on the local authorities without Parliamentary sanction. The hon. Member opposite has endeavoured to saddle the Opposition with some desire to prevent the local authorities receiving Grants, and it is just as well that the House should know that there is not the slightest foundation whatever for the suggestion. Quite the contrary; the Opposition are doing their duty to the House and the country in calling attention to an insidious form of putting an extra burden on the local authorities without Parliametary sanction. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said that the Road Board had authority to call for a classification of roads, but I did not understand him to say that they had power to pay for it. I am not quite sure that there was not some mental reservation in his statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Road Board has power to pay for a survey and census such as is demanded from the local authorities?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For their own purposes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

I wonder why he does not persuade the Road Board to do it for their own purposes at their own expense. Why should he call upon the local authorities to do it at their expense? [Interruption.] I do not mind one interruption, but half a dozen become unintelligible. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Road Board has power to spend money for this purpose, why does he require the work to be done at the expense of the local authorities? I wonder if the real explanation is not to be found in the report of the Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation. Clause 9, Sub-section 8 of the Report, states that the finding of the Committee is that the necessary Parliamentary authority should be obtained as soon as possible to enable the Road Board to commence a provisional classification of roads. From that it would appear that the Committee certainly thought the Road Board had no power. The right hon. Gentleman said that since then they have considered the matter further, and that they think it has got power. If they think so, why on earth does not the Road Board make the classification without calling upon the local authorities to bear any part of the expense? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no sort of compulsion on a local authority to make the expenditure. Technically that is true, but it is not the real fact. The right hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities have the alternative of saying at which points the census will be taken before 18th May. In order to make that statement to the Road Board, they have to make up their minds which classification the roads are to fall into.

Mr. LEIF JONES

indicated dissent.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

Then the hon. Gentleman who interrupted mo read the request in the wrong way. I am not in the least surprised, for he frequently reads things wrongly. The fact is that this is stated in the circular— Any highway authority intending to make rules for the Classification of roads within its area should in or before the 18th of May, of the present year, send for the approval of the Road Board a list of the points at which such authority intends to take a traffic census. This list is Form No. 1:— The number of census points will he determined with regard to the character of each road proposed to be classified. How can the local authorities say how many census points they are going to take except in connection with the character of each road proposed to be classified? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"] What I have said is quite accurate. They have got to make up their minds which classification is going to be adopted in regard to the road before they can settle the point. The document proceeds:— But generally speaking, it will be sufficient to have on rural roads an average of one census point per ten miles of road. What on earth has that got to do with it? I have read the rest of the sentence, which is perfectly meaningless. I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen, if they want, to read any more. On the question of expense, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was only going to be £6,000 or £7,000—quite a small matter. He got a little involved in his arithmetic, even in regard to that figure, because he seems to suggest that watching roads for eight hours a day, employing two men for seven days, could be done for 30s. I do not think that that is a possible figure. I do not think that you can carry out even the points census at less than twice the figure named. But that is not all the expense. There are, in addition, ordnance maps, surveys, and various other things to be done. It is very curious that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that all that work can be carried out for from £6,000 to £7,000, while the Road Board for merely checking the work of the local authority would incur an expenditure of £8,000. Of course, one

does know that in duplicating officials in Government Departments, a great deal of money is wasted, but even under this Government it would scarcely be possible to spend £8,000 on the supervision of work costing only £6,000. I think that my hon. Friend is not only justified in calling the attention of this House to the gross abuse of powers by the Local Government Board, but that he would have done very wrong if he had not done so. I know that hon. Members opposite are desirous of making what political capital they can out of the suggestion that this Motion is, in fact, in opposition to the Grants. I only ask them at least to credit the Opposition with this sense, that they are unlikely to oppose anything which will give relief that is proposed.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn.

The House divided: Ayes, 110;. Noes, 229.

