Commons Sitting of 13 June 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Battersea and Clapham (Clapham Division), in the room of George Denison Faber, Esquire, C.B. (Chiltern Hundreds). — [Lord Edmund Talbot.]
MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1913.
Copy presented of Fourth Annual Report of the General Board of Control for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland for 1917–18 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Orders in Council, dated 4th June, 1918, approving Memorials of the LordsCommissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
AIR FORCE (CONSTITUTION) ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of final Order in Council, dated 4th June, 1918, entitled the Air Force (Application of Enactments) (No. 3) Order, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 AND 1906.
Copy presented of final Order in Council, dated 4th June, 1918, making Regulations as to the Registry of Government Ships in the Service of the War Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 4th June, 1918, amending the Order of 4th July, 1908, with respect to the taking of Depositions of Injured Seamen in the Protectorate of Nigeria [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 4th June, 1918, amending the Orders of the 4th March, 1918 (2), and the 22nd March, 1918, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BELLIGERENT MERCHANT VESSELS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 12, 1918).
Copy presented of Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Netherlands Government respecting the treatment by the latter of belligerent Merchant Vessels whose status has been changed as there sult of an act of War. Part I. Cases of the steamships "Maria" and "Huntstrick." Part II. German Ships at Antwerp at the outbreak of the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Tea (Retail Prices) Order, 1918; Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order, 1918, General Licence; Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery), No. 2, Order, 1918; Edible Oils and Oil and Fat Compounds (Distribution) Order, 1918; Canteens and Hostels (Licensing) Order, 1918; and Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) (Ireland) Order, 1918; made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SINKING FUNDS.
Order [30th April] that the Account relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Address for "Return of Copy of Minute by the Secretary of State for India stating the circumstances under which four members of his permanent establishment have been retained in the service after they have attained the age of sixty-five. "— [Mr. Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    LUXURY DUTY.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain a Report from His Majesty's representatives in France with regard to the actual working of the Luxury Tax to supplement the White Paper already circulated, causing particular attention to be directed to the following three points: whether experience so far indicates that the yield to the tax is equal to what was anticipated, whether the system of collection is found to work easily, and whether any serious friction has been caused either amongst the trading classes or the general population by the attempt to carry the new law into effect?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the best way of obtaining information with regard to the working of this tax in France.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that he will put it at the disposal of the House before we have to take up this matter here?
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the question is coming up, as I suppose it will, for discussion in the House, I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will desire the House to be in possession of all the information available, but evidently that is rather outside my business to answer.

    CHINA (SHAMEEN).

      ENEMY SUBJECTS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was on his own personal authority or under instructions from the Foreign Office, when China declared war upon Germany, that His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton informed the Germans in the British Concession on the island of Shameen that they could remain there; and whether those Germans are still living on the British Concession?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Shortly after the declaration of war by China on the Central powers, His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton suggested to His Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Peking that all enemy subjects in the British Concession on Shameen should be placed under police supervision. Having received telegraphic sanction to this proposal, His Majesty's Consul-General issued a consular notification informing all German and Austro-Hungarian subjects resident in the British Concession on Shameen that thenceforward they were municipally under the supervision and control of the British Consulate-General, and that they would only be allowed to remain in the Concession subject to their observance of the conditions stated in the answer to the question put by the hon. Member on the 21st January.
      As explained in that answer and in the answer to the hon. Member's subsequent question of the 15th April, the enemy subjects, twelve in number, who still remain in the British Concession on Shameen are those who have observed the conditions laid down in the Consular notification.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman now cancel these conditions to which he has referred and order these Germans to be expelled from the British Concession on Shameen, and has his attention been called to the articles in the Hong Kong Press showing the intense feeling there is in that colony on the subject?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think those questions arise out of the question on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put them down.

    MRS. PANKHURST (VISIT TO AMERICA).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the policy of restricting as far as possible ocean travelling of women, he will state the reasons for granting a permit to Mrs. Pankhurst to visit the United States; whether she has gone as a representative of, or commissioned by, the British Government; and whether the cost of her journey is to be defrayed from public funds?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Mrs. Pankhurst was permitted to travel from Paris to the United States of America, as it was considered to be in the Allied interest that she should go. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Is it in her interest to go because of the failure of previous gentlemen who have been on propaganda missions, like the Archbishop of York and the Attorney-General?
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER: May I ask whether, from all the information in our possession, my right hon. Friend is aware that the mission of the Archbishop of York was an immense success?
    Mr. BALFOUR: That is so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a great jump— from Mrs. Pankhurst to the Archbishop.
    Mr. KING: I will call attention to this on a suitable occasion.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why another woman, Miss Margaret Bonfield, a delegate from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress to America, was refused?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that. He must not use Mrs. Pankhurst as a peg.

    LAND FOR SOLDIERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how much land has been allotted by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners in Ireland under the Land Purchase Acts since the commencement of the War up to date to the families of men who have served in the War and to those who have not so served, respectively?
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in the distribution of lands acquired by the State the promise made by the Government that men who had volunteered for service or who have served should have preferential consideration has been largely disregarded by the officials who make the distribution; and will he see that all cases where land has been refused to soldiers or ex-soldiers or their wives will be again considered, and an endeavour made to provide them with the land they ask for?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): About 850 acres of land have been allotted by the Estates Commissioners within the last eighteen months to persons to whom the Commissioners can make allotments of untenanted lands under their existing statutory powers, and who have been selected because they themselves were serving, or had served, in the War, or had members of their families so serving. The policy of the Congested Districts Board is also to allot lands to persons who have so served, by themselves or their sons, but owing to the present limited powers of the Board only a small number of families have as yet been qualified to receive allotments in the congested districts.
    There is no foundation for the suggestion made against public officials in the question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Enfield Division (Major Newman).
    Colonel YATE: I do not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer how much land has been given to the families of men who are not old soldiers?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have not the details at present.
    Colonel YATE: It is in the question.
    Major NEWMAN: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my question, could I send him details of cases where the Board have not given land to soldiers, and have treated the soldiers rather roughly.?
    Mr. SAMUELS: If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish any particular instance, I will have inquiry made. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate), I will have the further information looked for.
    Colonel YATE: I will put down a question next week.
    Major NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to send me back my letters?
    Mr. SAMUELS: That question does not arise here.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, for the benefit of Members called on to discuss the proposed distribution of land to soldiers, he will give a definition of what is meant in Ireland by untenanted land; and can he give any estimate of the amount of untenanted land at the present date?
    Mr. SAMUELS:The discussion of a suitable definition of untenanted land would be more appropriate during the consideration of a Bill, and I cannot undertake to go into the technicalities of the subject in reply to a question. There is no exhaustive definition of untenanted land in the Land Purchase Code, but the term has been interpreted by certain legal decisions. Speaking generally, untenanted land is land not subject to a tenancy, but the fact that land is not subject to a tenancy does not ipsn facto constitute it land which could be purchased as untenanted land under the Land Purchase Acts. As to the last part of the question, I have no information at present, but inquiries are being made pending which no statement can be furnished.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether a copy of that answer will be given to every man who is asked to recruit?
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has read the recommendations made by the late Irish Convention that the landlords' interest in all tenanted land should be automatically and compulsorily transferred to the tenant or to the State, and that within certain districts all untenanted land should be compulsorily acquired by the State, and in the rest of Ireland additional powers to those already existing be granted to the State to compulsorily acquire land; and is it intended to base the acquisition of land for the settlement of soldiers on the lines so recommended?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I have nothing to add to the reply given on Tuesday to a number of questions on this subject.
    16.Mr. KING: asked whether before Lord French's Proclamation offering land
    2348
    to recruits in Ireland was issued the advice was taken of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board; and whether their full co-operation is secured for the Government proposals?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes, Sir.

    MEETING, COUNTY CORK (AEROPLANES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 26th May there was held at Cullen, county Cork, an aeridhacht, and during the singing and performances not only were many police present but five aeroplanes appeared and for over an hour circled over the meeting, descending to the closest possible proximity to the crowd and drowning by their din the children's music, and that flame rockets were dropped from the planes close to the crowd, one of which set light to a thatched roof; whether the reinforcement of the police in this manner was by his orders or has his sanction; and, if not, will he call for a report on this occurrence?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I a minformed that a meeting took place at Cullen on the 26th May. The first part of the proceedings was for children and occupied less than half an hour. The rest of the meeting was occupied by speeches.
    As regards the aeroplanes, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for War yesterday.
    I am informed that the people were more attracted by the flights of the aeroplanes, which were a novelty, than of the orators. Five police were present, but neither they nor my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had anything to do with the appearance of the aeroplanes. There is no information as to the setting fire to a thatched roof by a flame rocket.
    Mr. KING: May I ask whether the aeroplanes were not sent down as near as possible to the meeting, when the children were performing, and on future occasions of a similar character can that part of the aeroplane performance be deferred, so as not to interfere with little children's work?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I understand the meeting was what the hon. Member calls

    2349
    an aeridbacht, and that the aeridbacht was eclipsed by the aeroplanes. I have not the least doubt that they were much more entertaining and edifying.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RECRUITING (IRELAND).
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Government or the Director of National Service is the responsible authority for recruiting in Ireland; and what civilian appointments have recently been made to deal with recruiting and what further appointments it is intended to make?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Recruiting in Ireland will be under the direction of the Irish Government. As far as possible the work of recruiting will be carried out by voluntary effort, but some appointments will, no doubt, have to be made. Steps are being taken to raise local committees in each district. I can make no further state at present.
      General McCALMONT: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the appointments announced in the Press are unauthorised?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am not responsible for anything that appears in the Press.
      Mr. ROCH:May I ask whether Colonel Maclean has been appointed Chief Director of Recruiting in Ireland?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am not in a position to make any further statements.
      Major NEWMAN: Why are these statements in the Press not submitted to the Press Censor first of all—they are very misleading?
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the immediate intentions of the Irish Government with regard to the recruiting problem, as explained by the special correspondents of newspapers published in this country, are submitted to the Irish Press Censor before transmission and represent the Government's policy; whether it is intended to use a large display of picture posters, one of the most striking of which will be a. figure of an Irish kiltie in the national colours and adornments of the garb worn in the West; whether prominent landlords and popular peers have been asked and signified their intention
      2350
      of raising regiments; whether American regiments with their priests will be brought to Ireland to march about the country; and is he aware that the licence of description allowed to these special correspondents will have the effect of bringing ridicule on the endeavour about to be made to attract recruits?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The Chief Secretary is not responsible for the articles written by newspaper correspondents, and the fact that they may be submitted to and passed by the Press Censor does not make them authoritative statements of Government policy. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the rest of the question, my right hon. Friend can make no statement at present.
      Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will explain on what basis the equitable ratio of recruits from Ireland, stated in the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation to be 50,000 before the 1st October, has been calculated; and if he will give the reasons for the difference between this 50,000 and 161,239 given in Cd. 8390 as the estimated number of men available for military service on the 15th October, 1916, after making all deductions for men whose labour was considered indispensable and for physically unfit men?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The Return compiled by the Irish Registrar-General, to which the hon. Member alludes, estimated the number of men available for military service in Ireland in October, 1916, at 161,239, but Lord Wimborne's report on recruiting In Ireland issued earlier in the same year estimated the number available at about 100,000. Since October, 1916, about 40,000 men have left Ireland for munition and other Government work in Great Britain, and over 20,000 have joined His Majesty's forces. About 1,500,000 additional acres have been put under tillage in 1917 and in the present season, which entails a great increase in the amount of agricultural labour required. It is true that this is counterbalanced to some extent by the youths who have reached military age in the interval and by the stoppage of emigration; but all the circumstances having been carefully considered, it was decided that 50,000 men would represent an equitable contribution from Ireland.
      Colonel YATE: Considering the population of Ireland in proportion to that of

      2351
      England, Scotland, and Wales, would not 450,000 recruits be nearer the mark as to the number available in Ireland than the 50,000 now put down?
      General CROFT: And will my hon. and learned Friend compare it with Australia?
      Sir E. CARSON: Will he take into account the large number who have come over to Great Britain for munitions and other work who will now be liable for service?
      Mr. KING: Are not all these suggested comparisons misleading, because the average age of the population in Ireland is so very much higher?

      VOLUNTARY SERVICE (IRELAND).
      Mr. PENNE FATHERasked the Prime Minister whether, under the Proclamation recently issued in Ireland, men who volunteer in Ireland in 1918 and who only serve for the concluding period of the War will obtain any preferences or advantage over men who volunteered in England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales in 1914, 1915, 1916, or 1917, and who have in many cases been wounded and discharged?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I have been asked to reply, and I cannot add anything to the statement which I made on Tuesday.

      MUNITION WORKERS.
      Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware of the resentment which is being caused in many places, and especially in munition areas, by the fact that men up to the age of forty-eight are being called up under the Military Service Act while many hundreds of young men in such areas are exempt because they are in possession of exemption certificates; whether such certificates have been in numerous instances granted without sufficient cause or consideration; and whether he will take steps in order that such certificates may be reviewed?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject referred to in his question receives the constant attention of the Minister of National Service. I have carefully read the correspondence which my hon. Friend has kindly submitted to the Ministry. I understand that
      2352
      the references are to protection certificates issued under the Schedule of Protected Occupations, M.M.130 (revised), and are not certificates granted by tribunals. The Schedule in question was revised in February last with a view to releasing as many Grade 1 men as is consistent with maintaining the output of essential war supplies.

      DISCHARGED MEN.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of National Service whether he is yet in a position to announce the special scheme for recruiting men on special terms who have already served; and whether he has consulted any of the discharged men's organisations in the matter and, if so, which?
      Mr. BECK: As the result of representations made by certain ex-soldiers, arrangements were made by this Ministry for a deputation to meet and discuss with the War Office certain questions connected with their patriotic offer of voluntary re-enlistment. No announcement as to any decision on the question has so far been made by the War Office.
      Mr. HOGGE: Would my hon. Friend state the names of the discharged men at this conference?
      Mr. BECK: I must have notice of that question.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is in the question, and the question has been down three days.
      Mr. BECK: I do not think that there is anything in the question as to names. The question is: "Whether he has consulted any of the discharged men's organisations in the matter, and, if so, which?
      Mr. HOGGE: I will repeat the question, seeing that my hon. Friend cannot read.

      CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the case of Evan Jones, of Penybont, Pencae, Breconshire, who is one of five brothers, none of whom are in the Army; whether he is aware that this man is a Class A man and has been told by the local and Appeal Tribunals that he has to serve in the Army, but that he has been engaged by the Penwyllt Brickworks and has obtained exemption through the action of the manager; and will he state why this has been given, and make inquiries?
      Mr. BECK:I was not aware of the facts of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am making inquiries, and will inform him of the result as soon as possible.
      Sir ALPHEUS MORTONasked the Minister of National Service whether, and, if so, will he say why, John Taylor Black, of Kildonan, Sutherland, had his calling-up notice in the first instance cancelled; and if he is aware that after ten weeks' service this man was discharged and granted a temporary pension?
      Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

      MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that in the medical examinations of men which are now proceeding complaints are continually being made of the cursory and inadequate nature of the examination; that men are not afforded any opportunity of stating the maladies or defects from which they suffer or of giving any information as to their health; and that certificates of specialists or of their medical attendants produced by the examinees are frequently ignored; and whether he will issue instructions that all these matters shall in future receive proper and adequate attention?
      Mr. BECK: Certain complaints of cursory and inadequate examination by National Service medical boards have been made. They have been comparatively few, and on investigation have generally proved not to be well founded. Under the sectional method of examination adequate time must necessarily be devoted to the examination of each man. Great care is taken under instructions issued by the Ministry to take into consideration any information given to the Board, either in the form of medical certificates or verbally, by the men themselves. Moreover, any man who is dissatisfied has a right to lodge an application with the Appeal Tribunal for examination by medical assessors of the Local Government Board. It is not necessary to state that I am grateful at having any cases of hardship brought to my notice. All such cases are fully investigated.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fifteen minutes which used to be devoted to the medical examination of each man has now been reduced to seven minutes?
      Mr. BECK: I think my hon. Friend is quite mistaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
      Mr. HARCOURT: Are they bound to take into account the certificates of private practitioners?
      Mr. BECK: Most explicit instructions to that effect are issued, and every medical board I have seen personally has a notice up asking men to produce any medical certificates that they bring with them.
      Mr. MORRELL: Are they included in the hurried and sketchy instructions the hon. Gentleman told us of yesterday?
      Mr. BECK: I did not say anything of the kind. Our instructions are most elaborate and are published. The hon. Member asked for all the instructions of the most formal character issued by the Director of Medical Services. Some of those are very slight in character, being in the nature of one or two-line communications dealing with most trivia] matters. That was what I referred to.
      Mr. FRANCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of appeals has increased enormously since this change has been made in the medical board?
      Mr. BECK:I do not think that the percentage of appeals has been increased, but the number of appeals has increased because of the enormous number of men called to the Colours.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    General McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether questions as to the removal or internment of aliens in important coastal areas in Ireland are dealt with in consultation with the local naval and military authorities direct or with the higher authorities of both forces; and whether he will give the approximate date of the most recent consultation and consequent decision to leave enemy aliens at large on the county Antrim coast?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am making inquiries.
    Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the housekeeper at 24, Austin Friars, is Heinrich Henke, an unnaturalised German subject, and that Henke expressed anti-British views on a recent

    2355
    enemy advance; and whether he will consider the advisability of interning this alien?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): Henke has been exempted from repatriation on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, in view of the facts that he. came to this country at the age of nineteen, has resided here for thirty-nine years, is married to a British born wife, and has a British-born son serving in the Navy. My inquiries show that allegations were made in 1914 and 1915 that he had expressed anti-British views, but these allegations, when investigated by the police, were found to be groundless. No suggestion that he has recently expressed anti-British views has reached me or the police, but if the right hon. Baronet will furnish me with the facts on which the statement in his question is based, I will make further inquiry.
    General CROFTasked whether any letters patent have been granted to enemy aliens during the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The policy of the Board of Trade throughout the War has been to refuse to grant any letters patent to enemy aliens during the War. The only exceptions to this rule, so far as I am aware, are a very few cases—not, I think, more than three or four in all—where the whole interest in the patent had been assigned for consideration duly paid previous to the War to a British subject, and the grant of the patent was necessary for the protection of the British assignees. The agreement for assignment has, of course, been registered in each case in the Patent Office on the grant of the patent.
    General CROFT: Is it not the fact that applications have been received and accepted by the Britsh Patent Office; is it not also the fact that the same thing was happening in the United States of America, and that President Wilson put an end to it; and may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that there have been actual cases as late as 1917? Might I refer him— [HON. MEMBERS: Order!"] Has he seen the question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member ought to put some of those questions on the Paper. He has asked at least three or four.
    General CROFT: May I ask a simple question with regard to one case? If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps it would be better to put that question down. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot expect the Minister to carry the details of all these cases in his head.
    General CROFT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I have asked this question twice or thrice already—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. and gallant Member ought to be satisfied.

    BOY SCOUTS (IRELAND).
    15. Mr. KING: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that his predecessor in office and the Prime Minister have given assurances that the Boys Scouts' movement, should not be interfered with in Ireland; whether he can explain the arrest of Bemera Thompson, aged sixteen, at Carrick-on-Suir, and his being charged under the Crimes Act, 1870, his offence being that he, as Scout leader, led smaller boys out into the country on a march; and whether this boy will be immediately released and the prosecution dropped?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am making inquiries into this case.

    ESTATES COMMISSIONERS (SIR E. O'FARRELL'S APPOINTMENT).
    Mr. KING: asked whether Sir Edward O'Farrell has been made an Estates Commissioner, thus filling an office which had been kept vacant for twelve months on the grounds of economy; and whether there is now less need for financial economy than previously in Ireland, or what other reason can be given for this appointment?
    Mr. SAMUELS: As the senior Estates Commissioner is acting as Chairman of the Irish Food Control Committee, a post for which he is eminently fitted, it was necessary to fill up the vacancy in order that the work of both Departments might be properly carried out.
    Mr. KING: Has this been done with due regard to economy, or has the old rate of pay and scales been revised?

    RUSSIANS IN EAST LONDON.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed by the Mile End Guardians regarding Russians resident in the East End of London; and whether arrangements will now be made to re patriate all Russians of military age who have not enlisted, together with their wives and families?
    Mr. BRACE: I am aware that on the 3rd April the Mile End Guardians addressed a letter to the Prime Minister on the subject of allowances to the dependants of repatriated Russians. As regards the last part of the question, I can only say that the best course in present circumstances is being adopted, namely, Russian subjects of military age are being called up under the Anglo-Russian Military Service Convention for service in Labour Units.

    SUMMER TIME (EXTENSION).
    ColonelYATEasked the Home Secretary who are the objectors and what are the objections to putting on the clocks an extra hour during the height of summer?
    Mr. BRACE: I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Worcestershire, and to the statement made on behalf of the Government in another place on 14th May. The Committee reported unanimously against any system of successive variations. The proposal would greatly intensify the disadvantages already felt in connection with the present advance of the clock, particularly in agriculture and certain industries, and, as has been already stated by my right hon. Friend in reply to a previous question on the subject, there would be no substantial economy in lighting and fuel effected by the change.

    ROAD BOARD.
    General CROFTasked the Home Secretary whether there is a gentleman of German origin holding a responsible post in a Government office known as the Road Board; and whether, considering the fact that in this position he has access to important and confidential papers,
    2358
    documents, places, etc., relating to roads leading to dockyards, camps, aerodromes, munition works, etc., he will see the advisability of replacing him by a British subject of British birth, and of undoubted British origin?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. I presume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Mr. E. B. Wendt, a clerk in the service of the Road Board. Mr. Wendt was born of a German father and an English mother, and became a naturalised British subject when he entered the service of the Road Board at its inception in 1910. The chairman of the Road Board vouches for Mr. Wendt's integrity and loyalty, and assures me that he is a most efficient and experienced officer, whose services could not be dispensed with without serious detriment to the work of the Board.
    General CROFT: Is there no other gentleman who is really qualified for this work?
    General McCALMONT: Was there any reason why this gentleman should not have become naturalised before he got a Government appointment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I have no knowledge of that.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the Road Board still in existence—is it alive?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    HORSES IN MINES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary why the Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines for 1916 contain no particulars of the prosecutions for cruelty to horse sand ponies employed in the mines in that year, and do not give the numbers of the horses and ponies so employed or of those which died or were injured or had to be destroyed; and whether he will instruct the inspectors to give these particulars in their Reports for 1917?
    Mr. BRACE: Particulars as to the number and results of all prosecutions for breaches of the statutory provisions as to the care and treatment of animals in mines are given in Part II. of the Chief Inspector's General Report for 1916, pages 93x2013;94; and particulars as to the

    2359
    number of horses used in each division and as to cases of death and injury on page 71 of the same volume. Detailed reference to the more important cases is also made in the Reports of the divisional inspectors.. The same course will be followed in the Reports for 1917.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are these Reports in the same form as they were in the previous years, 1914 and 1915?
    Mr. BRACE: They are not so voluminous as before the War, but I think they are as in 1915.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: How many horse inspectors are there now in all the mines of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BRACE: May I have notice of that?

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that at Grimsby recently women have been charged under the new Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Act for soliciting a soldier while having venereal disease, and have been sent to prison without the soldier alleged to have been solicited appearing to give evidence; what action he proposes to take; (2) whether, in recent cases at East-bourne and Newport Pagnell, women charged under Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Act with having sexual intercourse with a soldier while having venereal disease have had their names and addresses published while the name of the infected soldier has been withheld; if so, whether he will give instructions that either the names of both the man and the woman be published or both be kept private; (3) whether he is aware that a woman at Oxford about 24th April and another woman a); Cambridge about 30th April were charged under Regulation 40 d; that military evidence was offered against them and in neither case was it proved by medical examination, etc., to which the women had to submit; that each woman was discharged, and that the prosecutions involved loss of employment, medical examinations, prison treatment, costs of lawyers, etc., and that no apology or redress was offered; and whether he has had reports on these cases?
    Mr. BRACE: None of the cases mentioned in these questions have come to-the notice of the Home Office. I am making inquiry with regard to them.

    CANADIAN FORESTRY CORPS (FIRE).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a fire occurred recently at Penrith Beacon by which hundreds of tons of waste wood, the product of felling operations by the Canadian Forestry Corps, were consumed; if he is aware that the amount of firewood thus destroyed is estimated to have been sufficient to supply the whole population of Penrith with fuel for twelve months; whether this destruction of material was the result of the terms on which the Canadian Forestry Corps were employed, and which rendered it impossible for the waste wood to be sold in then eighbourhood from time to time; and whether he has yet taken steps to prevent the possibility of a similar disaster occurring in other places where timber is being felled for Government order?
    Mr. WARDLE: A fire occurred at the mill of the Canadian Forestry Corps at Penrith on 7th June last. The wood consumed, amounting to 150 tons, was not waste wood, but saleable slab wood, which it is the practice of the Timber Supplies Department to dispose of either to the military authorities or by tender, at reasonable prices, to persons able to remove it. Every precaution is taken to prevent fires of the character of that referred to, and the number occurring has been very small compared with the number of mills operating.

    GERMAN BANKS (INDEBTEDNESS).

      STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR. LAW.
      General CROFT: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the indebtedness of the German banks to the Bank of England and to the other great City banks, respectively?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The indebtedness of the German banks to the Bank of England on the 31st May, 1918,

      2361
      arising out of advances made to meet acceptances under the Treasury scheme of September, 1914, amounted in the aggregate to £970,454, namely:

      Dresdner Bank

      …

      …

      £602,222

      Disconto Gesellschaft

      …

      …

      368,232

      £970,454

      No amounts are due by any of the German banks in London to joint stock banks in the City.
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the continuance of the German banks is a cause of uneasiness in business circles, the Government will order the German banks to be closed at once, undertaking to guarantee the Bank of England and the City banks against any loss resulting from such a policy rather than keep them open?
      Mr. BONAR LAW:To whatever extent the feeling of uneasiness referred to in the first part of the question exists, it is, I believe, due to a misunderstanding of the actual position. The banks are not open for business and have not been for nearly four years, except under strict supervision, to close pre-war transactions and to carry out orders made by the Court and by the Board of Trade for vesting enemy securities in the Custodian. This task is of great magnitude and is being proceeded with as promptly as possible as and when the orders are made. Considerable quantities of securities have already been passed to the Bank of England for account of the Custodian. The occupation of premises by the banks with adequate strong-room accommodation is not any justification for the statements so often made that the banks are carrying on business. The annual reports of the Controller make this fact quite clear.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any reason to hope that the liquidation of these banks will be completed finally in the course of the next six months or a year?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My information is that it cannot be finally completed till the end of the War without great loss of money, not to German but to British and Allied creditors.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible to give up the premises of the German banks and keep things in statu quo until the War is over, when any outstanding accounts can be readjusted?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is being done as far as possible. They are not in any sense acting as a bank at present.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether these banks, at the end of the War, in view of the way in which they are now being conducted, will be liable to be reopened in the interests of Germany?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the way they are being conducted will have any effect upon that point. The question surely is a question of destroying the goodwill. Under the law—unless the law is changed—any country at the end of the War may open banks; that is a question for the Government of that day, and also not a question by itself.
      Major BOWDEN: Will the law, in regard to Germany, be changed after the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously no one, speaking now, can say what the decision of the Government may be. Clearly the question is one which must be considered; but this does not apply to the banks alone, but to many other things.

    WOOLLEN MATERIAL.
    General CROFTasked what quantity of woollen material has been sent to Switzerland during the past twelve months?
    Mr. WARDLE: During the twelve months ended March, 1918, the imports into Switzerland of woollen manufactures from the United Kingdom amounted to 1,244 tons (metric). I may add that the total of such goods imported into Switzerland in the same year from all countries was 1,842 tons, compared with 3,368 tons in the last year before the War.

    STEEL.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a monopoly in the sale of steel in France has been granted to the Comité des Forges; if so, whether his attention has been drawn to the effect of this monopoly on English merchants engaged in this trade; and what steps he proposes to take to protect their interests?
    Mr. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question.

    2363
    The French Government appointed the body referred to by the right hon. Member to act as a distributing channel between the producers of steel in this country and the consumers in France. I believe that representations have been made in certain quarters on this subject by merchants engaged in this trade, and the system may have certain drawbacks, but the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement are of opinion that in the present circumstances it should not be interfered with.
    Sir C. SEELYasked the President of the Board of Trade the cost per ton, of steel exported, of the staff now engaged in controlling the distribution thereof to Allied countries; and whether he has made any inquiries as to the rate at which merchants previously engaged in that trade would be willing to undertake this work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not quite clear as to whether my hon. and my gallant Friend wishes to know the cost per ton of the steel exported to Allied countries or the cost of the staff engaged in controlling the distribution thereof measured. per ton of steel. If my hon. Friend means the first, it would be impossible to give a definite figure, as the cost varies from day to day, but the figure is based on the principle of actual cost. If my hon. Friend means the second, there is no special staff in this Department exclusively engaged on the work of controlling the distribution of steel to Allied countries. The allocation and distribution of supplies of steel to Allied countries are questions so closely bound up with the general problems of allocation and distribution that it would be impracticable and undesirable to establish a separate organisation for the purpose suggested in this question. My hon. Friend will see that, in these circumstances, no figure can be given as to the cost of staff involved in this work, nor could the work advantageously be undertaken by merchants.
    Sir C. SEELY: I must apologise if there is any error in the question. But I may say that there has been an unnecessary comma inserted. What I desire, of course, is the cost of the staff per ton of steel exported, not in proportion to the weight of the staff, but to the weight of steel.
    2364
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer the last part of the question: whether he has made any inquiries as to the rate at which merchants previously engaged in the trade would be willing to do the work? Perhaps he can give some idea how that compares with the present cost of staff.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have dealt with that point in my answer.

    SPECIAL TRAINS.
    Mr. FERENSasked whether all the railway companies some time ago agreed not to run special train; is he aware that the Great Eastern Railway Company ran an extra train to Newmarket from Liver pool Street on Tuesday, the 4th instant, and on Thursday, the 6th instant, an extra train back from Newmarket to Liverpool Street; and will he take steps to stop such action in future?
    Mr. WARDLE: I understand from the railway company that no additional trains were run between Liverpool Street and Newmarket on either of the dates mentioned.

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP (IRISH COAST).
    General McCALMONTasked whether an inquiry has been or will be held into the loss of all hands, except the master and three others, of a steamship sunk by enemy action off the South Irish coast; whether boats were carried swung out ready for launching; whether lifebelts were readily available for all hands; and whether he now has power to enforce such precautions on cross-channel and coast wise steamers and to insist upon the issue of lifebelts to all passengers?
    Mr. WARDLE: Full inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the loss of this ship as soon as the survivors (five out of a total complement of thirty-six) are sufficiently recovered, and a formal investigation will be ordered if this is found to be necessary. There were no passengers on board. From the evidence at present available, it appears that one boat was carried swung out, but there is no information at present as to the position of the lifebelts. I do not think that further powers are required to secure that all necessary life-saving precautions shall be taken on these cross-

    2365
    channel and coastwise steamers, but if any difficulty were experienced the Board of Trade would not hesitate to apply for further powers.
    General McCALMONT: Are we to understand that the Board has no power to enforce the issue of lifebelts to passengers on a passenger steamer?
    Mr. WARDLE: No. The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to draw that conclusion.

    COAL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that stocks of coal in large cities are near exhaustion; that prospects of replenishment are doubtful; and that the acquisition of unduly large amounts by aliens in the United Kingdom is regarded with the strongest disapproval by local authorities, who are endeavouring in the public interest to economise the consumption of this product?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am aware that stocks of coal are being reduced. A new Order called the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, will be issued very shortly which it is hoped will alleviate the situation and will deal effectively with cases such as those referred to in the latter part of the question.

    PRISON OFFICIALS, SCOTLAND (BONUS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a petition from the prison officers of Scot land asking that the war bonus should be increased to £1 a week, that an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week be made to children of married officers, and that the boot allowance be doubled; and what action ho proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have not yet received the petition referred to. I have ascertained that it is in the hands of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, who will consider and forward it to me with their recommendation in due course.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES, SCOTLAND (CRAIK REPORT).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether any steps have yet been taken
    2366
    to carry into effect the recommendations of the Craik Report as to the increase of teachers' salaries in Scotland; and whether any action has been taken by individual school boards to increase the scale of remuneration of teachers on the lines suggested in the Report?
    Mr. MUNRO: Steps have already been taken to improve the salaries of teachers in Scotland. During the year ended 31st March last a Grant of £349,175 was distributed by the Scotch Education Department for the improvement of teachers' salaries, and, in addition, a sum of £101,493 was provided by school boards and managers from their own funds, making a total of £450,668. A number of the leading school boards have had under consideration the Report referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, and have framed new scales of salary in general accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and even, in some cases, oh more liberal lines. Any further steps with regard to the Report must, I think, be deferred till a Bill establishing education authorities for wider areas and bringing the voluntary schools within the national system has become law.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the question of giving effect to the recommendations of the Craik Report at the same time as he is considering legislation dealing with education in Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: When will the Bill referred to be introduced?
    Mr. MUNRO: At an early date.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Mr. MILLARasked for the acreage of land already acquired in Scotland for the settlement of soldiers and sailors and the arrangements which have been entered into with Scottish landowners for obtaining further land for that purpose?
    Mr. MUNRO: A total of 1,174 acres has been acquired for the purpose mentioned under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916. Negotiations have been proceeding and are now nearly complete for the purchase of a further 700 acres. In addition, land to the extent of 12,910 acres has been

    2367
    gifted to the Board of Agriculture, 16,604 acres have been made available voluntarily by landowners for settlements of Service applicants under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911. These statistics do not include certain property amounting to about 2,500 acres which has been purchased by the Office of Woods, and which will be available for Service men when the present leases expire within the next two years.
    Mr. MILLAR: Following upon the recent Conference of Scottish landowners, has there been any additional offer of land?
    Mr. MUNRO: There has been no additional offer made since the Conference.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-Service men have been put upon the land?
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot answer that question without notice. If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him the information.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MILLARasked whether it is proposed to establish a separate Ministry of Health for Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have nothing to add to my reply on this matter given to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 30th May, to which I would beg to refer my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the recommendation that this question for Scotland should be treated separately?
    Mr. MUNRO: This matter is now under consideration, and will shortly be considered by the War Cabinet. Under these circumstances I do not think that I ought to add anything to the answer I have given.

    MUNITIONS.

      OIL PRODUCTION.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions whether in 1915 and 1917
      2368
      proposals were made by colliery and other companies and persons to erect retorts in England and Scotland for the production of oil from cannel and batts, after tests of the material which were satisfactory to the Ministry had been made, on some or other of the following terms: at the expense of those making the proposal; subject to an advance by the Government of a proportion of the necessary capital, such advance to be repaid by oil delivered; and, subject to the Government erecting suitable retorts, such retorts to be paid for and taken over by the company after a short term of years; if so, whether these proposals, or any of them, were accepted, and, if not, will he state the reason; and whether information as to these proposals, and the reasons why they were not accepted, has been laid before Lord Crewe's Committee?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes, Sir. All the cases were carefully considered, and in two cases negotiations reached an advanced stage. The proposals were placed before His Majesty's Treasury, who, however, were not prepared to sanction the necessary expenditure. Information as to these proposals and the reasons why they were not accepted have been laid before Lord Crewe's Committee.

      WORKERS (CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked whether any serious inconvenience has arisen from the liberty given to munition workers to change their employment; whether that liberty extends to Army Reserve munitions workers; and, if not, what, if any, are the objections to extending it to them?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The liberty given to munitions workers to change their employment has caused serious inconvenience, and it is not, therefore, desirable to extend the same liberty to Army Reserve munition workers.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that very great dissatisfaction is felt among the Army Reserve munition workers because they are placed at a disadvantage as compared with other munition workers?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That is hardly the case. The Army Reserve munition workers entered into this undertaking.

    PROPAGANDA.
    45. Major DAVID DAVIES: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made between the Ministry of Propaganda and the War Office for the distribution of leaflets by our aeroplanes in Germany; and whether these arrangements are being carried out at the present time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend was asked not to put this question, as it is obvious that it is one that could not be answered.

    PENSIONS WARRANT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the new Pensions Warrant dealing with men who fought in previous wars only brings men who were totally disabled into line with the new warrants; whether a man who lost his arm in the Boer War gets less than half what a man gets who lost it in this War; whether no provision is made for officers; and whether the House is to understand that the Government is not prepared to make all alike?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Grifflth-Boscawen): The answer to the first three-parts of the question are in the affirmative, and, as regards the fourth part, the Government, in providing for widows and totally disabled men, met what were, in their opinion, the most pressing needs arising from the manner in which the War Pension question had been dealt with in the past.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I again ask the Leader of the House—because it is a question of the policy of the Government— whether we are to understand that the Government are not prepared to bring into line the wounded and disabled officers and men in previous wars under the rates now being paid to those wounded and disabled in the present War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member has got the answer from the Department dealing with this matter, and I cannot at present add anything to that answer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the man who lost an arm in the Boer War gets 7s. 6d. a week, while a man who loses an arm in this War gets 18s. 6d.? Is that the policy of this Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as my recollection goes, I believe that they have been given a very generous allowance. I will look into the matter again, but I cannot hold out any hope of any improvement.

    GERMAN PEACE TERMS.
    General CROFT: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the document captured from the Germans by the French Army, and quoted by the American correspondent, in which enemy soldiers are informed by the German High Command that the minimum German peace terms include the annexation of Belgium and the Flemish coast and the annexation of the French territories and also promises of large indemnities; and, having regard to the repeated declaration by responsible German statesmen that their peace policy includes annexations and indemnities, he will now make clear that such policy on the part of our enemies necessitates the reconsideration with the Allies of our peace terms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I can only repeat that I do not think that this is a time when any useful purpose is served by the discussion of possible terms of peace.
    General CROFT: Have the Government considered the advisability of sending out to the Minister of Propaganda the various statements which come from Germany from time to time on this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very difficult question, and I shall be glad to look into it.

    ORDER OF BRITISH EMPIRE.
    Mr. HARRISasked what is the total number of recipients of the Order of the British Empire in each class since the inception of the Order, and who have the right to make nominations?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The total number of persons appointed to the various classes of the Order is as follows: —

    Class I.

    …

    …

    …

    58

    Class II.

    …

    …

    …

    216

    Class III.

    …

    …

    …

    704

    Class IV.

    …

    …

    …

    2,139

    Class V.

    …

    …

    …

    2,833

    Appointments to the Order are made by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister; but the duty of preparing lists of recommendations to be submitted, if the Prime Minister approves them, to His Majesty rests with the Home Secretary. For this purpose the Home Secretary receives recommendations from the Minister sat the head of the various Government Departments in respect of services coming within the scope of their several Departments. He does not accept recommendations from any other person, nor does he accept from any Minister recommendations in respect of services for which that Minister is not responsible.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is there any limit to the total number of these honours. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Will the right hon. Gentleman consider fixing 47,000, or some such number?
    General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us how many of these decorations were given to Members of this House, and whether he considers the House of Commons received quite its fair share?
    Mr. BRACE: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.
    Mr. HOLT: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have these men organised as a complete and homogeneous division of the British Army?