Division No. 110.] AYES. [9.50 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Du Pre, W. Baring Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Astor, Waldorf Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Perkins, Walter F.
Baird, John Lawrence Gibbs, G. A. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Stanley Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Pretyman, Ernest George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Rees, Sir J. D.
Barnston, Harry Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Beresford, Lord Charles Hills, John Waller Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Bird, Alfred Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyton, James Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Starkey, John R.
Bull, Sir William James Hunt, Rowland Staveley-Hill, Henry
Burdett-Coutts, W. Ingleby, Holcombe Stewart, Gershom
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Joynson-Hicks, William Talbot, Lord Edmund
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Thompson, Robert (Belfast. North)
Campion, W. R. Kerry, Earl of Tickler, T. G.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Kinloch-Cogke, Sir Clement Touche, George Alexander
Cassel, Felix Kyffin-Taylor, G. Tryon, Captain George dement
Cator, John Lewisham, Viscount Watson, Hon. W.
Cave, George Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Weigall, Captain A. G.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R Wilson, Hon. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wolmer, Viscount
Clive, Captain Percy Archer M'Neill. Ronald (Kent. St. Augustine's) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Courthope, George Loyd Magnus, Sir Philip Worthington Evans, L.
Craik, Sir Henry Malcolm, Ian Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Denniss, E. R. B. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Dixon, C. H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Rupert Gwynne and Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward Mount, William Arthur Helmsley.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Arnold, Sydney Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Acland, Francis Dyke Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Beck, Arthur Cecil
Adamson, William Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)
Agnew, Sir George William Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Boland, John Pius
Ainsworth, John Stirling Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Booth, Frederick Handel
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Barton, William Bowerman, Charles W.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Beale, Sir William Phipson Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hogge, James Myles Parry, Thomas H.
Brocklehurst, William B. Holmes, Daniel Turner Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Brunner, John F. L. Holt, Richard Durning Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)
Bryce, John Annan Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hudson, Walter Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Byles, Sir William Pollard John, Edward Thomas Pratt, J. W.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chancellor, Henry George Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Clough, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Radford, George Heynes
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Joyce, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Kellaway, Frederick George Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell '(South Shields)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kelly, Edward Reddy, Michael
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kilbride, Denis ' Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cotton, William Francis King, Joseph Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Crooks, William Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Crumley, Patrick Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cullinan, John Lardner, James C. R. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Robinson, Sidney
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Levy, Sir Maurice Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)
Dawes, James Arthur Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Roche, Augustine (Louth)
De Forest, Baron Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roe, Sir Thomas
Delany, William Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Rowlands, James
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lundon, Thomas Rowntree, Arnold
Devlin, Joseph Lynch, Arthur Alfred Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Dewar, Sir J. A. Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Dillon, John Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Donelan, Captain A. McGhee, Richard Scanlan, Thomas
Doris, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Sherwell, Arthur James
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shortt, Edward
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) M'Callum, Sir John M. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Manfield, Harry Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm, S.)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Marks, Sir George Croydon Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Esslemont, George Birnie Marshall, Arthur Harold Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Falconer, James Mason, David M. (Coventry) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Farrell, James Patrick Meagher, Michael Tennant, Harold John
Firencn, Peter Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Field, William Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Middlebrook, William Verney, Sir Harry
Fitzgibbon, John Millar, James Duncan Walton, Sir Joseph
Flavin, Michael Joseph Molloy, Michael Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Molteno, Percy Alport Waring, Walter
Geider, Sir W. A. Money, L. G. Chiozza Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Gill, A. H. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Glinville, Harold James Mooney, John J. Watt, Henry A.
Goldstone, Frank Morrell, Philip Webb, H.
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Morison, Hector White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Greig, Colonel J. W. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Griffith, Ellis Jones Muldoon, John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Murphy, Martin J. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Hackett, John Nolan, Joseph Wilkie, Alexander
Hancock, John George Norton, Captain Cecil W Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Doherty, Philip Williamson, Sir Archibald
Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, Thomas Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hayward, Evan O'Dowd, John Wing, Thomas Edward
Hazleton, Richard O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Hemmerde, Edward George O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Yeo, Alfred William
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Malley, William Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Henry, Sir Charles O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Young, William (Perth, East)
Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Higham, John Sharp O'Shee, James John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Hinds, John O'Sullivan, Timothy Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Question put and agreed to.