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of helping and encouraging the allotment holders of the, country by providing that, whenever shows of garden produce held for educational and patriotic purposes are organised, the Entertainments Tax shall not apply to such shows which are run not for profit but in the national interest of food supplies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Under the existing provisions of the law it is the practice of the Board of Customs and Excise to exempt such shows from tax, provided that they are promoted by a society or committee not conducted for profit, are confined to the exhibition of the produce of allotments, and are not converted by the presence of bands or other forms of ex-
    2372
    traneous amusement into taxable entertainments. I do not think it is necessary or advisable to alter the law.
    Mr. STANTON: May I ask what difference it will make, except to the success of the show, if the local men volunteer their service to back the local society? Would there be any harm in that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with the war!"] Well, we want to do so.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The difficulty is to know where to draw the line. It would make the work almost impossible.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether men who are discharged from the Army as surplus to military requirements or to take up employment in civil life are entitled to any allowance while a decision is being reached in the Awards Branch as to whether they are entitled to a disability pension or gratuity; and, if so, what is the amount of such allowance per week, and for how many weeks is it payable?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As I have already explained to the hon. Member, men discharged as surplus to military requirements fall into two distinct classes, namely, those who have suffered impairment in the service and those who have not. The former class are primâ facie pensionable; the latter are not. The pensionable class are entitled, like men discharged on medical grounds generally, to a temporary allowance of 27s. 6d. a week until their claims are decided by the Awards Branch. The other class await no decision from the Ministry of Pensions, and consequently the question of temporary allowance does not arise.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Does this really depend upon whether these men are discharged under paragraph 25 or 25 a of the King's Regulations?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not know what those paragraphs refer to, but if the men, on examination by the medical board, on which there is a representative of the Pensions Ministry, are found to have been impaired, presumably they are pensionable and get the pension allowance, but, if not, they are not entitled to any award from us, and the question of temporary allowances does not arise.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister if he will take steps to get Article 14 (1) of the Royal Warrant of 29th March, 1917, amended, with the object of granting gratuities to widows of soldiers in cases where death occurred before 1st July, 1916, similar in amount to the gratuities paid to widows of soldiers in cases where death occurred on or after 29th March, 1917, and thus remove a grievance which is causing discontent and disaffection to those widows whose husbands joined. in the early part of the War, and were killed before the Royal Warrant of 29th March, 1917, was issued?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH -BOSCAWEN: In reply to a question put to me on the 4th instant by the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire, I explained that the great majority of widows whose husbands were killed before 1st July, 1916, obtained the gratuity from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. It is doubtful whether any widows who were genuinely in need of the gratuity failed to obtain it. Possibly there were some whose claims did not come to the notice of the Corporation, but that there is any substantial grievance causing discontent and disaffection such as the hon. Member alleges I cannot admit, nor can I assent to the suggestion that this matter should now be reconsidered.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Pensions Minister if he will at once consider the appointment of a Committee in each district in Wales who shall be empowered to hear and deal with all cases of hard ship affecting our discharged soldiers and sailors regarding their pensions, back pay, and other matters of urgency to these men and the nation; is he aware that many of these men whose nerves are shattered are at present in a hopeless condition, that they have no friends, no home, and do not know what Department to write to in stating their case; and will he, therefore, take steps immediately to alter this state of things in the best interests of these men and the national reputation?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If I rightly understand his question, the hon. Member is ignoring the activities of the thirty-one local war pensions committees which have already been formed in various districts to cover the whole Principality of Wales. These committees are charged with the duty of looking after the discharged disabled soldiers and sailors and of presenting their claims to the Ministry.
    2374
    The committees have also very extensive powers of assisting the men on their own responsibility. Every disabled man is informed at the time of his discharge that if he is in any difficulty he should apply to his local committee, the address of which he can obtain at his post office.
    Mr. STANTON: May I inform the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may seek information, but. not give it.
    Mr. STANTON: May I point OUT—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—who happens to be on the pensions committee in Aberdare, the place of which I am a native and for which I am the Member.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.
    Mr. STANTON: All right, I will.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      MEAT COUPONS (HOTELS).
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that hotels are making a practice of demanding from their visitors upon arrival the latter's complete meat tickets and, after a stay of two or three days only, the visitor finds on leaving that four coupons, being a full week's meat ration, have been retained; and will he issue some instruction or Order making it an offence for hotel proprietors to retain coupons disproportionate to the length of the guest's visit?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr.Clynes): No member of the public, staying in a catering establishment is obliged to surrender his meat card. He may do this by arrangement as a matter of convenience, or he may decide to retain possession of it and to surrender coupons or half-coupons as meat meals are served to him. It is not, therefore, thought necessary to issue the instruction or Order suggested. I should be glad, however, to have particulars of any instance in which hotel proprietors have retained meat coupons in excess of the quantity served to their visitors.

      BUSHEY FOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE.
      Mr. TOOTILLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has received any repre-

      2375
      sentations from the Bushey Labour party regarding the desirability for further labour representation on the Bushey Food Control Committee; whether a request for further labour representation on a local food control committee must come from the local authority concerned for it to receive the consideration of the Department; and whether he will approach the Bushey Urban District Council on the matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand that correspondence on this subject is in the hands of the Divisional Food Commissioner. So soon as his Report has been received, I will consider what action, if any, is proper to be taken.

      MEAT SUPPLY, SOUTHPORT.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how it was that last week there was dispatched to the borough of Southport a considerable quantity of boxed boneless beef with the glands removed in order to prevent detection of the fact that the beef was the salvage of consumptive cows; whether no one in the employ of his Department at Liverpool was competent to examine the boxes and detect the removal of the glands; if so, whether he will advertise in the trade journals for practical men with a knowledge of meat, and employ them in the work of dispatching goods to provincial towns; and whether he will have the remainder of this consignment examined to find out if more of these tuberculous goods exist, and have the same condemned?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am glad that the hon. Member has called attention to this case. The report of the police court proceedings recently taken against certain butchers at Southport for exceeding the maximum price of mutton is calculated to give a wrong impression. It was stated by the defence that boxed meat from which tuberculous glands had been removed had been supplied to these butchers. I am assured that there is no ground whatever for this suggestion. I understand that the American practice is to remove the glands from the beef at the time it is boned, and that all meat packed is inspected and passed by Government inspectors, under whose continuous supervision the packing is carried on.

      IRISH BUTTER.
      71. General McCALMONT: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
      2376
      of Food the quantities of Irish butter exported from Ireland under licence each month since the prohibition of export has been in force?
      Mr. CLYNES: The figures for which the hon. and gallant Member asks will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may say that the figures for January, February, and March refer to tinned butter for use on shipboard. It is only recently that there has been any surplus of Irish butter available for export in the ordinary sense.
      The following are the figures referred to:
      The quantities of Irish butter exported from Ireland under licence each month since the prohibition of export has been in force are as follows:

      Tons.

      Cwts.

      January,1918

      …

      …

      54

      13

      February

      …

      …

      22

      18

      March

      …

      …

      4

      16

      April

      …

      …

      274

      3

      May

      …

      …

      2,234

      13

      General McCALMONT: May the House take it that the right hon. Gentleman's reply to me a few days ago was in error?
      Mr. CLYNES: The figures will explain that there is only an error in so far as I was not informed of the export of butter as between one month and another.
      Colonel YATE: Will the prohibition of the export of butter be withdrawn now that there is a surplus?
      Mr. CLYNES: The prohibition has now been removed in Ireland.

      SALMON FISHERIES (SOLWAY FIRTH).
      Mr. GULLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a majority of the Annan Fishery Board has refused to petition the Secretary for Scotland that the season for fishing salmon in the Solway Firth should be extended for a fortnight; whether the Minister of Food has received a resolution passed unanimously by a public meeting of citizens at Annan appealing to him to grant this extension under the Defence of the Realm Act; and, in view of the large addition to the food supply that this extension would secure, what course he proposes to take?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not received the resolution to which he refers.

      2377
      I am, however, in communication with the three Fishery Departments on this matter, which is one of general concern.

      CHEESE.
      Mr. MOUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, under the general licence of 29th May, 1918, issued in connection with the British Cheese (Requisition) Order, 1918, suppliers of milk to a co-operative cheese factory may supply under that licence cheese to their employés for consumption in the household of the recipient at the first-hand price for the time being in force?
      Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. In the case of a cheese factory the privilege referred to is only granted to suppliers of milk to such factory. It does not extend to the persons employed by such suppliers. I will consider whether it is possible to make any further concession on the point indicated.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (LETTERS FROM HOSPITALS).
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Post master-General whether the privilege now enjoyed by soldiers on foreign service of sending home letters post free can be extended to wounded soldiers lying in hospitals at home, in view of the fact that while in hospital a soldier receives no pay and the increase in the postal rates will be felt acutely?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I regret that there are serious objections to the grant of free postage to soldiers in hospital in this country. In particular there would be great difficulty in devising effective measures to ensure that the privilege was not taken advantage of by persons not entitled to it.

    MARCONI WIRELESS CONTRACT (REPUDIATION).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Post master-General the reasons why the Marconi contract for the erection of wire less stations was repudiated by the then Postmaster-General?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The then Post-master-General informed the Marconi Company in January, 1915, that the principal reason which had actuated me Government in arriving at the decision in question was the altered circumstances resulting from the War, and especially from the prospect that hostilities might be prolonged. He stated that, in the opinion of the Government, the present and prospective naval and military requirements, which were the governing factors in determining the scheme for the Imperial wireless chain, could be better met by means other than the construction of stations of the character and in the situations contemplated by the contract. I fear I cannot add to this information.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: When this decision was arrived at, was the possibility of obtaining very heavy damages against the Government considered?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

    IRISH MAILS (HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN).
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Post master-General if he has entered into negotiations with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for a new contract or for the continuance of the existing mail contract and passenger service between Holyhead and Kingstown; and if he will inform the House as to the position in which the negotiations now stand and what the new arrangements will be?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have made a proposal to the company, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) the precise arrangements which are now in force for the dispatch of parcels to the British officers and men prisoners of war in Turkey; whether the terms of the Central Prisoners of War circulars of 27th May and 4th June, 1918, are being adhered to as regards contents of parcels and otherwise for British officers and men prisoners of war in Turkey; and, if there has been any departure from these terms, what is the reason of it?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The arrangements at present in force for the dispatch of parcels to

    2379
    British prisoners of war in Turkey are those described in the circulars from the Central Prisoners of War Committee referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, the terms of which are being strictly adhered to. I may add that the transmission of parcels overland through Austria-Hungary has not yet been resumed, and that facilities are being afforded for the dispatch of parcels to Alexandria for shipment to Turkey by the vessel carrying out the repatriations under the Berne agreement.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is probable that the dispatch of these parcels to Austria will be resumed?
    Mr. HOPE: No; I am afraid that depends on the Austro-Hungarian Government.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: asked the hon. Member for Central Sheffield whether, bearing in mind that exchanged prisoners are liable to fight again, His Majesty's Government will refrain from concluding any agreement with the enemy at The Hague Conference on the basis that the starved or ill-fed British prisoners in Germany are, man for man, equivalent to the more considerately fed German prisoners in England, especially as such an arrangement would not only be unfair, but would encourage further cruelties to future British prisoners in Germany?
    Mr. HOPE: I fear I can only say that I know the British delegates at The Hague are fully alive to the considerations to which my right hon. Friend alludes.

    REGISTRATION.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in spite of his appeals, there are many constituencies in which no house-to-house canvass for registration purposes has yet been made; and whether, in view of the frequent pledges of the Government during the progress of the Representation of the People Bill that for the first register a house-to-house canvass should be made and of the urgency of the matter and the necessity for a complete register, he will state what further steps he intends to
    2380
    take to secure that all registration officers shall carry out this policy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): Such information as is in the possession of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board does not accord with the implication contained in the first part of the question. In respect of certain are as to which specific attention had been drawn, my right hon. Friend caused inquiry to be made, and found that in almost every case a house-to-house canvass had been made, and in many cases a second visit to verify the information supplied. But if the right hon. Member can give at once particulars of the cases he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will cause inquiry to be made as to the reasons which have prevented his instructions being carried out.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (TRAINING CASUALTIES).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the loss of life that occurs amongst officers undergoing instruction in flying; whether in the year 1917 nearly 800 pilots lost their lives in the training grounds of this country alone; whether in the opinion of many competent men a large proportion of these accidents might have been prevented if the use of parachutes had been allowed and that a type of parachute suitable for this purpose has now been perfected; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give permission for officers to provide themselves at their own expense with parachutes, as many have desired to do, and to go through a course of parachuting at the time they receive instruction in flying?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The hon. Member will be glad to know that the total number of fatal flying accidents during training in this country in the period referred to was much smaller than the figure quoted in the question. I cannot agree with the suggestion contained in the third part of the question, though experiments are being and will continue to be made. I would add that the great majority of accidents occur in circumstances in which it could not be hoped that any kind of parachute would be of avail.
    Mr. MORRELL: If I am able to bring some facts before the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he make further inquiries as regards a suitable parachute?
    Major BAIRD: Certainly!

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No.5) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to 1.e upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to he upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to he upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAYS BILLS (GROUP 1).
Sir GODFREY BARING: reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee has adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—
Westgate - on - Sea Congregational Chapel Charity Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Margaret Emma Miles with Thomas Robert Nash Miles, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Miles' Divorce Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the British Gas Light Company, Limited, to expend further capital and to extend their works at Norwich; to extend their limits of supply; and for other purposes." [British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Miles' Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time.
British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill[Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what will be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill, and the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Beans, Peas, and Pulse Orders) Bill".
  On Tuesday, Vote of Credit.
  On Wednesday, Report of the Vote of Credit.
  On Thursday, Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Home Rule Bill will be introduced; whether the drafting Committee which is alleged to be engaged on the Bill has completed its labours; or whether, as was indicated by General Smuts, the matter is to be dealt with by the Imperial Conference?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give no answer to any of those questions.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I thought so!
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Finance Bill, as amended, and of the Land Drainage Bill, as amended, have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law]
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Land Drainage Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  FINANCE BILL
  As amended, considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 4 and Geo. 5, c. 76, to Property passing to Certain Collaterals.)
  The Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914 (which extends as respects the present War the relief from Death Duties given by Section fourteen of The Finance Finance Act, 1900), shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as though the references therein to lineal ancestors included references to brothers and sisters and the descendants of brothers and sisters of the deceased.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Basis of Charge where Non-Resident is Chargeable in Name of Agent in Respect of Profits Arising from the Sale, of Foreign Goods.)
  Where a non-resident person is chargeable to Income Tax in the name of any branch, manager, agent, factor, or receiver in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale of goods or produce manufactured or produced out of the United Kingdom by the non-resident person, the person in whose name the nonresident person is so chargeable may, if he thinks fit, apply to the Commissioners by whom the assessment is made or, in case of an appeal, to the General or Special Commissioners, to have the assessment to Income Tax in respect of those profits or gains made or amended on the basis of the profits which might reasonably be expected to have been earned by a merchant or, where the goods are retailed by or on behalf of the manufacturer or producer, by a retailer of the goods sold, who had bought from the manufacturer or producer direct, and, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners concerned of the amount of the profits on the basis aforesaid, the assessment shall be made or amended accordingly.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time." —[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to have a word of explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this Clause, especially of the words
  "profits which might reasonably be expected to have been earned."
  That seems to me a very vague expression.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is not the aim of the Clause to get more out of the taxpayer, but to relieve him. At present anyone who manufactures goods abroad or in our Dominions and sells through agents is liable to tax on his manufacturing profits. It has been represented to me very strongly on behalf of the Dominions that this is a hardship and on principle it seems to me right that we should only get tax in this case on the profits made in this country. This Clause is put in to secure that object.
  Question put, and agreed to. Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for Dealing with Small Amounts of Government Stock belonging to Deceased Persons.)
  (1) Where the bank have reason to believe that any person in whose name any war stock of an amount not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred pounds in nominal value or in actual value, whichever is the less, is standing

  2413
  has died the bank may, in such manner as may be prescribed by Regulations made under Section one of The War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1915, transfer the stock from the books of the bank to the Post Office Stock Register established under that Act, and may in such manner as may be so prescribed remit any dividends accrued thereon to the Postmaster-General to be dealt with in the same manner as if the stock had been inscribed in the said register at the time when they accrued due.
  (2) Where the bank have reason to believe that any person in whose name any Government stock of a nominal amount not exceeding in the aggregate five hundred pounds is standing has died in actual military service, and that he was a person resident in some part of His Majesty's Dominions outside the British Islands, the bank may on an application in that behalf made under this Section by the proper authority and on an undertaking by the proper authority to answer for any Death Duties leviable in respect of the stock and any dividends accrued thereon, and to deal with the stock or the proceeds of sale thereof and any dividends thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Section, hold the stock together with any dividends which have accrued, or which may thereafter accrue there on at the disposal of the proper authority, and thereupon the stock shall become transfer able by, and any dividends thereon shall become payable to, the proper authority as if that authority were the legal personal representative of the deceased person.
  (3) Where any stock is transferred or where any dividends are remitted or paid under or in pursuance of this Section, the transfer, remittance, or payment, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been properly made and the bank shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the stock transferred and the dividends remitted or paid.
  (4) Where any stock is held at the disposal of or any dividends thereon are paid to the proper authority under or in pursuance of this Section, that authority may, after making provision for the payment of any Death Duties leviable in respect of the stock and of the dividends, transfer the stock or any part of the stock to, or pay the proceeds of sale thereof or any part of those proceeds, to any person who, in the opinion of the proper authority, establishes a valid claim to the said stock or the proceeds of sale or any part thereof, and the receipt of any person la whom payment is made under or in pursuance of this Sub-section shall be a good discharge to the proper authority for the sum paid and any stock transferred to any person under or in pursuance of this Sub-section shall be deemed to have been properly transferred', and the proper authority shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the sum paid or the stock transferred.
  (5) For the purposes of this Section— The expression "the bank" means the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, as the case may be;

  The expression "proper authority" means the High Commissioner or agent in London of the Dominion or Colony in which the deceased person was resident, or any other person recognised by the Treasury as being in relation to the deceased person the proper authority for the purposes of this Section;

  2414

  The expression "Government stock" means any stock or bonds which art for the time being transferable in the books of the bank under The National Debt Act, 1870, or by deed under Section seventeen ol The Finance Act, 1911;

  The expression "war stock" means any Government stock issued in connection with any loan raised for the purposes of the present War;

  The expression "Death Duties" has the same meaning as in Sub-section (3) of Section thirteen of The Finance Act, 1894;

  A person shall be deemed to have died in actual military service if he was a person to whom at the time of his death the provisions of Section eleven of The Wills Act, 1837, as amended by The Wills (Soldiers and Sailors) Act, 1918, applied or would have applied if he had been domiciled in England.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The object of this Clause will, I am sure, commend itself to every one. The purpose of it is to save those who are now fighting for us from law expenses and to provide that where the amount does not exceed £100 it should be dealt with by the Postmaster-General. As regards the latter part of the Clause, Dominion soldiers have been afraid to invest in War Loan because of the difficulties which would arise in getting possession of the money by their relatives if they were killed. This has been represented to me so strongly by the High Commissioner of Canada that he said that unless the Amendment were made it would interfere with subscription to loans by Canadian soldiers. The whole of it is to save unnecessary legal expenses and the length of the Clause is required in order to make sure that this protection is adequately given.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Relief to Clergymen or Ministers of Religion in Respect of Dwelling-houses.)
  Where a clergyman or minister of any religious denomination is in the occupation of a dwelling-house, but pays no rent there for, he shall for the purposes of Section twenty-eight of The Finance Act, 1907 (which allows deductions by clergymen and ministers in respect of dwelling-houses), be deemed to pay a rent equal to the annual value of the dwelling-house as assessed to Income Tax under Schedule A, and that Section shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Brought up, read the first time; read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion of ex-Service Men's Pension from Income Tax.)
  In the case of a discharged or demobilised member of the armed forces of the Crown, including an officer, any disability pension awarded to him shall be excluded from his statement of income for the purpose of Income 'Tax; and this provision shall remain in force till twelve months after the declaration of peace.— [Colonel Ashley.]
  Brought up, and road the first time.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause ought to commend itself to every impartial and clear-minded men of the House of Commons. I wish to remove from the hand of the Income Tax authorities disability pensions which have been granted to soldiers, sailors, and members of the Royal Air Force. I am entirely in favour of Income Tax being paid on pensions which are purely deferred pay. I am entirely in favour of a civilian, whether he be an ex-sailor or soldier, or whoever he is, paying Income Tax according to his means and according to scale on any pension he receives from the Government or from any source whatever. But it is a perfect outrage that the Exchequer should exact Income Tax on money which is given to a man for disability incurred in the country's service. If a man loses an arm or leg the State says his earning power has been diminished by so much, let us say, £500. If they gave him the £500 in a lump sum he would pay nothing, but if, for the convenience of the State, or to enable him to live in the same way as he did before he incurred this injury, he is given a pension, they extract Income Tax from him. I can conceive nothing meaner than to give blood money to a soldier, and then to take back 1s., 2s., or 3s. for Income Tax. It is a matter which is felt very severely by ex-Service men, and I am sure the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), who knows so much about ex-Service men, and has done so much in their interests, will agree with me that this is a very burning subject. It is not so much the amount of money that is taken from them, but they feel that it is mean for the State to give with one hand and to take back part of the money with the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say it means a large sum of money. What sum of money is involved I have not the remotest idea, but justice is justice, and if the State has laid down through the House of Commons, and by means of a Government Department,
  2416
  that a certain amount of money should be paid to a man because he has been wounded or because he has lost his health in the service of the State, in fairness, the State has no right to take back any part of it. This is only to last for twelve months after the declaration of peace. No one knows how long the War may last, no one knows how many disability pensions will be payable at the end of the War, and no one knows what our finances may be, therefore, though strongly advocating this measure, I feel that we must have some regard to financial considerations and must automatically bring this to an end at a given time, so that a fresh Parliament may be able to review the case, to continue it if they think fit, or to revoke it. There will be no injustice to the ex-Service man in this, because twelve months after the declaration of peace, and probably long before, he will have an opportunity of casting his vote, and the House of Commons which will review this subject will be fully representative of the men affected. I ask the right hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration to what, in his own heart, I am sure he feels is only a fair thing to a man who has suffered for his country.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to be allowed to second this. I have an Amendment later on to the structure of the Bill which raises a wider point, but probably the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put the request at a point where the Leader of the House might reasonably make a concession. If a man has lost an arm or leg in the present War he gets a disability pension. For the purpose of Income Tax the Leader of the House adds that to any earnings he may make and calls it earned income. I should like him to tell the House what argument he can use for any man engaging in work by which he loses his leg, his arm, his eyesight, his speech, or his hearing, and regards that as an industry in which he earns income. It has only to be put in that way to the House and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer first to see the inhumanity of assessing a disability pension as earned income. If you assessed the pension in any other way there might be a reasonable excuse for adding the pension to what a man earns, but to say that a man who has lost his leg or his eyesight in this War has earned income by that sacrifice for

  2417
  his country is monstrous. All that this new Clause asks is that for the purpose of assessing pensions for Income Tax, whatever other proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make he should not continue the practice of regarding these pensions as earned income. As I have differed frequently from the hon. and gallant Gentleman on other soldiers' questions, I am glad to take this opportunity of supporting him in this proposal, which is narrower than my own, but which I should be willing to accept in lieu of the larger Amendment I should make in the structure of the Bill.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I support this Clause. The assessing of disability pension as earned income is one of the many shabby pages in the history of the treatment of soldiers and sailors in this country. At the present moment the soldiers and sailors of this country who have borne the chief brunt of this great War up to the present are the worst paid and the worst pensioned of all the soldiers serving under our Flag or under the American flag. Very large numbers of men only pay tax because the pension is added to whatever other income is made, and that brings them within the Income Tax law. The men get their disability pensions granted to them not on a generous scale but on the lowest possible scale which the Treasury can grant them.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: indicated dissent.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I submit that, what I am saying is absolutely in accordance with the fact. It is the duty of the Treasury to expend money for pensions or any other purpose with a close fist, but to treat pensions in this way has this result, that in some cases a man who gets a disability pension is worse off than if he had no disability pension. Those men who are now enjoying a small disability pension have the pensions assessed to them independent of what will be the increase in Income Tax, and unless you raise the scale of the disability pension as you raise the Income Tax the man with a disability pension is worse off each succeeding year, because it is obvious that the Income Tax will grow year after year for many years to come. I know the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and everybody in the House admits that no one could have more sympathy with the case of these men, who
  2418
  stand in the first class as deserving of the best consideration. I know his sympathies, and I know something about his financial difficulties; and I know this, that everyone of the Allied countries now borrows money from the United States. The only country in the world that can lend money is the United States. If there is one loan that the Americans would more gladly grant than another in connection with this War it would be a loan of money to do something to equalise to some extent the disability pensions that are paid in such a niggardly way to our own gallant soldiers and sailors. The right hon. Gentleman has to borrow money from the United States. If he did it in this case it would not be a large amount, although I have not been able to work out to my own satisfaction what would be the exact amount required. I hope that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in accord with his sympathies, and that this most deserving class of heroic men will get justice from the House of Commons.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the kind of Amendment which must inevitably put any Chancellor of the Exchequer in a difficult position. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last said the Treasury gave the smallest pensions possible, and that it was the duty of the Treasury to save money where they could. Of course, that is true. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all, is a member of the Government like any other Member, and when the question comes up as to what pension or allowance should be given to soldiers, I have always taken the view that because I happened to be Chancellor of the Exchequer that should not make any difference in the policy which, in regard to that matter, I should take if I held any other office in the Government. I do not think that when you are dealing with the War and what you are to give to your soldiers and sailors that the office one holds should influence one in regard to the question of the generosity with which these men should be treated. That has been my view throughout, and I think the House will give me credit for it, for they will remember that the first scale of separation allowance was increased on a Motion by me that a Select Committee should be appointed to revise the scale. I approach this matter with a desire to do whatever the finances of the country justify with a view to treating these men as

  2419
  fairly as we can. I hope this Amendment will not be pressed by the House, because it is quite obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot resist the general feeling of the House in favour of an Amendment if it be generally held that he is treating these men, who are risking and giving their lives, less generously than they ought to be treated. You cannot do that. Therefore, I hope the House will agree with me that you ought not to press this Amendment at the present time. Let me give my j reasons for that.
  The whole structure of the Income Tax Acts is based on the ability to pay as represented by income. That is the whole basis of it, and you cannot start on any other. Take the case which is put as a great hardship, of two men working together, and doing the same work. One gets an income which is entirely the result of his work, and the other gets an additional income owing to his disability pension. If you start on the basis of what the Income Tax law must be, one is better able to pay than the other, and if you depart from it, you depart from the whole principle of the law.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why assess pension as earned income?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not follow the hon. Member's point about that. By calling it "earned income" the man is taxed on the lowest possible scale. On any other system he would pay n. higher amount. Carry the point a little further. We have altered the Warrant for pensions frequently. They are paid, or ought to be paid, on the idea that we are giving adequate pensions, taking into account the whole conditions and including the liability that a man is to be taxed on his income the same as other people. The whole basis of the Warrant is on that footing. If more should be given, I think it would be a very bad principle to give more by altering the whole basis of the Income Tax. It ought to be done by giving bigger pensions. I say at once that if it were possible for me to accept this Amendment I should obviously be bound to add to it the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGE: I have withdrawn that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Even though the hon. Member withdraws it the acceptance
  2420
  of this Amendment would make that absolutely essential. It is quite clear that if a man who has been wounded and gets a pension on that ground is to be free from Income Tax, still more the widow of the man who has died should be free from Income Tax on what has been given on account of her husband's death. It is quite obvious that all these things would have to be included, and it would mean a considerable amount of money. I discussed this matter with my advisers. I had a feeling, as I am sure every hon. Member has a feeling, that I should like to grant this, that it is exceptional, and that these men have done something that other people have not done. If it were reasonable I would certainly do it; but I do not think it is. I think it would start a principle which would do an amount of harm out of all proportion to the advantage that would be derived. That is my view. It would be very unequal and, I think, unfair, for this reason: If a man has a disability pension and is not able to get employment, or he gets employment so badly paid that he does not come within the Income Tax scale, then this concession which the House would give out of sympathy for this class of man would relieve a class which needs it less, that is to say, those who have the larger income, whereas the other class would not get anything out of the concession. I hope that what I have said will convince the House that however strong our feelings may be in regard to giving anything for these men which is in reason, this is not the right way to give more to our soldiers. If the Amendment be carried to a Division, it must not be regarded that those who vote against it are less in sympathy with these men than those who vote for it; they vote against it because they feel that it is impossible to grant it.
  Sir E. CARSON: With a good deal of what my right hon. Friend has said I entirely sympathise. I think we must be careful that we are not led away into doing what is in any way an injustice towards others in our sympathy towards any particular class; but at the same time I am disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend. I think he made out a case for doing something for these men, something which would really relieve them from the burden which this Amendment tries to ameliorate. This Amendment refers simply to disability pension. That is really not income at all;

  2421
  it is something that we pay to a man for an injury that he has received in service to his country. It is not in the nature of deferred pay, as pensions generally are. If you were to give him a capital sum for the injury he has received instead of an annual sum, as is given by what is called a disability pension, would anybody for a moment suggest that anything ought to be deducted from the capital sum either towards Income Tax or in any other way, to raise revenue?
  Mr. HOLT: The income of the capital sum would have to pay Income Tax.
  Sir E. CARSON: To tell a man who has lost an arm or a leg: "You can get what employment you can, and, in assessing you for Income Tax, we will add the amount we have given to you for the loss of your arm or your leg as earned income as something you have earned in the nature of wages," is about as mean a proposition as this House could make. At the same time if my right hon. Friend will announce to the House that he will have the position of these men reviewed to see if something can be done for them by means of an increase that would in effect save them from having to make this contribution, it would certainly be a better way of doing it. But, after all, we can only plead for these men as the opportunity arises, and unless we can get some pledge or promise that their cases are going to be reconsidered, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Mr. HOLT: I was very pleased indeed to listen to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has delivered arguments identical with those I have delivered in the House on many occasions. I venture to say he is quite right. Nothing whatever should be given to people by way of relief from taxation. If these pensions are not adequate they should be increased in a straightforward manner, and let us know what we are doing. These surreptitious reliefs, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, operate very unfairly. In this particular case it might relieve a man from paying Super-tax. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman took the line he did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir Edward Carson) was entirely wrong when he said that if a man had a lump sum he would escape Income Tax. The income on a lump sum would have had
  2422
  to pay Income Tax in the same way as any other investment a man might possess.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is not the way pensions are assessed. If my hon. Friend knew anything about the granting of persons he would not make such a ridiculous statement. These pensions are continually reviewed.
  Mr. HOLT: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if a man had received a lump sum he would escape Income Tax. That is not so.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as he accuses me of such a degree of weakness in my law, if a man had £100 and spent it would he pay the tax on his furniture?
  Mr. HOLT: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that a man takes a lump sum and squanders it right away. It is paid him in order that he may derive income from it in order to maintain himself. The disability pension is a payment made to him with the idea that you are going to compensate him for the loss of earning power. It ought to be made on the basis that it is to take the place of what he would have earned. In that case it is subject to precisely the same law in regard to taxation as the money he would have earned. The Chancellor is right in maintaining the view that exemption from taxation will not be given as a reward for public services which should be paid for by an adequate grant or pension as the case may be.
  Mr. J. MASON: I regard this special case of exemption from Income Tax as an extremely dangerous way of dealing with the matter, and I quite agree it would be far better to increase a disability pension than grant special cases for exemption from Income Tax. The worst feature of the suggestion is that the very poor man who is unable to earn anything, and with the disability pension gets a total of less than £120 a year, gains absolutely nothing by such a concession, whereas the man who earns something considerable gets in addition the relief that is suggested. That instance alone shows that this is a wrong way.
  Colonel ASHLEY: The disability pension is supposed to show a loss of income. What we object to is that where a man works hard and manages to get

  2423
  above the Income Tax limit he should have a part of what is given to him taken away by the State.
  Mr. MASON: In spite of what my hon. Friend says, I do not think this is the right way of dealing with it, and better than relief from Income Tax would be to increase the scale of disability grants.
  Sir H. NIELD: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be feeling very uncomfortable in having the support of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) supplemented by the last speaker. It is not a question of pedantry. Pedantry has often carried hon. Members belonging to the school to which the hon. Member for Hexham belongs into difficulties. This is a human question, and not merely a question for the officials of the' Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the sympathy he had. Those of us who have had any experience of trying to get consideration, know the cloven foot of the Treasury comes in without any bowels of compassion and draws tight lines from which they will not deviate lest they should lose their reputation as custodians of the public purse. Some of us could show gross examples of dereliction and extravagance on the part of the Treasury, but we will not go into that now. These pensions are often reviewed; there is a hall-keeper near here who was at Mons and has been wounded three or four times in heroic service. His pension was reviewed constantly and was cut down and down because a public authority has taken mercy on him and given him a reasonable income to maintain his wife and children; and because of the generosity of the municipality the authority has cut that pension down until it is now Ss. a week. I think that is illustrative of many cases. Although the Treasury makes grants which arc enormous in the total amount, they do in particular cases reach a very refined point. A man may succeed in getting a snug billet, say, as a butler or personal servant to a country gentleman. It may not last long. His employer may die suddenly and yet the man finds his pension cut down because of the salary he has been receiving, which may be out of proportion to his market value as a disabled man. As these pensions are revisable it seems to me an unjust thing—not merely hard but unjust—that the State should
  2424
  take from a man a sum in Income Tax when but for the pension he would not be chargeable. It could be met surely by prescribing that inasmuch as these pensions do not, save in exceptional cases, amount to more than, say, £70\ a year [HON. MEMBERS: '"Less!"] Not that? I suppose the average pension would be something in the neighbourhood of 15s. or 16s. a week.
  Mr. HOGGE: £40 a year.
  Sir H. NIELD: £40 a year says my hon Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject. There is power now under one of the Acts, when the income comes close up to a margin where a high rate of duty would be payable, not to regard the last pound as turning the scale and making the higher duty chargeable. Something of that sort might be adopted here and £40, or the average pension, should be deducted from the amount on the Income Tax return paper. I can hardly imagine that the sympathetic gentlemen at the Pensions Office, when taking into account the pensions, would consider the liability to Income Tax. The Chancellor says they take it into account. Of course they do not know what the man's possible earnings may be in a year or two hence, and they are not over generous in assessing those earnings of which he makes a return. I think it is a real grievance, and the sooner the Government realise the feeling there is about taking from the pensions of those disabled in the War a sum of money in Income Tax, the sooner they will reconsider their opinion, though it may be too late so far as the effect is concerned. I can speak personally of the very wide and deep sympathy with these men on the grounds of insufficiency. The public realise, of course, that the expenses of this War are such as not to justify unlimited generosity, but here is a matter which is absolutely unjustified, and I sincerely hope that before this Bill leaves the House means will be found that within the small limits of the average pension no man's income shall be chargeable to the tax which would not have been chargeable but for the small pension.
  Sir C. HENRY: I am very much concerned at some remarks that have just fallen from my hon. Friend. He led the House to infer that in the event of the pension being reduced account was taken

  2425
  of a man's earnings. I would like my right hon. Friend to give some assurance on that point.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not the fact.
  Sir C. HENRY: It will influence me very much how I vote on this question. I take it my hon. and learned Friend is entirely misinformed when he states that when revision takes place those responsible take into any account what the man's earning capacity may be. I have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such is not the case.
  Sir H. NIELD: In the case I have cited I have absolute evidence it was done.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not profess to know intimately the rules of the Pensions Warrant, but that very point was discussed when the Warrant was first formed and we were unanimous in deciding against that principle
  Mr. HOGGE: Except in the case of old age pensioners.
  Mr. SPEAKER: One Member one speech.
  Sir C. HENRY: In these circumstances I do not intend to support this Amendment. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely sound and justified. In dealing with Income Tax it should be dealt with entirely independently of such matters, and if pensions have to be revised on the upward scale it ought to be taken into consideration then that Income Tax may be payable on those pensions. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will persist in the attitude he has adopted.
  General McCALMONT: I wish to reinforce the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of disabled soldiers and sailors, and I would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, with the approval of the Ministry of Pensions, there is at this moment an appeal being made in America to provide funds to help Irish disabled soldiers to get a living. I think that is a statement which is very relevant to this issue, because it is not a good thing that it should be imagined, rightly or wrongly, that we are neglecting our duty to disabled soldiers. I hope that before the Debate ends we shall at least receive some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that something is going to be
  2426
  done which will put these men in a more-satisfactory position than that which they now occupy. This is an illustration of the difficulties which are now being felt in parts of Ireland in dealing with disabled soldiers, and I am certain that the present advertisement in America, and the fact that it is being said that these men are having their pensions taxed by the British Treasury, are very poor testimony to British justice.
  Mr. D. MASON: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in support of what has just been said—for I think it would be an unfortunate thing to go to a Division on such a subject as this—to give the House some assurance that in regard to these pensions, which are reviewed every six months, this point will be kept in view? I think that would meet the sense of the House, and meet the situation.
  Colonel YATE: I think this Debate has shown a general consensus of opinion as to the inadequacy of the disablement pension, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some assurance that what is asked for by the hon. Member for Trinity College, and various other Members who have spoken, will be considered sympathetically, not only in the case of the men, but more especially in the case of the officers, whose pension, I think it is generally acknowledged, is far from adequate. Unless we get some assurance from the Chancellor that the matter will be taken up and reconsidered, I certainly, for one, will vote for the Amendment, and take advantage of the opportunity which now presents itself.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: What has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend behind me does not seem quite relevant to the point which we have been discussing. The question whether or not the pensions are adequate is quite a different point from that which was dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is one of these Amendments in regard to which it is easy to excite compassion; it is easy to get up in this House and to express sympathy with disabled and wounded soldiers, no doubt genuine sympathy, because disabled soldiers are deserving of all our sympathy, and we can all express sympathy with very little responsibility. The "Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for two things.

  2427
  He is a member of the Government, and he is responsible for seeing that these pensions are adequate, but as Chancellor of the Exchequer he is also responsible for keeping the finance of the country in proper order. I think the tendency in these cases, even in those who feel in their inmost hearts that the argument of the Chancellor is justified, is to remain silent in their scats rather than to rise and oppose the Amendment, and thereby incur any odium there might be in standing up and apparently being out of sympathy with the demands made on behalf of disabled men. It is only for

  Division No. 55.]

  AYES.

  [4.37 p.m.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Strauss, Arthur (paddington, North)

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Sutherland, John E.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

  Millar, James Duncan

  Tickler, T. G.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Morrell, Philip

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Essex, sir Richard Walter

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hogge, John Myles

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rowlands, James

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Smallwood, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Colonal
  Ashley and Colonel Sir H. Greenwood

  King, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

  Pulley, C. T.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barnett, Captain R. W,

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hew ins, William Albert S.

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Beach, William F. H.

  Holt, Richard Duraing

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, Lieut-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lanes., Darwen)

  Boyton, Sir James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Scott, MacCullum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cautley, H. s.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Somervell, William Henry

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Spear, Sir John W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Macmaster, Donald

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Fleming, Sir John

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

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset. W.)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Morgan, George Hay

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

  Morison, Hector

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

  Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Danial Ford

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Younger, Sir George

  Goulding, Sir Edward Altred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord
  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

  Greig, Colonel J. W

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

  Gretton, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  that reason that I have got up to say that, having listened to the Debate, think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a perfectly sound answer— [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—to the demand put forward in this Amendment Whether or not the pensions are adequate is another point, but, so far as this particular issue is concerned, at all events if the proposal goes to a Division, I an prepared to support the Government.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes. 118.

  FINANCE BILL

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Debit Balances of Capital.)
    The debit balance of capital account of any trade or business referred to in Section fifty of the Finance Act of 1916 shall be construed as the amount of lost capital at the end of the last pre-war trade yea and shall not be limited to a deficiency of assets as against liabilities as defined by Part III., Fourth Schedule, of the principal Act.—[Mr. A. Strauss.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This new Clause deals with the difficult and complicated question of debit balances of capital, and I trust the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us some definition of the Section of the Act of 1916, which will be sufficient to make the Clause which I move unnecessary.
    Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I think my hon. Friend has been under a misapprehension in thinking a new Clause is necessary to give effect to what he desires. He seems to be under the impression that in some way there is a collision between Section 50 of the Finance Act, 1916, and paragraph (7) of Schedule 4 of the 2nd Finance Act, 1915, but I think I can make the point quite clear if I give him an instance, and I think I can show him that the law as it stands meets the case which I believe to be in his mind. Let him imagine a business with a capital of £5,000 and which in the pre-war year's trading, which comes to be calculated for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax, has made a loss of £8,000. That would lead to what some people call a capital of minus £3,000, and I think what the hon. Member wants to know is this, namely, how much may be allowed before the Excess Profits Duty begins to operate? The answer is the whole £8,000; that is, the whole of the loss, and that is the effect of the law as it stands. Although it is a complicated question, what I understand the hon. Member desires by his new Clause is to give effect to that which I have shown him already exists. I trust my explanation may be satisfactory to him and that he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment of Manses.)
    Where a clergyman or minister of any religious denomination is in occupation of a manse vested in trustees for the benefit of the congregation over which the minister has charge and where such house or manse is occupied by him as part of his stipend and emoluments the valuation of such house or manse shall be assesed as earned income and shall not be assessed under Schedule A.—[Mr. Coote.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. COOTE: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I am speaking on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in regard to the large number of manses which they hold there. The Minister in connection with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland whose income exceeds £120 per year is liable to Income Tax on his earned income, and is also chargeable for his manse under Schedule A, simply because he occupies it, and, inasmuch as it is held by trustees for the benefit of the congregation, the Commissioners say the Minister must, in the first instance, pay Income Tax under Schedule A, and then apply to the trustees by way of having it deducted from his rent. In most of these manses the Minister does not pay any rent, and therefore he cannot get a refund of this tax from the trustees, so that he is obliged to pay Income Tax on earned income and also under Schedule A. These trustees simply hold the trust for the benefit of the congregation. They are in many cases men without very large means, and they themselves are not liable to Income Tax, and if they were an individual they would not be charge-able nor would the house which they hold in trust, if it were their own, be charge-able under Schedule A. This is a position, therefore, which is really intolerable in face of the fact that the tax is now increased to such an extent, and may continue at this and probably a, larger amount for some years to come. It has been represented, I believe, from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he would look upon the valuation of the manse as the earned income of the clergyman and tax the clergy man as such, in so far as the amount of the valuation of the manse is concerned, it might meet the case. When a minister takes charge of a congregation he is offered a certain stipend by that congregation, plus a manse free of rent, so that I submit that the occupation

    2431
    of this house should be taken as part of his earned income, and, if it were, it would simplify the whole matter and avoid a great deal of friction which is going on at the present time in connection with manses in Ireland.
    General McCALMONT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Even if, as I fear, my hon. Friend is a little late in making his appeal, and if it ought to have been done at an earlier stage, I hope, not as being a member of the Presbyterian Church but as representing a constituency which very largely consists of Presbyterians, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this matter his very sympathetic consideration. I think it is a very genuine grievance, and one which could be removed without a very great loss.
    Mr. BALDWIN: We have given very careful consideration to the Clause which has just been moved by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and there is a very strong ease to be made for the amendment in the law that he desires. This is not specially an Irish grievance. The same difficulty is found in the Free Church of Scotland, but my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last touched the point when he said he was afraid it was too late for us to do anything this year. I am advised that if we were to make the necessary change we should be increasing the charge on some of the subjects, and we should require a Resolution to do that. In these circumstances we very much regret that we are unable to meet him on this occasion, but we do feel that this is a matter which requires amendment, and we shall be quite prepared, if we happen to occupy the positions we do now another year, to give it favourable consideration when the right time arises.
    Colonel GRETTON:May I say that this is not an exclusively Scottish or Irish case. The case also exists in England, and of course it would not be right that the Irish and Scottish cases should be dealt with unless the English case were considered also. I only want to make the appeal that the English case should not be left out.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 11.—(Reduction in Certain Cases of Entertainment Tax.)
    On and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and eighteen, Section one of the
    2432
    Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by Section three of the Finance Act, 1917, shall have effect as if for the words—

    "does not exceed 2d.

    ½d.

    exceeds 2d. and does not exceed

    4d.

    1d.

    exceedsc 4d. and does not exceed

    6d.

    2d.

    exceeds 6d. and does not exceed

    1s.

    0d.

    3d.,"

    there were substituted the words—

    "does not exceed 2½d.

    ½d.

    exceeds 2½d. and does not exceed

    4d

    1d.

    exceeds 4d. and does not exceed

    7d.

    2d

    exceeds 7d. and does not exceed

    Is.

    0d.

    3d."

    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move to leave out the word "October," and to insert instead thereof the word "August,"
    Sir J. D. REES: my Amendment which follows—[to insert the word "July"]— was only put down as a counsel of perfection, and those interested in the Entertainments Duty not only are consenting to the Chancellor's Amendment, but are really very grateful to him for the courtesy and consideration he has given to their case.The action he now takes meets with their complete approval, and gives them complete satisfaction. This is the more gratifying, for it is not in all quarters that the merits of places of amusement are recognised. There are some who only criticise them, and that fact makes it the more acceptable to them that they should have received such courtesy and complete consideration as they have at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    CLAUSE 21.—(Charge of Schedule B Tax.)
    Sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1896 (which relate respectively to the application of the Income Tax Acts and to annual value for the purpose of exemption from or abatement of Income Tax under Schedule B), shall, as respects Income Tax under Schedule B, have effect as if for the references to one-third of the annual value there were substituted references to an amount equal to twice the annual value:
    Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Income Tax Commissioners concerned that any person occupying any lands and assessed to Income Tax in respect thereof under Schedule B is not occupying those lands for the purposes of husbandry only. or mainly for those purposes, the above provision shall. unless the board of Agriculture and Fisheries, on a reference to the Board by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, certify that the use of the lands by that person for purposes other than purposes of husbandry is unreasonable, apply in relation to those lands as if for the reference to an amount equal to twice the annual value there were substituted a reference to an amount equal to the annual value.
    The expression "Board of Agriculture and Fisheries" means in the application of this Section to Scotland the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in the application of this Section to Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I beg to move, at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words,
    "and as if in Section twenty-seven, after the words husbandry only,' the following words were inserted: 'or used for charitable purposes or hond fide for purposes of games or recreation without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof."
    I put down an Amendment in similar terms on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I was induced to put it down again now by the sympathetic reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on that occasion. The point is raised in connection with many of the playing fields of London and elsewhere, and particularly in connection with the London Playing fields Society. They have many playing fields, although they are not so numerous as they were before the War, owing to the fact that many of their previous players are now engaged in a much more serious business. But while some of the fields have had to be given up, others remain, and are made a certain amount of use of. The proposed taxation assessing them for Income Tax not only on Schedule A, but also on Schedule B, even though reduced, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to reduce it, to one year only, because the land is not used solely for husbandry, will be very oppressive. The farmer, under the original Act of 1896, paid tax on his occupied land for one-third of the annual value. It was pointed out that he might be getting unduly rich, and that it was difficult at all times to assess his Income Tax, and it was decided that he should pay his occupation tax under Schedule B, on one year's annual value; and that has now been increased to two years. But whether it is one year or two years, r-o far as the playing fields are concerned, is immaterial, because one year is quite sufficient to kill charitable organisations of this kind. They cannot pay under Schedule A property tax, and under Schedule B occupation tax.
    I will explain to the House the position of the playing fields of this society, generously given by the Goldsmiths Company. At the instance of the late Lord Alverstone, they purchased the property at £3,000, and only charged this
    2434
    society 10s. a year. That particular piece of land is assessed under Schedule A at 6s. in the £ on the net annual value. That comes to £20 7s. 6d., and, under Schedule B, it is assessed on the full annual value, namely, at £23 8s.; making together £43 15s. 6d. taxation on a piece of land assessed at £78 by the local authorities. That is equal to 11s. 3d. in the £, so that it is practically impossible for societies of this kind to carry on. Whilst the people they formerly helped, the youth of the land are away, yet there are many munition workers who still remain and youths under eighteen who are still able to enjoy the facilities which the society affords. But their utility must be ruled entirely out, and the playing fields given up, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can sympathetically consider placing them in the same position as he did the farmers. This particular society lost £961\ last year, and had it not been for the City Parochial Charity coming forward with the magnificent gift of £1,000 it would have had to shut up shop, but you cannot constantly appeal to people to put their hands in their pockets to help you to pay Income Tax, and it would be a thousand pities if many of these playing fields were closed. I do hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give some very material relief. We used to rub along by paying property tax on the annual value and on one-third of Schedule B, and if we could go back to that state of affairs it would be a very great help.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure everyone will sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in view. But I do not see how it is possible for me to accept this Amendment or anything like it. Probably some Members of the House think that what is proposed in this Budget adds to the burdens of such a society as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. But that is not the case. The Amendment which I have made in the Bill leaves these societies in precisely the same position as they were in two or three years ago. What my hon. Friend really wishes is to get preferential conditions for bodies like the Playing Fields Association. Everyone likes to see such institutions flourish, but I do not think that relieving them from taxation is the right way to help them.

    2435
    Let me point out why that must be so. The suggestion is that they should come under Schedule D. The basis of the claim is that they are not out to make incomes, and should not be assessed upon income which it is part of their constitution they should not make. Already under the law playing fields, public parks, or recreation grounds kept solely for the purposes of charity, and held under public trustees for that purpose, are exempt from taxation altogether. If they are in that position they do not pay taxation. From many points of view one would like to see the Playing Fields Association in the same position. But that cannot be done for this reason, that everybody is not put on the same footing. The fields are let out to clubs and are not available for the general public. May I point out to the House what the effect of this Amendment would be? It would enable the richest golf club, if it chose to take a farm in any part of the Kingdom, to run it on a mutual basis, not proprietorial, and to escape taxation altogether. Obviously that is not a reasonable thing. I have discussed this matter with my advisers, and even supposing one may consider that taxation is not the proper method of dealing with these things, I do not think—when I remind my hon. Friend that this year we are adding £11 4,000,000 to the taxation of the country—we should be justified in accepting his proposal. I hope, under the circumstances, he will not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir R. NEWMAN:I beg to move, at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words,
    "Provided, nevertheless, that this Section shall not apply to a small holding as defined by Section 61 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, unless such holding shall be of the annual value of not less than sixty-five pounds."
    I am afraid I must crave the indulgence of the House in moving this Amendment. I am extremely sorry the hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Sir C. Bathurst) is not here to bring this matter forward, because he could speak with much greater authority than I, a young Member of the House, can hope to do. If I put my case very badly I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not let those whose cause I am advocating suffer for that reason. I quite realise the difficult position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is placed by having to budget for an enormous sum
    2436
    of money, and I have far too high an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies with the small holders to press this proposal to a Division against his wish. But I would be glad if he can possibly see his way to help these very small and deserving men in the position of great difficulty in which they will be placed by the proposals of the Budget. I was not a Member of the House when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, but I understand that he then laid it down that this was an experimental proposal and that the basis of rent was not a satisfactory basis, because some of these holdings are much more highly rented than others, but he took the basis of rent as a rough and tumble way of getting at the value. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the farmers themselves would have it in their power to appeal to be assessed under Schedule D. But the particular agriculturists for whom I am speaking—smallholders—are a class who I am sure hon. Members will agree are entitled to the greatest sympathy and consideration. They are very hard-worked, they are not men who, as a rule, have had university education, they are small men in every sense of the word, but they put their earnings into the land and they try to produce as much food as possible. I understand that under the Bill any smallholder who pays the rent of £65 a year will become liable to Income Tax. I think hon. Members will agree with me that as a rule the smallholder holds the most highly rented land in the whole agricultural industry. I know of cases in which land has been let to large farmers at 25s. per acre, while for exactly similar land the smallholder is called upon to pay over £2 or more per acre. That is by no means an uncommon occurrence. If a small holder has to pay a rent of £2 per acre it will only need that he should hold 32½ acres in order to render him liable to be assessed for Income Tax, it being assumed that he is making a profit of over £4 per acre. But in many cases these men are not doing anything of the kind.
    The right hon. Gentleman will tell me that they can claim to be assessed under Schedue D, but I think he will agree that there is no class of the community that would have greater difficulty in getting relief under ScheduleD\ than these small men. When we have secured the advantages of the educational reforms now being promoted by the right hon. Gentle-

    2437
    man the President of the Board of Education, and when those reforms are bearing fruit, as we hope they will, then perhaps a smallholder, like everybody else, will be in a position to claim to be assessed under Schedule D. But I do not think that the average smallholder to-day is capable of producing accounts and returns in a way which is likely to secure him full justice when the Income Tax is being assessed. I have had a good deal of experience in connection with smallholders, and I know how extremely difficult it is for them to produce such returns as would convince the Commissioners of Income Tax as to their real income. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the bigger farmer may be able to get assessed under Schedule D, but a great number of these small men, although they are paying very high rents, are not sufficiently educated to do that. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that this is really a rough-and-tumble way of getting at the profit on the land. We know that the smallholder in nine cases out of ten is highly rented. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to try his experiment in the first place on the bigger farmer, say for the first year, and see how the principle works out, before putting this additional burden on the smallholder? I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division has now arrived, and I am sure I may leave it to him to put further arguments in support of the case for these men.
    Captain S. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The House will readily admit that the smallholder is a most deserving man. Invariably he pays a much higher rent than the larger farmer, and I think that, on this ground alone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be persuaded to give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: In rising to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to accept the Amendment, I think I ought to say why I do so. We listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member who moved it, and I am sure he carried with him the sympathy of the House. But it is only fair that members who have, from time to time, year after year, pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the proposal which is actually embodied in this Budget, should admit that they
    2438
    have taken that course and should congratulate him on having given way to their invitation. Most of us have been moving Amendments either to reduce taxation or to relieve certain persons from it altogether, but it is very unfair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when members of the House, who from time to time have pressed him to introduce reforms of one kind or another in order to make taxation fairer over the country generally, abstain from saying that they have done so when he is urged to go back upon those reforms. I have risen to admit my own guilt in the matter of pressing this particular reform on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, I feel bound to defend the Clause as it stands in the Bill. But I would like to point out to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that the smallholder, whose rent is £60, and who is to pay Income Tax on an assessment of over £130, will get the ordinary abatement before being called upon to pay any Income Tax at all. He will, therefore, if I may say so, have to be a very large smallholder before he becomes liable to Income Tax, and a far more considerable person than one who is only farming 32½ acres of land. I think too much has been made of the point that farmers find it impossible to keep books, and therefore cannot be expected to ask to be assessed under Schedule D. It is perfectly well known that a large number of farmers do keep accounts, although they may not want to show them to the Income Tax Commissioners; indeed, they would be very unhappy if they were called upon to produce them. They will be content to pay on that double rent, but that most farmers can and do keep accounts I have no doubt whatever. There is another very good reason why they should keep accounts, because if they should be so unfortunate as to fail to pay 20s. in the £1 and be made bankrupts under the Bankruptcy Law it is a criminal offence not to keep accounts.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I admitted that in the case of the large farmer.
    Mr. RENDALL: As regards the small tenant, he is, as a rule, a very enterprising person. He is not at all lethargic, but gets on by reason of his industry and capacity for keeping the accounts of the small allotment, of poultry, pigs, market gardens. and the various other small kinds of agricultural work, in order to

    2439
    show whether the different varieties of work which the smallholder does really pay. Therefore, I think he will have no difficulty at all in keeping accounts, and if this is going to help and encourage him to do so it will have a twofold advantage for the smallholder. I think it is most desirable, if it will have that effect, that it should remain as it is. The smallholder who is carrying on a business and taking from day to day or week to week his produce into the market town must, or ought, to keep books, or, if he does not, he will very soon get into difficulties. He will be able to keep books and to show the Revenue officials that he has not made an income under Schedule D on which he can be made to pay Income Tax. If he is not able or willing to do that he must pay on his double rent, and that is so small and the abatements to which he is entitled are so great that he will pay practically nothing at all. On the whole, therefore, I trust that this Amendment will not be accepted.
    Colonel GRETTON: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have heard a great deal more of this matter if it had not been generally held that a man who rented at less than £65 should be free of Income Tax if it was his only source of income. I know that this is the view taken by a very great number of persons, and that it is the one which is generally held. It this be correct, as I understand that it is, the Amendment is of no effect in the case of the genuine smallholder. As regards the taxation of small holdings there are various classes. There are some very poor smallholders struggling with great difficulty and yielding no adequate profit for the labour involved. There may be an economical reason for taxing these out of existence, but I hope, as a matter of policy, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not do so, and that those who are struggling along on a small holding of a poor character will not be driven off by any action of the Government, but will be allowed to work out their own salvation and improve their holdings.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I desire to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Sir R. Newman), and I have to express my regret that I was not in the House to hear the arguments which he put before it in support of this proposal. I have never been happy about the arrangements under which the occupiers
    2440
    of agricultural land are in future, or at any rate under this Finance Bill, to be taxed upon what is alleged to be their income, and I have not hesitated to state my objections to the two alternatives which are presented to them, the first being—and I do not think that even my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will contradict me when I say —quite illogical and calculated to operate most unevenly between one occupier of agricultural land and another. The alternative that we have presented to us is one that I am bound to say I have always found difficult to answer—that is, Schedule D. "If Schedule B operates unfairly, if it does create all these inequalities of treatment of which you complain, the answer is Schedule B. Let him choose to be taxed on his real income." I believe there is no answer to that in the case of the ordinary occupier of agricultural land, generally known as the farmer. Of course, I have always put forward in this House very strongly that if that is the case Schedule D is the basis upon which all persons in this country should be assessed, including the farmers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to that argument, says, "Yes, but you must give them time because, on your own showing, they are not in the habit of keeping books." The answer to that is that in a very large number of instances they do not keep books. I have to admit it, but in most cases I have also to admit that they are quite capable of keeping books. They are sufficiently well educated, and, considering the large turnover of their businesses at the present time, it is very difficult to say with any conviction that books should not be kept. But that does not apply to these small men to whom this Amendment refers. The majority of these men—when I say the majority, at any rate those who have been created by the Smallholdings Acts—are agricultural labourers. They must be regarded not from the point of view of traders in agricultural produce, but from the point of view of agricultural labourers who have not been brought up to carry on an agricultural business on their own account, but who, as a result of their success as agricultural workers and their own thrift, do find themselves, late in life in most cases, in occupation of a small area of agricultural land.
    Bearing that in mind, I ask the House to consider how these two alternatives will operate upon that small class. In the first place, the first alternative is six times

    2441
    the assessment of three years ago, or, putting it in a different way, twice the annual value, reckoned in rent, of the land which they occupy. It is admitted, to start with, that these are people who do pay per acre considerably more than the holders of large tracts of agricultural land. The men, in fact, who are making large profits as farmers during this War are, taken as a whole, men who are paying low rents, to be found very largely in the East of England, who are low rented as compared with the grass farmers of the West, and low rented as compared with the smallholders everywhere, particularly those who occupy grass land, which a very large proportion of them do. Surely it is impossible to argue on any basis of equity that these men can afford to pay on the basis of twice the high rent which they are paying for their land. What is the alternative? The alternative is Schedule B. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits that there are a large number of people not only who do not keep books, but who are not qualified at present to keep books. They have a good deal to learn before they can present a fair balance sheet for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. That is the very class which is least qualified to keep accounts, and which would naturally fall back on Schedule B, and in the case of Schedule B it will operate with such undue severity that it is obviously not a basis they should choose. These are men who ought not to be regarded as farmers, but as industrious labourers, and it is because they are industrious labourers that the majority of them find themselves in occupation of these small tracts of agricultural land. There is something else I want to say in this connection. It is said that farmers as a class are making large profits at the present time. Can anyone in this House get up and assure the House that that applies to the smallholders created by the Smallholdings Acts? I am perfectly confident that no man could with any truth suggest such a thing; and for this reason. All raw materials of farming have become exceedingly expensive and are going up steadily in price, and these men are just the people who because they have to buy their raw materials in small quantities have to pay for them at the top of the market, and who, because of their comparatively small output, are unable to sell their products, either on Government account or otherwise, at such a price as to enable them to
    2442
    make the profits which the larger farmers are able to realise. The figure put in this Bill as a limit is £65, in order that they may be placed, as in fact they would be if they were in any business, under the Income Tax limit. I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, this class, above all others in the country, is one upon whom you should not attempt to impose anything in the nature of an unfair burden. It is a class whose pluck, courage, and determination you want to keep up if they are to carry on the difficult and often thankless tasks they have to perform with any profit to themselves or the community at large. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make this concession, and if he does I am sure he will never regret having done so
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) rather apologised for his inability to put this case with sufficient eloquence. I do not think that apology was necessary. The case was put extremely clearly, and if we add to what he has said the other speeches to which we have listened I think it has been put with much greater force than the magnitude of the evil which they are trying to remedy requires. Let me put to the House what it means. As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rendall) pointed out, if a man has no other income than the £65 he will not pay anything unless it is precisely £65. If his rent is £64 19s. 11½d. he will pay no taxation at all. Therefore, it has very little meaning from that point of view. I would like, also, to point this out. The number of smallholders in any real sense of the word which go up to £65 must be extremely small, and in their case I do not think there would be a hardship, assuming they had a small amount of Income Tax to pay in being put on the same footing as other people, and having to pay under Schedule D. I admit that. they may have difficulty in making their accounts, but, as I have pointed out, the President of the Board of Agriculture has undertaken, as the friend of the farmer, to assist in any case of that kind, and if there be any considerable number affected I am quite sure they will find there is no hardship in practice. This Amendment, if it has any real effect at all, is intended for another purpose, I presume. It means that, assuming somebody has other income, this is not to be added in bringing the money under Income Tax It really has no meaning otherwise,

    2443
    because it limits them to under £65. In addition to that, let me point out to my hon. Friends that the amount of the tax apart from any other income can only be infinitesimal, because if the income is only £130 a man will pay very little—if he has one wife he pays nothing, and if he has a wife and children he can pay a much bigger rental than this. It really, then, has no direct object unless it be to save a man from paying Income Tax where his total income comes above the limit on account of what he gets here. If that were the object—and I am glad my hon. Friend says it is not—what would be the effect? I think it would be very unfair that farmers not precisely coming under the definition of the Amendment, whose whole livelihood depends on farming, should pay a greater amount, say, than a shopkeeper, who, in addition to his shop, has a small holding. I wish my hon. Friends to realise that I, like every Member of the House, am most anxious to encourage small holdings, and if I thought anything we were doing would discourage them, I should not make such a proposal. I am sure it will not have that effect, and I would suggest to my hon. Friends that it is not worth while pressing the Amendment now, but that they should wait, and I am greatly mistaken if they do not find that in this particular case no hardship will be inflicted.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CLAUSE 22.—(Continuance of Certain Belief from Income Tax.)
    The provisions of Section twenty-nine, Section thirty (as amended and extended by Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1917), and Section forty-three of the Finance Act, 1916 (which give relief from Income Tax in certain cases for the then current Income Tax year), shall have effect as if herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the Income Tax year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and eighteen:
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, after the word "eighteen" ["April, nineteen hundred and eighteen"], to insert the words
    "Provided that any sum paid to a chief petty officer or other naval officer in lieu of board, lodging, and victuals shall not be deemed to be income of such officer for the purposes of Income Tax."
    I think I can perhaps explain the provision better if I read a question which
    2444
    was asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holder) of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th November last:
    "Mr. Hohler asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that chief petty officers and other officers or thy Navy are being assessed to Income Tax on the allowance made them for food and lodging in eases in which they are not victuailed on the Navy; whether there is anything to justify this in the Income Tax Acts; if so, will he take steps to alter the law; and, if not, will he direct the practice to cease and order a refund of the moneys improperly demanded?
    "Mr. Bonar Law: The money allowances to which my hon. and learned Friend refers are chargeable to Income Tax equally with the rest of the emoluments of these officers. I would remind him of the general principle of the law that allowances in money are chargeable to Income Tax, whereas allowances in kind are not so chargeable, and I could not undertake to introduce legislation modifying this principle." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1917, cols. 2010 and 2011, Vol. 99.]
    I do not think anybody denies that it is the law that allowances in money are chargeable to Income Tax, but I would submit that in this case there is a real grievance on the part of officers and non-commissioned officers against the State. What is the position? Broadly, when an officer joins the Navy he knows, or his parents know, that he will receive certain pay, that he will be lodged, and that he will be fed on a certain scale. Therefore he knows exactly where he is, and that he will have to pay Income Tax upon his pay, and that food and lodging will be provided. It constantly happens that it is convenient to the State not to lodge or to feed him, and it gives an equivalent in money; it may be a guinea or 17s. 6d., according to the rank. The State having for its own convenience substituted payment in cash for payment in kind, it then proceeds to levy Income Tax upon the payment in cash, but it does not levy Income Tax when the payment is in kind. I maintain that is grossly unfair to the officer. If he gets 10d. for a pound of meat he is charged Income Tax on that, and therefore he does not get the value of the food which the State gave him in the past. Not being a lawyer, I do not know what the actual contract is, but I do submit that before the War, and I presume now, the recruiting placards in any naval port stated that there was so much pay for such-and-such a rank, with food and lodging provided. Everything is set out on the placard in order to entice recruits for the Navy. If that is not a contract on the part of the State, what is? If it is more convenient to the State to

    2445
    pay a man in cash than in kind, I submit that a man ought not to be taxed for that. We have here an opportunity of changing the law, or, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so fond of the Income Tax law as it stands, I do not want to change the Income Tax law or any other law. All I want is to get justice for the individual. If my right hon. Friend can suggest any other way in which the money can be made up to the officer and petty officer, I am perfectly willing to fall in with it. All I want to bring before the House is an injustice which is felt very keenly by the men in having this given with one hand and taken away with the other.
    Mr. HOHLER: I desire to second the Amendment, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give it his consideration and bring it into law. The point has been exceedingly well put. I think the rights of these men could be tested, but it is an expensive business, and you are dealing with men who are not overpaid, although they are promised emoluments which some have not got. However that may be, I would point out to the Chancellor that, owing to the pressure of these times, it is impossible to accommodate these men in barracks or ships and they have to be boarded out, and, instead of drawing their rations, they get these payments in lieu. Is it just that you should allow a man in lieu of food so much money and then deduct a proportion as Income Tax? I have endeavoured with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to get this matter settled. I have appealed to him by question and privately to increase the allowance made to these men to meet this very point, and he has admitted that no increase has been made. I am sure it would appeal to the Chancellor, who desires to deal fairly with our men who are serving us, but the Treasury, to whom the Admiralty have to appeal to increase this ration allowance, refuse to sanction it. We appeal to the Chancellor to take off this trumpery tax, which breeds a sense of injustice amongst these men. I get letters from various ships and from men in barracks all complaining about it. It is a grievance they deeply feel, and it is a thing they cannot understand, and I do not understand. Give the man his pound of meat. That is intelligible, but if you give him a shilling in lieu you have no right to reduce that shilling by a farthing. You are dealing in this way with men who have served us
    2446
    magnificently, and for whom the Prime Minister called upon an audience to cheer again. Yet you are, by this petty taxation, creating a feeling of injustice and getting nothing for the State. If you will not increase their allowances to cover the cost, then make a provision to meet it so as to protect them. I appeal most earnestly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the Navy on this point. I feel assured he has really no conception of the good feeling it will create amongst the men, and they will feel that in the highest offices of State their interests are as well considered as we Members of this House appreciate the magnificent services they have rendered.
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: As representing, I think, the greatest seaport on the North-East Coast, I claim to be vitally interested in this Amendment. I put it to the Chancellor that the paramount question for him and the Government is to maintain in the naval and military services of the Crown good order and discipline, which alone can be maintained, and are always based on a sense of justice and a feeling that those in authority, who command the movements. and therefore the lives of sailors and soldiers, are prepared to treat them fairly. Here is a case in which the sailors are treated unfairly. You tax a man if you pay him his allowances. You do not take a slice from his joint if you give it in beef. The amount involved must be trifling, but the irritating sense of injustice is infectious, and permeates the whole Service. I have received many letters from my own Constituents who have gallantly done their duty in this War, and I would urge the Chancellor to meet the House on this point. If so, it will be the first time on this Report stage he has met any Members who have raised Amendments or brought forward new Clauses, and yet he is able to get the Finance Bill in record time, so far as I know.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree with the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Hamar Greenwood) as to the importance of the port he represents. My hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. and learned Friend can hardly expect me to accept an Amendment of this sort, which has not been brought forward in Committee, and of which I received no notice until to-day. It is impossible to accept it without consultation with my advisers. I will tell the House why. I cannot tell what

    2447
    may be the ramifications of the Amendment. If I said I would give the concession asked for to the particular class for whom it is asked, I might subsequently and that I have given it to any number of people of whom I know nothing. But I will say this:if the case is as I understand it—and probably I do not greatly understand it—that before the War people were paid in kind—
    Colonel ASHLEY: Mainly
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is really true that now, owing to the larger number of men and the inability of keeping them in barracks and feeding them, money is given to them in lieu of feeding, then that would appear to be a case which ought not in justice to be taxed. I will promise to look into it, and if I find there is a good case, which can be met, I will try to meet it in administration. If I cannot do so, I hope my hon. Friends will allow the grievance to remain for another year.
    Colonel COLLINS: We appreciate the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. May I sugest that while he is making inquiries he will also bring under review the case of soldiers stationed in different part of the country who, like the sailors, get money in lieu of board and lodgings. The particular purpose for which I have risen is really to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in his survey of the situation he will take into consideration the claims of the soldiers as well as the claims of the sailors—that, in a word, the whole situation will be reviewed.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CLAUSE 24.—(Provision with Respect to Deductions for Wear and Tear of Plant, Etc.)
    (1) Where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied on an application made to them for the purpose that any considerable number of persons engaged in any class of trade or business are dissatisfied with the amount of any deductions for wear and tear, the Commissioners, unless they are of opinion that the application is frivolous or vexatious, shall refer the case to the Board of Referees, and that Board shall deal with the case and determine the deduction to be allowed.
    In this Section.—
    The expression "deduction for wear and tear" has the same meaning as in Section twenty-six of the Finance Act, 1907; and
    2448
    The expression "class of trade or business" means a class of trade or business which may be determined to be such for the purposes of this Section by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and
    The expression "Board of Referees" means any Board of Referees appointed for the purpose of Part III. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, or if there is no such Board, a Board of Referees to be appointed for the purpose of this Section by the Treasury.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Where" ["Where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue"], to insert the words "an application is made to."
    It will be perhaps convenient if I explain this in conjunction with the other following Amendments. These Amendments are intended to carry out what is our intention in the Finance Bill. We want to give the manufacturers a double appeal in case of depreciation. They had an appeal already to the Commissioners of Taxes. We propose to give them, by this Bill, an appeal to referees. In the Committee stage it was pointed out to us by the wording of our Bill that right of appeal might be prevented by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The right of the second appeal is to depend upon the Board of Referees, and not upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This refers to all but the last Amendment. This latter Amendment is to carry out a promise which I gave that cases of machinery which were kept idle on account of the War should get an allowance during the time they were so kept idle.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words
    "are satisfied on application made to them for the purpose that any considerable number of persons engaged in any class of trade or business are dissatisfied with,"
    and insert instead thereof the words "for the alteration of."
    Leave out the words "deal with the case," and insert instead thereof the words
    "if they are satisfied that the application is made by or on behalf of any considerable number of persons engaged in any class of trade or business take the application into their consideration."
    Leave out the words
    "the expression 'class of trade or business' means a class of trade or business which may be determined to be such for the purposes of this Section by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    After Sub-section (1), insert,
    "(2) Section twelve of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, as amended by Section twenty-six of the Finance Act, 1907, shall have effect as if the references therein to diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year of any machinery or plant included references to diminished value by reason of any machinery or plant having been temporarily out of use at any time during the year through circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the present War."—[Mr. Honor Law.]
    CLAUSE 25.—(No Deduction to be Allowed on Account of Annual Value of Premises Abroad.)
    Where any lands, tenements, hereditaments or other premises of whatsoever description used for the purpose of any trade, manufacture, adventure, concern, profession, employment or vocation, are situated outside the United Kingdom, no deduction or set-off shall, in estimating the amount of annual profits or gains arising or accruing from that trade, manufacture, adventure, concern, profession, employment or vocation, in any manner be allowed on account or in respect of the annual value of those premises.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Provided that proviso (3) of Clause (24) shall be applicable to assessments made under Schedule D in respect of such lands, tenements, hereditaments, or other premises of whatsoever description as above described, outside the United Kingdom, so that no owner and occupier of real estate abroad shall by the. operation of this Clause be placed in a worse position it) respect of assessment to Income Tax than owners and occupiers of the like property in the United Kingdom."
    I submit that there has been an omission in the fact that Clause (25) is an entirely now Clause making a provision which had not found any place at all in previous Finance Acts, and is admittedly put in to restore what, it may be, was the practice opposition before the legal decision in the case known as the Boustead case, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Appeal Court, and which is not, I believe, being carried by the Government to the House of Lords. In the preceding Clause (24) it is provided that
    "(3) Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1898…shall not apply in the case of any premises being mills, factories, or other similar premises."
    Section 9, in regard to estimating the amount of annual profits or gains chargeable under Schedule D, says when any sum is deducted on account of annual value of premises used for the purposes of such profession, and so on, the sum so deducted shall not exceed the amount of the assessment of the premises for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the said Act. The effect
    2450
    of Sub-section (3) of Clause (24) of the present Finance Bill is to allow in the case of mills, factories, and other similar premises another sixth to be deducted and so give the total relief. When Clause (25) was inserted, I think it must have been owing to an oversight that no similar Clause or provision to that of Sub-section (3) of Section 24 was provided in respect of lands, tenements, hereditaments, etc., outside the United Kingdom, similar to the relief given to such lands,tenements and hereditaments inside the United Kingdom. I do not know why it is not given. I think it is probably an oversight. My attention was only called to the matter yesterday. I believe a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject probably only reached him yesterday, too, and I shall not be surprised if he is not able to deal with the matter at once. I must apologise, too, to the House for having moved a manuscript Amendment, a course which is, I think, most inconvenient and should be avoided if possible. But I think a like relief should be given in this case as in the case of lands and buildings inside the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, those concerned have to bear the taxation of the country in which their lands are situated, and I should, therefore, say they are entitled, perhaps with greater claim, to similar relief. I am not raising the question of the equity of taxation of income earned outside the United Kingdom at all, but am simply confining myself strictly to the technical requirements of the Section to which I have referred, and I urge that the similar relief of the extra sixth should be given in respect of lands, tenements and hereditaments outside the United Kingdom.
    The matter is not a small one, as might perhaps appear,because under Clause (25) there are estates, and on these are bungalows and other premises used for manufacture. I do not know that I can do more than lay the case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think he will deny that some similar relief is due, though he may think that it has been applied for at the eleventh hour—or perhaps at a quarter to twelve! In any case, I would recall to his recollection the arguments which were used by myself and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London when the propriety of omitting Clause (25) was under consideration. I would ask him now,

    2451
    since it is decided to retain Clause (25), to make the proviso giving relief similar to that given to lands, tenements, and hereditaments situated in the United Kingdom.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALDWIN: The point which my hon. Friend has brought before us in his manuscript Amendment is a very interesting point, and so far as I am able to judge, having only seen it for the first time about an hour ago, I think it is a point of substance. I hope, however, he will be content on this occasion on having ventilated the matter in the House, as it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment in the form in which he has handed it in. It will be necessary for us to give a good deal more examination to it, and to see what really the effect of the words is. We have not time to do that. If my hon. Friend had been fortunate enough to see this point, which I confess escaped me, during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we might have had time to have gone into it and examine it, and If it had proved to be a good point, as it seems to be, then we could have dealt with it. We cannot, however, accept this Amendment as it stands, and if my hon. Friend will bring it up upon some other occasion, I feel sure it is a case which will be considered and examined.
    Sir J. D. REES: In consequence of the reasonable way in which my hon. Friend has met this case, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CLAUSE 26.—(Extension of Relief in Respect of Children and Grant of Relief in Respect of Wife and Dependent Relatives.)
    (1)Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (which as amended by Section thirty- three of the Finance Act, 1916, gives to individuals whose total income does not exceed seven hundred pounds relief from Income Tax in respect of children), as amended by any subsequent enactments, and Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1917, shall have effect as if eight hundred pounds were substituted as the limit of income for seven hundred pounds.
    (2) If any individual, who has been assessed or charged to Income Tax or has paid Income Tax either by deduction or otherwise, claims and proves in manner prescribed by the Income Tax Acts that his total income from all sources, although it exceeds one hundred and thirty pounds, does not exceed eight hundred pounds,
    2452
    and that for the year for which the Income Tax is charged he has a wife living with him, or maintains at his own expense any person (other than a child in respect of whom relief is given under Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by any other enactment or under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1917), being a relative of his or of his wife who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself, and whose income from all sources does not exceed twenty-five pounds a year, he shall be entitled in respect of his wife and in respect of every such person as aforesaid whom he so maintains to relief from Income Tax equal to the amount of Income Tax on twenty-five pounds.
    In this Section the expression "relative" includes any person of whom the individual in question had the custody and whom he maintained at his own expense while that person was under the age of sixteen years.
    The provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by any subsequent enactments, shall apply to the relief given by this Subsection, to the manner of claiming such relief, and to the proof to be given with respect thereto, as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Sub-section.
    Captain SMITH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "and shall be extended to apply in the case of a child over the age of sixteen years who is attending as a full-time scholar a school or university within the United Kingdom recognised as such by the Board of Education."
    I believe this matter was discussed last year. It is quite true to say that a great many people who would send their children to school after sixteen years of age are unable to pay Income Tax in addition to the expenses of sending their children to school. There is a very large and increasing number of people who feel the burden of sending their children to school full time after the age of sixteen, and this would get more heavy as time went on. In putting this point I will give the case of the burden which the new Education Bill will put upon these people through the rates, and they will have the further burden of their younger children attending the schools of a primary character under sixteen years of age. I believe if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to accept this Amendment he would relieve a great number of people who are very hardly hit in trying to give their children the best possible education, and he would encourage others to do a great deal more to emulate them.
    Sir W. COLLINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have received representations asking me to support this or a somewhat similar

    2453
    proposal. When the House was in Committee on the Education Bill we had an interesting discussion relating to the responsibility of the State and the parent in the matter of education for young persons, and the Government resisted the Amendment that was proposed in favour of a maintenance Grant in respect of the higher education of young persons. I followed the President of the Board of Education into the Lobby because I felt that that principle, although it appealed to one's sympathy, was not entitled to one's support. The President of the Board of Education in that Debate said:
    "In the case of a young person who, as the result of great sacrifices made by his parents is in full-time attendance at a secondary school, you have a much stronger ease for a maintenance allowance."
    If support is valid in that case it may well be urged in this case. The point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was that of a young person in full-time attendance, as a result of the great sacrifices made by his parents, and while you may not ask the State for a maintenance allowance there may be a good reason why we should not in such a case mulct the wage-earning classes by way of Income Tax. The principle of remission of tax in respect of children has already been admitted. Where the self-sacrificing and far-seeing parents arc straining their resources to keep their children at school or a university, or at a higher technical school after sixteen years of age and up to twenty-one, I think that is a very reasonable ground for a remission of taxation. Unlike the burghers of Leyden in the XVIth century, our people are not invited to choose between the establishment of a university and the remission of taxation. Universities have been scattered over this nation, and technical schools and higher schools are at the disposal of those who are ready to make use of them. The great point is to encourage parents to see the advantage of those higher school and induce the young persons to continue their education therein. I think this is a legitimate case for remission of taxation, perhaps not in the form of this Amendment, but in some other form, and in view of the representations made to me by my Constituents I very gladly support this Amendment.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I do not think it is necessary to add much to what was said last year, and in the Committee stage in support of this Amendment. I think its
    2454
    reasonableness is recognised by the Government and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only wish to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that every year the War continues makes still greater the necessity for a demand of this kind. Although it may increase the burden on the public it also makes keener the loss that is felt by those who have suffered during the War, and who are the class more than any others to whom a good education is extremely valuable. I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has granted us a considerable number of concessions, and he may perhaps ask us not to press him too hardly to grant still further concessions in this respect. I ask him if he cannot give us this concession now, as he has given us further concessions in regard to children that he should give us this year a somewhat similar promise to that which he gave last year, and which he has now carried out. If he cannot make this concession now, perhaps he will give us some hope that he will be able to do it next year, when I hope he will bring in another Budget under happier circumstances.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friends not to press this Amendment. We have gone a long way in this Budget to meet such claims. We have given an allowance for the wife and for the children, and I think that is as far as we can reasonably be expected to go this year. There is another reason which I think hon. Members ought to bear in mind. I think we all desire to see as large a part of the population as possible kept at school as long as they are being usefully educated beyond the age of sixteen. I am quite sure that in the long run there will be a national gain to whatever extent that happens, but I am not at all sure that that encouragement ought not to be given rather by bursaries, or something of that kind, and all I can say is that that is an object which the State should encourage. Another reason I may put in this connection is that this question should not be pressed now above all times. The rule which I have laid down is that the more our children are kept at school beyond sixteen years of age the better, but that does not apply so much now, when we need the actual working help even of those who at ordinary times are better employed at school. For these reasons I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Captain SMITH:In view of a statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words
    "in respect of whom relief is given under Section 68 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by any other enactment or under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1917."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words,
    "The provisions of this Sub-section which give relief to an individual in respect of a wife shall in the ease of any individual being a widower be extended so as to give relief in respect of a person, being a female relative of his or of his deceased wife, who is resident with him for the purpose of having the charge and care of any child of his.
    (3) If any individual who has been assessed or charged to Income Tax or has paid Income Tax by deduction or otherwise claims and proves in manner prescribed by the Income Tax Acts that his total income from all sources, although it exceeds eight hundred pounds does not exceed one thousand pounds, and that he would if his income did not exceed eight hundred pounds be entitled under Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by any other enactment, or under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1917, to relief in respect of three or more children, he shall be entitled in respect of each of those children above the number of two to relief from Income Tax equal to the amount of Income Tax on twenty-five pounds."
    Captain SMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "widower," to insert the words "or living apart from his wife."
    I stated, when the Amendment was put down on a former occasion, that it only meant the case where a man's wife had died. Since then a great number of communications have been received by myself and others on this point, and it is in consequence of those communications that I move this Amendment. A man's wife may be still living, and he has a housekeeper, and in the matter of fixing the Income Tax or any other tax these people stand relatively in the same position. Pressure has been brought to bear upon this point, and that is why I move the addition of these words.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not think that I could make so effective a speech against 'he Amendment as has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend himself, and I am
    2456
    not going to try. The fact is, as I mentioned in Committee, that there is a real grievance here. The case of a man who has lost his wife and has children ought to be met, but the difficulty in meeting it was the fear of something of this kind. My hon. and gallant friend's speech is sufficient proof that fear was reasonable, and I hope he will not press his Amendment. I am sure in his heart he does not approve of it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Captain SMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "being a female relative of his or of his deceased wife."
    There is real, substantial ground for this Amendment, and it raises a very real point. A man's wife dies, and he has no female relative to look after his children and his house. I know several cases myself, and since the Debate took place on the Committee stage I have had a large number of letters thanking me for raising this matter. A great number of men in middle-class and working-class life have housekeepers who cannot be said to be anything but of the highest respectability, and I really do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might stretch a point and include a woman who is a legitimate housekeeper and performs the duties of the wife, who has unfortunately died, as well as can be expected under the circumstances. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a genuine Amendment intended to meet genuine cases.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, chiefly with a view of giving the Leader of the House a chance of replying. It seems to me that we are getting near to the danger line. The case which suggests itself to me is that of an adopted daughter of the deceased wife, who from early life has been regarded as a member of the family, or that of a sister-in-law. There might be such a female connection, though not actually a relative, who might be the best person to come in and take charge of the children. There is the case of a child taken in by a foster mother during its tender years. The position of that person is almost that of a relative, although she is not a relative. It seems to me that some of those cases might be met, but I do see, and I dare say the hon. and gallant Member himself sees, a danger in going

    2457
    very far in this direction. I would like to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say, and therefore I formally second the Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I admit that there is a stronger case here, but, as I pointed out in Committee, the reason I hesitated at all in making this concession was the fear that you would not be able to draw the line in a way which would prevent disagreeable things which nobody would desire to encourage. There would be distinctly more danger if anything of this kind were done. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that I have really tried to meet the real hardship, and that I have gone as far as one can safely go. I hope he will at all events be content to wait and see how this new Amendment works before pressing me any further.
    Mr. HOLT: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the line that he has. I would like to point out that under the Amendment any person who engaged an ordinary nursemaid would be entitled to get exemption, and that would be most preposterous.
    Mr. FRANCE: I quite appreciate the difficulties and sympathise entirely with the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I wonder if he could give us a definition of what "female relative" includes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I am afraid I could not, but I can say, from my experience of the way in which taxation of this kind is worked, that the object of the heads of the Inland Revenue is, so far as the law will allow them, to carry out the spirit of what is intended, and I am inclined to think that such a case as that which was put, like that of an adopted daughter, would be dealt with as though it were included.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) would impose a charge upon the subject by aggregating the incomes of the female, relative and the widower with whom she lives.
    Mr. HOLT: I submit that would not be so. It would be compulsory to claim relief, and it would only apply in cases where relief was claimed. In cases where no
    2458
    relief was claimed it would not operate at all. There could be no increased charge unless it was asked for by the taxpayer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then if it is not asked for there is no object in putting in the relief Clause.
    Mr. HOLT: May I submit to you that the object of this Amendment is to see that the female relative shall not enable the widower to get relief because she happens to be an inmate of his household if she has an independent and substantial income of her own. As this Clause is drafted, the widower would get relief, and I want to make sure that the widower shall get no relief if the addition of the income of the female relative counterbalances the relief which it is proposed to give.
    Mr. WING: It is very simple!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House would be imposing a charge upon this person which we cannot do at this stage. It would require a separate Resolution.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. HOLT: I am afraid that there might be difficulty, and I want to have the point. raised, because I think it is one of some substance. A widower gets a female relative to come and live with him, and apparently, without any restriction whatever, he is then and there entitled to an abatement to the extent of £25. That, so far as I can understand it, is the meaning of the Clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I submit that is not right. If the female relative brings into the family a substantial income of her own, then the abatement ought not to no made. It is quite easy to imagine a person with £400 or £500 of his own and a sister with £200 a year of her own coming to live with him after his wife has died and them keeping joint house together. Very likely they would so so. I am sure it was never contemplated that in a case like that the widower should automatically get the relief. I raise the point, because I think the House ought to realise how far they are being carried by this concession. If you are going to give relief to the widower whose female relative lives with him precisely in the same manner as you give relief to the married man in respect of his wife, surely you ought to go the whole way and where

    2459
    the relative keeps house for him aggregate the two incomes. The House must make up their mind one way or the other. Either all the people who live in the house should be treated as having a common income for all purposes, or as having separate incomes for all purposes. I want to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer against these piecemeal concessions, which are going to land him in endless confusion, and which will upset the whole basis upon which the Income Tax is conceived.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I am afraid I do not quite grasp the meaning of my hon. Friend's Amendment, but, as far as I can see. it would penalise a sister or other relative who had money if she came in to help her nephews and nieces and their father by looking after the home. The little amount that might be saved to the Exchequer would be ill-purchased by the loss resulting from her not being called into the home. It would impose upon a man the duty of asking his sister whether she had an income which would bring him outside the limit, or whether she had not. It is one of those refined classifications -which would create more difficulties than it would afford relief.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The matter is quite clear. At present, if a man and a wife have separate incomes, their incomes are aggregated. If their incomes are under £700 a year, and they have a certain number of children, they are made an allowance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, if a man is a widower, that the privilege should be attached to another person who maybe a female relative. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) says that if you are going to give that privilege which you have given to a wife to another female person, you must also put the burden which you put upon the wife upon that other person. That is the case quite simply, and there is a great deal to be said for it. Personally, I am in rather a difficult position. I have always held that the aggregation of the incomes of the husband and wife as wrong, and on several occasions, in company with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr Rawlinson), I have endeavoured to induce various Chancellors of the Exchequer to regard the incomes of husband and wife as being separate, and not to aggregate them
    2460
    There are many reasons why that should be done. Therefore, I am in this difficulty, that, while I have always held that there should not be this aggregation, I am now rather inclined to support the hon. Gentleman and to say that as long as this aggregation is insisted upon, if you introduce someone in the place of the wife, and you confer upon that person the advantages given to the wife, you must also confer upon that person the disabilities imposed upon the wife. I do not know whether I have made it clear, but that is the way that it suggests itself to me, and I think it is only fair. If we desire to maintain the marriage tie, there should not be my advantage in being a widower or in having a female relative in your house to whom you are not married.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is something, or that there might be something, in the case put by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), but I cannot feel that his case has been strengthened by the last observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury), who suggests that the person referred to in the Amendment I have put down and who has come to help the widower in looking after his children is getting all the advantages of a wife. That would hardly be regarded as a reasonable proposition probably in most families.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should have said in regard to taxation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Really, it is not the case at all. In most cases what happens is that the sister or the sister-in-law comes, probably at great inconvenience to herself, to fulfil what she thinks is a duty. The number of cases where this would arise would be very few indeed. If the Amendment had been possible and were adopted the effect would not be to touch such cases as my right hon. Friend has in mind. Take the case of a father who has a sister who is working for her living and comes to help him. It is quite obvious that they are not in the same position as husband and wife, and that ought to be taken into account, I hope that after what I have said the change will not be considered desirable, and that the Amendment I have proposed will be now agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "years" ["while that person was under the age of sixteen years"], insert the words
    "and the expression 'child' means a child in respect of whom relief is given under Section thirty-eight of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by any other enactment or under Section thirteen of The Finance Act, 1917.
    Leave out the word "Sub-section" ["given by this Sub-section"], and insert instead thereof the word "Section."
    Leave out the word "Sub-section" ["made applicable to this Sub-section"], and insert instead thereof the word "Section."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    CLAUSE 34.—(Increase of Stamp Duty on Certain Bills of Exchange.)
    (1) Twopence shall be substituted for one penny as the Stamp Duty on all bills of exchange and promissory notes chargeable under the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, with duty at the rate of one penny and drawn on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and twopence shall accordingly be substituted for one penny in Sections thirty-four and thirty-eight of the Stamp Act, 1891.
    Colonel COLLINS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
    "Provided that cheques for an amount under five pounds shall be liable only to the Stamp Duty of one penny."
    The House has decided that the Stamp Duty on cheques shall in future be 2d. instead of 1d. I have no desire to argue the main question again. I can well understand that this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White), is not an ideal Amendment, and that it will place some extra work on banks and their staffs. But after a short space of time the public would become accustomed to drawing cheques with a 1d. stamp for amounts under £5, and with a 2d. stamp for cheques over £5. The Amendment is a supplement to the new Clause, and is not moved as a substitution for the law as we understood it in the past. The main objection to the alteration in the law is that it will create hardship to the small trader, and that it will stop the small tradesman and others adopting the banking system. This Amendment is moved to avoid that difficulty in future. The limit suggested in the Amendment is £5. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider that if that figure were inserted in the Bill he would lose a large amount of
    2462
    revenue, but if he is willing to accept the spirit of the Amendment, the figure of £5 might be reduced to £2, in which case the loss of revenue would be much smaller and the provision would still have the effect of meeting the case of the small trader. The Clause as it stands in the Bill will, I am afraid, have the effect of discouraging those traders to keep banking accounts and impose hardship on the individuals concerned.
    Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment. This subject was thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that there should not be any diminution in use of cheques. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is open to argument. He said on the Committee stage:
    "After all, I have a responsibility. I have got to be convinced either that it is not a proper source of raising revenue or I have got to ask the House of Commons to support me in this proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918. col. 1467.]
    Also in the course of that speech he made what he thought was a very convincing quotation from Professor Pigou, which had a considerable effect upon the Committee and induced it to support him in adhering to his tax. It was a most amazing quotation. It said:
    "In current discussion, the probable effect of an increased duty on cheques has led to a good deal of contention. The main point in practice is whether the use of cheques is not likely to be diminished to any appreciable extent, as it is asked what kind of effect would follow if the use of cheques was seriously discouraged. The correct answer is perfectly simple; if the use of cheques is discouraged, it means in the first instance that more currency notes will be drawn out into circulation to take the place of cheques. This means that the notes held in the tills and in reserve in the banks as a whole will be diminished. The normal result of this would be to force up the rate of discount and thereby directly to lessen bank loans and indirectly to lower prices."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded to say:
    "He goes on to say that of course the normal effect would be prevented by the artificial means which the Government take of keeping rates down, and that the effect on inflation would be absolutely nil "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918, col. 1465.]
    The argument contained in that quotation, to anyone who gives it any thought, is, on the face of it, quite unsound, because if the result of this tax is to diminish the use of cheques and increase the issue of currency notes, how can it raise the rates of discount? It is quite

    2463
    true that the quotation says it will only do so in normal times, but it is because we are not living in normal times that we cannot raise the rate of discount, for the very good reason that the Government, by continually borrowing and increasing credits, and thereby giving the banks the right to increase their issues of currency notes, make it impossible to raise the rates of discount. It is most absurd to try to convey to this House that if this tax has the effect of diminishing the use of cheques—nobody will argue that by increasing taxation you are likely to stimulate the use of cheques, particularly of small amounts, because people rather than send cheques through the post will find ways and means of reducing their cheques remittances, and thereby increase the number of currency notes—you can raise the rates of discount. If the Treasury are continually adding to the currency by their remissions every week, it is absurd to bring forward that quotation as an argument in favour of going on with this Stamp Duty. In the ordinary course of events, if you were to reduce the amount of reserves at the banks and to raise the rate of discount, that would affect the supply of money, but the Bank of England under the present system has no control over the money market at all, although it has the right to raise the rates of discount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always courteous, therefore one persists in the hope that he will see that this proposal is a retrograde step.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the whole Clause, but only the Amendment.
    Mr. MASON:It is on the use of smaller cheques that the increased tax will have the greatest effect, because it will not affect the larger cheques so much. It is a very curious thing that now, when we have an enormous increase in paper money, we should have this proposal. In Germany the increase in paper money is something like £1,000,000,000. I have actually in my hands a quotation from a German newspaper expressing concern at this enormous increase in paper money there, and saying that they are doing all they can to stimulate the use of cheques. Yet at the same time we, who have the finest cheque system in the world, are actually going out of our way to penalise the use of cheques. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) said on the Committee stage that he would
    2464
    like to see the Cheque Duty entirely abolished. This Amendment is a good step towards that end. If you were to abolish this duty altogether, you would stimulate the use of cheques and be. doing something to ease the position of this country. I admit that we have not gone in for inflation to the same extent as Germany, but they have arrived at a position of stimulating the use of cheques while we are doing all we can to diminish it.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member is wandering off into the general topic Under the guise of discussing the Amendment he is really discussing the Clause. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. MASON: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I submit that it is on the small sums under this very Amendment that the diminution will take place. To those who draw cheques for large amounts, probably this increased duty will not make much difference. The man who is going to draw a cheque for £10,000 or £50,000. or oven for £15 or £30, is not going to consider the increased tax, but it is the small people and small shop-keepers who will be hit. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this eleventh hour, will get rid of the danger inherent in this most retrograde proposal. If the Chancellor could now make this concession he might do something towards lessening the evil effect of bringing about possibly a diminution in the use of cheques and an increase in the use of currency notes.
    Mr. D. WHITE: The detrimental effect of fining people an extra penny on the use of every cheque will be principally felt in the case of the smaller cheques. It cannot be suggested that cheques for £50 or £60 would make very much real difference. The real difference would be in cheques under £10 or £5. I had an Amendment to the extent of £10 in Committee, but that was not moved in view of the general attitude, and I have now reduced it to £5,because I am sure it is the cheques under £5 which will be most seriously affected If they are seriously interfered with there will be a much increased need, not only of Treasury notes, but also of small change. That is in itself a disadvantage and cheques have this advantage over and above currency notes, that they can be made out for the exact amount, so that instead of requiring a currency note plus small change, a. cheque may be made out

    2465
    in such a way as not to require to be supplemented by either. Even if the right hon. Gentleman feels unable to make it £5, an even smaller amount would be something, but I plead that at least the smaller cheques ought to bear the same stamp as they do now in view of the special interests of the time. I know that certain practical difficulties may occur if the larger cheques are to be subject to a duty of 2d., and the smaller to a duty of 1d., but that very differentiation was embodied in the proposal which such an able financier as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach made when he proposed this in 1902, and, subject to the change in the amount, I have followed the exact words of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's Bill. Though there may be some slight inconvenience, it will be more than counterbalanced by enabling smaller cheques to perform the office which they have so usefully performed. As regards the question of paying the 2d. duty, provision is made in the Bill itself for the extra 1d. being put on cheques requiring 3d., so that will have to be the case in any event, and I suggest that matters should continue on that basis so that the smaller cheques should still be chargeable only with the duty of 1d. I do not think there would be any serious inconvenience in that, and it would certainly be detrimental to the use of cheques if, however small they might be, people had to pay double.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I regard this Clause in its present form as the one blot upon the Budget. Fortunately, it is a very small blot on a very big Budget, but if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he would remove what some of us think is a blemish upon his proposals of this year, because our objections to the Cheque Tax relate mainly to the additional Stamp Duty upon cheques for small amounts. If this were accepted it would remove practically the whole of cur objections, or at least to a very large extent. We object to the extra Cheque Duty because it will tend to prevent the large growth in the use of the cheque system for the payment of salaries and small shopkeepers' accounts, and later on, we hope, for the payment of wages to considerable sections of the working class. There is no reason whatever why the number of banking accounts, which already runs to many hundreds of thousands, possibly even to millions, should not be immensely extended. The additional duty upon cheques will undoubtedly
    2466
    tend to prevent their development, but if you exempt from this additional duty the small cheque below £5, that objection would be largely removed. Secondly, we objected to it because it would tend to increase the use of Treasury Notes. But that, again, applies chiefly to payment in small amounts. People who were paying £5, £10, or more, would not mind whether it was a 1d. or a 2d. stamp, but when it comes to a man paying 5s., 10s., or £1, persons of small means doing their trade or business on a small scale will look at these additional charges. If the Amendment were accepted, that objection also would be to a great extent met. It may be said it will be inconvenient to have two rates of Stamp Duty on cheques, and that persons doing business will find that troublesome. But persons accustomed to drawing considerable numbers of cheques would have two cheque books, one with 1d. and one with 2d. stamps. Others might be allowed to add a postage-stamp, as is proposed temporarily in the Bill, and cancel it, and that would bring in revenue in exactly the same way as the 1d. receipt stamp does now. I feel sure that the public would soon get accustomed to the differentiation of amount above and below £5, or it might be £2, if that figure were chosen, just as they are perfectly accustomed now to put a receipt stamp on any bill of or over and not to do it on any bill below £2. In any case, I feel sure that small traders would much prefer to take that extra trouble, whatever form it may take, than to pay an extra 1d. on every cheque which they draw for any amount, no matter how small.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the support he has given to the Budget as a whole, and also for saying this blot is no a very big one. I sincerely hope that is so. I am sure he and the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment will not be surprised when I say I could not possibly accept it. I am sure they will understand the reasons. In the first place, the revenue would be very largely diminished. In this case, as in others, it is the big number of people who deal in small amounts who give us the revenue. If the Amendment were adopted it would not be worth while taking the tax. On the other hand, I am quite sure, whatever fault there is in my proposal, which has now been adopted by the House, it does not go beyond inconveni-

    2467
    ence. I have discussed this question of possible differentiation with a good many people before I made this proposal, and everyone with whom I discussed it, without exception, said the idea of having two different cheques would be absolutely intolerable to the banks and would mean inconvenience and irritation. There is, therefore, no alternative between the proposal which the House adopted in Committee and abolishing the tax altogether. There is no half-way house. If the evils which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates do happen, after all this is a war tax and it may be put right after the War, as many other taxes can. But I still remain quite unconvinced, in spite of all the evidence, and I am satisfied that the only thing which could cause any diminution in the use of cheques would be a feeling of grievance and irritation on the part of people due to their saying, "This is a silly tax, and I will try to find some way of avoiding it." It is not out of malice that the Chancellor has done it, but because he is hunting in every direction for money, and this small additional expense is going to help in financing the War. If they look at it in that spirit I am certain this will be found to be a very harmless tax.
    Amendment negatived.
    CLAUSE 40.—(Provision for Enabling the Post Office to Exercise Powers in Relation to Insurance Stamps.)
    Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1911 (which enables His Majesty by Order in Council to provide for the exercise and performance by the Postmaster-General of any powers and duties of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with reference to certain stamps) shall have effect as though the reference therein to any stamps used to denote duties other than duties of postage included a reference to stamps required for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1911.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "and any Orders made under that Section may be varied or revoked by any subsequent Orders so made."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
  Order for consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 5."
  2468
  There was some discussion in the Grand Committee about certain Amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill promised to consider them on Report stage. There was some question as to whether or not it was possible to move them, and it was agreed that the Bill should be recommitted.
  7.0 P.M
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I have no objection to re-committal. Of course, it does not commit me in respect of the Amendments moved.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Bating.)
  (2)The powers of a commission of sewers or of a drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, powers of levying drainage rates on the basis of acreage or on the basis of annual value of the lands liable to be rated.
  (2) An Order made under this Act may pro vide for differential rating of part of any drainage district (whether constituted under the principal Act or this Act), or any area within the limits of a commission of sewers, and for total or partial exemption of buildings, railways, canals, inland navigations or any other special class of land within the district or area.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:
  "Provided that it shall not be lawful to rate any railway, dock, canal, or navigation company at a higher amount than so much of the land immediately adjoining such railway, dock, canal, or navigation as may be situate within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners and drainage boards, respectively, and in case any of the lands immediately adjoining shall be rated at different amounts then the mean amount at which all of the said adjoining lands within a distance of four hundred yards on each side of the railway, dock, canal, or navigation, as the case may be, shall be so rated shall be the amount at which such railway, dock, canal, ornavigation company shall be rated in respect of the lands in their occupation."
  Power is given in the Clause to do this, and it has been done on many occasions. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows the cases where it has been done. It was done in the Land Drainage Provisional Order Act, 1912, and it has been done on other occasions. The Amendment is very simple.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I think it is very possible that cases might occur in which the proposed basis of rating would he quite fair and reasonable, but, on the other hand, there are cases where railways would be so materially affected by the drainage of flood water that I cannot accept the Amendment, because I think the drainage to prevent flood might be so materially beneficial to the railway company to justify rating on a higher basis. This Amendment will alter the rating powers at present possessed by existing commissioners of sewers, and drainage boards. As regards the new drainage authorities, I cannot accept the limitation, for the reasons I have just given. I may add that, if any Order proposes a basis of rating which the railway or other body considers inequitable, they have the opportunity of protesting, and their petition would be dealt with on its merits at the time when the Order is being prepared.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am aware of that; but the objection to that is that it will entail unnecessary trouble and expense both to the drainage authorities and to the various companies which are covered by my Amendment, because it is evident that they will have to exercise that power of objection which they have, and which they would not have to do if my Amendment were accepted. This provision has been put into several new drainage Acts, and I am sorry that the President cannot accept. However, I suppose it is useless to press it; therefore, under the circumstances, I will not go to a Division. But I would rather not withdraw.
  Mr. BRUNNER: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this point, that if he looks at the title of the Bill he will see that it relates to the drainage of agricultural land. The legal advisers of the railways might be able to say that under such a title as that it would not be possible to rate the buildings or land of any railway, dock, canal, ornavigation company. The word "agricultural" in the title is a pure mistake, and that point may be raised by a clever lawyer. Therefore, it seems to me that the whole provision as to rating in Clause 4 might be rendered nugatory.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5. — (Powers of Local Authorities to Contribute to Drainage Expenses.)
  Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board that the execution or
  2470
  maintenance of any drainage works is desirable in the interests of the public health of any area, or for the protection or better enjoyment of any highways, the Board may authorise the local authority of the district for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1875, in which the area to be benefited is situated, or the highway authority, as the case may be, to contribute or undertake to contribute to the expenses of the execution or maintenance of the drainage works by a drainage authority, and may direct how and out of what fund or rate such contributions may be defrayed.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, after the word "authority" ["drainage authority"], to insert the words "such an amount as the Local Government Board, having regard to the public benefit derived there from, may sanction."
  Mr. RAFFAN: I should like to acknowledge the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in meeting the point which I raised on Second Reading.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, as an Amendment to my proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "Local Government."
  This is really to prevent confusion. The Local Government Board is the only Board spoken of in the Clause, and if the words "Local Government Board" were repeated it would make the word "Board" in the middle of the Clause ambiguous.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "Provided that in the case of a rural district council such contributions shall be defrayed as special expenses."
  There are a certain number of people who are subject to a lower rate if the rate is called drainage special expenses. The exemptions are
  "The owner of any tithes, or of any tithe commutation rent-charge, or the occupier of any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only, or as woodlands, market gardens, or nursery grounds, and the occupier of any land covered with water, or used as a canal or towing-path for the same, or as a railway constructed under the powers of any Act of Parment for public conveyance,"
  and it is provided that they
  "shall, where a special assessment is made for the purpose of such rate, be assessed in respect of one-fourth part only of the rateable value thereof, or where no special assessment is made, shall pay in respect of the said property one-fourth part only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of houses and other property."

  2471
  The Amendment would secure that the privilege which these people already have should be preserved, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. On the Committee stage he said that he was afraid he could not accept it without the consent of the President of the Local Government Board. I see the President of the Local Government Board here. Perhaps he has come down to say that after consideration he is prepared to recommend that the Amendment be accepted.
  Mr. PROTHERO: The expenses referred to relate to contributions by the sanitary authority for the benefit of drainage works and contributions by the highway authority for the benefit of the highways. The general rule under the Local Government Act is that the highways expenses incurred by a rural district council shall be defrayed as general expenses. I do not see why that rule should not prevail, subject always to the discretion of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board have the discretion to say whether the expenses should be treated as general expenses or as special expenses. They still retain that power, and that discretionary power is given in a great mass of legislation, the Housing. and Town Planning Act, for instance. What we want is to preserve the discretion of the Local Government Board. I think the right hon. Gentleman may be satisfied with that discretion. That that discretion has been fairly exercised is, I believe, the universal experience.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think that the explanation given by the right hon. Baronet as to what is meant by special expenses is quite correct. I have always understood it, as one who has taken part in these local bodies, that special expenses are levied on a particular township and that a general rate is levied on the whole of the rural district area. The right hon. Baronet seemed to be under the idea that he was differentiating between different ratepayers in the same township, but I think if his Amendment were carried it would only have the effect of differentiating between townships. That may be right or it may be wrong. I think it would be better not to put this Amendment in, but to leave the rural district councils to be checked by the Local Government Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) [a new Clause (Amendment of Principal Act)—
  "The words 'for agricultural purposes ' in the title and preamble respectively of the principal Act are hereby repealed"]
  would extend the scope of this Bill beyond the title of it and beyond the purpose for which it was passed on the Second Reading. If it has any effect at all, the effect of the Amendment on the Preamble of the original Act of 1861 would be, I presume, to make the Act of 1861 applicable to all sorts of purposes beyond agricultural purposes. That seems to me to be beyond the scope of this Bill, and, therefore, it is out of order.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I submit that the removal of these words will have only the effect on the Act of 1861 of correcting a mistake. The whole of the procedure of the Act is such that agriculture is not mentioned, neither in the body of the Act nor in any Act upon which that Act of 1861 is founded. I think, Mr. Speaker, if you inquire from the President of the Board of Agriculture, you will ascertain that there is rating not only for agricultural land, but upon railways and buildings; in fact, on all property within the area, and, therefore, the whole scope of the drainage legislation refers to all kinds of property other than agricultural property.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Act has been applied beyond agricultural purposes there is no necessity for altering the Preamble. Anyhow, whatever may be the facts of the case, I do not think the Amendment can be made by this Bill.
  Clause 1. — (Power to make. Orders Constituting Drainage Districts, Etc.)
  (1) Subjects in the case of opposed Orders to confirmation by Parliament in manner provided by the First Schedule to this Act, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by Order—

  (a) constitute any area a separate drainage district for the purposes of Part II. of the Land Drainage Act, 1861 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), and provide for the constitution of the drainage board for the district and the appointment or election of the members thereof;

  2473

  (b) alter the boundaries of any drainage district constituted under the principal Act or this Act or any local Act, or the limits of any commission of sewers;

  (C) define the limits of any commission of sewers;

  (d) confer on any drainage authority such additional powers of levying drainage rates or borrowing powers as may be necessary or expedient, or alter or supplement in any other respect the provisions of any local Act or of any award made under any such Act where in the opinion of the Board such alterations or supplemental provisions are necessary or expedient for enabling the area for the benefit of which drainage works are authorised by the local Act or award to be drained effectually.

  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "and" ["and provide"], to insert the words
  "include therein the whole or any part of any existing drainage area and."
  I move these words to remove an ambiguity, which apparently prevailed in the minds of some hon. Members as to whether there was power to include as well as to constitute a separate drainage area. I think that the words as they stand do cover this, but we want to remove any ambiguity.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b) leave out the words "district constituted under the principal Act, or this Act, or any local Act, or the limits of any Commissions of Sewers," and insert instead thereof the word "area."— [Mr. Prothero.]
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert
  "(2) any Order under this Section may contain any incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions which appear to be necessary or proper for the purposes of the Order."
  I move this Amendment to carry out my promise to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Major Lane-Fox).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert
  "(2) Where the council of a county or county borough in which the drainage area of any drainage authority is situate, or if such area is situated is more than one county or county borough, the councils thereof present a petition to the Board for the purpose the Board may by a like Order, made after consultation with the Local Government Board, transfer to the council
  2474
  or councils the powers, duties, property, and obligations of the drainage authority, and thereupon the council or councils shall become the drainage authority for the area for the purposes of this Act, and any expenses incurred by the council or councils as such authority shall be defrayed under and in accordance with the powers so transferred and not in any other manner."
  There is a power somewhat similar in scope in Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888, but after consultation with the Local Government Board we thought it might be convenient to deal with the matter by Order under this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2. — (Procedure for the making of Orders.)
  (1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may on the receipt of such a petition as is hereinafter mentioned, or, in the case of the constitution of a separate drainage district or of the alteration of the drainage area of any drainage authority, on their own initiative without any petition, after making such inquiries as they think necessary, prepare a draft Order to carry the petition into effect, or as the case may be, to constitute the district or alter the area.
  (4) An Order constituting an area a separate drainage district or including in any drainage district any drainage area or any part of any drainage area shall not be made if within the prescribed period after publication of the draft Order the proprietors of one-third of the area signify to the Board their objection to the making of the Order.
  (5) An Order altering the boundaries of a drainage area shall not be made without the consent of the drainage authority for the area, or if within the prescribed period after the publication of the draft Order the proprietors of one-third of the area proposed to be added to or excluded from the drainage area signify to the Board their objection to the making of the Order.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "necessary," to insert the words,
  "and after consultation with the Council of any county or county borough affected by the proposed Order, or any committee thereof appointed for the purpose."
  This Amendment is proposed to meet the views of the Town Planning Association. It gives them what they ask for.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In. Subsection (4), leave out the word "area" ["area signifies"], and insert instead thereof the words "proposed drainage district." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the words "one-third;" to insert the words "in rateable value."

  2475
  You might have a certain number of people who have really a very limited financial interest in the district coming forward with an objection to the Order, and the insertion of these words will ensure that the one-third who will come forward shall be people who represent to a considerable extent either acreage or value in the district.
  Mr. PROTHERO: The Bill in its present form follows the Act of 1861. it provides for the total or partial exemption of buildings, railways, and so forth, and enables drainage rates to be raised on an acreage basis. The rateable value is, therefore, by no means necessarily an index to the proportional interest affected, and it is on that ground that I prefer the existing principle.
  Mr. BOOTH: While I think that the right hon. Gentleman might well say that the rateable value is not necessarily a correct basis, neither is acreage. A large proportion of a particular township might easily be bog or moorland, and a certain part which was really affected might be of an entirely different character. I can quite see that it is difficult to say whether it should be acreage or rateable value. In some cases rateable value would certainly be much better, if there is an average cultivation, assuming it is all agricultural, or if it is residential, and it is evenly distributed with farms of something like the same value. But if there happens to be a very poor section of the area of no particular value, with people on it of no particular account, it might very easily have an importance out of all proportion to their real wealth, ability, knowledge, and their real interest in the question. But you cannot take it both ways, and perhaps it would limit it too much to say one-third of the rateable value, and therefore I think that of the two we should follow the wording of the Minister in charge.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), after the word "area" ["area shall"], insert the words,
  "or including in any drainage district any part of a drainage area." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Clause 3. — (Expenses of Making the Order.)
  (1) The expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, if and so far as the Order so directs, the expenses of the petitioners, in relation to the making or confirmation of an Order, shall be defrayed as follows:
  (a) Where a petition has been presented for the Order and the Order is made and comes into force, then—

  (i) if the Order is made on the petition for the constitution of a separate drainage district, the expenses shall be a first charge on the rates leviable in the district constituted by the Order;

  (ii) if the Order is made on a petition for the alteration or definition of the boundaries of a drainage area, the expenses shall be a first charge on the drainage rates leviable by the drainage authority in the area as altered or defined by the Order, or where more than one area is so altered on the drainage rates leviable within those areas in such proportions as the Board direct;

  (iii) if the Order is made on the petition of a drainage authority for altering or supplementing the powers conferred on the drainage authority by a, local Act or award the expenses shall be a first charge on the drainage rates leviable by the drainage authority.

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a, i), leave out the word "the" ["the Order"], and insert instead thereof the word "an."
  In paragraph (a, iii.), leave out the words "the petition of a drainage authority," and insert instead thereof the words "a petition."
  At the end of paragraph (a, iii.) insert the words,
  "(iv) if an Order is made on a petition for the transfer to the Council of a county or county borough or to two or more such Councils of the powers, duties, property and obligations of a drainage authority by the petitioners." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Clause 6. —(Arrangements between Drainage Authorities.)
  Any drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act, or any commission of sewers, may with the consent of the drainage authority of any adjoining drainage area execute and maintain in that adjoining area any works which the drainage board or commission might execute or maintain within their own area on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be agreed on between such board or commission and the drainage authority, or may agree to contribute to the expense of the execution or maintenance of any works by the drainage authority of any adjoining drainage area, and any expense incurred by any such drainage board or commission of sewers under this Section shall be defrayed as if the expense had been incurred in their own drainage area.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move to leave out the words "board constituted under the principal or this Act or any commission of sewers," and to insert instead thereof the word "authority."
  This is to extend the powers conferred upon drainage boards and commissioners of sewers to drainage authorities under

  2477
  local Acts that are otherwise omitted. This is really in a way a drafting Amendment, because while we are dealing in the body of the Act with drainage authorities under local Acts, they are, as this Clause at present stands, unable to enter into arrangements with other drainage authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  Leave out the words "drainage board or commission," and insert instead thereof the words "first mentioned drainage authority."
  Leave out the words "such board or commission and the drainage authority," and insert instead thereof the words "drainage authorities."
  Leave out the words "such drainage board or commission of sewers," and insert instead thereof the words "drainage authority." — [Mr. prothero.]
  Clause 11. — (Expenses of Councils.)
  Any sums payable under this Act by the council of a county or county borough shall, in the case of a county, be paid out of the county fund and, in the case of a county borough, out of the borough fund or rate.
  Amendments made:
  At the beginning, insert the words "Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Act."
  After the word "borough" ["borough shall"], insert the words "be paid." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Clause 13. —(Definitions.)
  For the purposes of this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "navigation authority" means any person or body of persons havings powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain an inland navigation.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "an" ["an inland"], and insert instead thereof the words "a canal or other." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Clause 15. — (Powers of Board to Enforce Performance of Duties.)
  (1) For the purpose of enforcing in relation to agricultural land any liability to repair which is enforceable under Section fifteen of the Sewers Act, 1833, any officer appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may exercise on behalf of the Board the powers conferred by that Section on an officer appointed by a Court of Sewers.
  (2) Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flooding or inadequate drainage which
  2478
  might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, or by any award made under any Act, or by any commission of sewers, and which are not being exercised or, in the opinion of the Board, are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such power and also any power conferred by any such Act, order, award, or commission for defraying the expenses so incurred or for any purpose incidental to the exercise of any such power: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to powers conferred upon any railway or canal company for the purposes of their undertaking.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next two Amendments— [in Sub-sections (1) and (2), to leave out the word "agricultural" (Mr. Brunner)] —are out of order.
  Mr. BRUNNER: The first Amendment seems to me to be in order, because the Sewers Act of 1833 has no reference to agricultural land, and the point might possibly be taken that the officer to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture would have no authority over any land which was not agricultural, and yet as to which there was a liability for repair under Section 15 of the Sewers Act of 1833. The President of the Board of Agriculture agrees that the omission of the word "agricultural" there does not extend the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill is to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land, and this Clause says,
  "for the purpose of enforcing in relation to the cultivation of agricultural land any liability to repair which is enforceable under Section 15 of the Sewers Act, 1833,"
  and so forth, and I cannot help thinking that the proposal to leave out the word "agricultural" would extend very largely the scope of the Bill, If the President tells me that I am wrong, I shall be glad to withdraw my opinion.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I think, Sir, that you are right.
  Clause 16. — (Schemes for Drainage of Small Areas.)
  (2) Before executing any works under this Section the Board shall prepare a draft scheme stating:

  (a) the works proposed to be executed;

  (b) the area to be improved thereby;

  (c) the estimated cost of the execution of the works and the maximum amount to be recoverable by the Board in respect of the costs thereof;

  (d) the manner in which the expenses of executing and maintaining the works are to be apportioned amongst the lands comprised in the area;

  2479
  and shall give to the owners and occupiers of land comprised within the area notice in the prescribed manner of the making of the draft scheme, and of the place where it can be inspected and of the time within which objections to the scheme may be presented to the Board, and the Board shall, before settling the scheme, consider any objections which may have been duly made.

  (5) Any expenses incurred by the Board under this Section in the execution of drainage works to an amount not exceeding the amount declared by the scheme to be the maximum amount of expenses recoverable by them, or in maintaining any such works, shall be recoverable by the Board in a summary manner from the several owners of the lands to which the scheme relates according to the apportionment in the scheme:
  Provided that if any owner so requires in writing the sum payable by him shall be recoverable by the Board by means of a rate to be made and levied by the Board in like manner, subject to the like provisions and with the like incidence, as are applicable in the case of a private improvement rate for private improvement expenses incurred by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, but the local authority shall, if so required by the Board, collect the rate and pay over the proceeds to the Board after deducting such reasonable costs of collection as may be agreed with the Board, or, in default of agreement, settled by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "area" ["area notice "], to insert the words,
  "and to any navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the Board to be affected by the scheme."
  This Amendment is moved in accordance with the promise given to the hon. and Gallant Member for the Epping Division (General Colvin).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in Subjection! (5), after "1875" [" Public Health Act, 1875,"], to insert the words
  "with this qualification, that the Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the work, the contract of tenancy, and all other circumstances of the case."
  This is rather an important Amendment. By the Bill as it stands the rate imposed is to cover the expenditure on the drainage improvements, and it would, like all other private improvement rates, be paid in the first instance by the occupier, who would be entitled to deduct from the rent three-fourths of the rate. The greater number of farms in England and Wales are held on annual agreements, and there would therefore be very little practical difficulty under
  2480
  an annual agreement of getting an adjustment between the owner and the occupier. But where there is land held on lease for a number of years, in those cases it may well be that the arrangement for a deduction of three-fourths of the rate would be inadequate, having regard to the benefit which is derived, and the point of the Amendment is that, in such a case, application may be made to the Board to adjust the matter on an equitable basis.
  Mr. D. WHITE: This Amendment deals with rather an important point raised in Committee, and I was one of those who raised it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not see his way to meet us in a much larger way, and that is to make this charge a first charge on the land; still, I should like to express our appreciation of the way in which he has met this point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "shall, if so required by," and insert instead thereof the words "may on the application of." — [Mr. Prothero.]
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Captain CARR-GOMM: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  This Bill is to authorise the closing and sale of the Church of St. Olave, Southwark, and the sale of St. Olave's rectory, and the site of the old rectory; the extinction of the ecclesiastical parish of St. Olave, Southwark, and the merger thereof in other parishes, and for other purposes. The object I have in view, in bringing this question to the notice of the House, is to call attention to some of the provisions of this measure, and I do so as Member for the constituency in which this parish is

  2481
  situated. First of all, this Bill divides the old parish of St. Olave into two parts, handing over one portion to St. Paul's, Bermondsey, and the other to St. John's, Horsleydown. There are certain old charities in this parish, and they are mentioned generally in the Bill, but there is one charity in the old parish of St. Olave which, very curiously enough, is not mentioned in this Bill, and I do not know what the view of the Charity Commissioners is with regard to it, but it seems to me that the division of a parish like this is rather a dangerous question in regard to future contingencies. The charity, which is not mentioned, is rather a curious one; perhaps it can hardly be called a charity, it is a fund, derived from a very old burial ground on which the present London Bridge property of the South-Eastern Railway is built. The money which is obtained from this ground is divided between the rector of St. Olave's, the parish which is to be extinguished, and the rector of St. John, Horsleydown. There is no mention of this in the Bill, and unless the matter is dealt with it will lead, I suppose, to litigation. I take the line that the promoters of this Bill have acted in some roundabout fashion in regard to the future administration of the parish. The parish of St. Olave is a very oldone, and was divided by an Act of the reign of George II., out of it being carved the newer parish of St. John, Horsleydown. So I should have thought that the most practical method for administering this ecclesiastical matter in future would be to re-establish the original parish, using St. John's Church, and keeping the charities as they have existed in the same parish—that is to say:, counting the parish of St. Olave in it, not adding a portion to St. Paul's, Bermondsey, but giving the whole area of the parish to the supervision of the church of St. John's, and calling it the parish of St. Olave and St. John. If that were done it would save future confusion, and it would enable the Crown to have an adequate living for the parish of St. Olave and St. John. By this Bill the proceeds are divided in such a way as to convey the sum of £150 to the rector of St. John's, and £75 to the rector of St. Paul's, Bermondsey. If the original boundary were to be introduced into the Bill, you would then have the substantial addition of £200 income for the rector of St. John's, and would make 'him responsible for the whole parish, as he was
  2482
  before the Act of George II. was passed. That is an arrangement which should be introduced into this Bill.
  A further point is one which raises the most opposition and most criticism. When this Bill was introduced originally it was the object of the promoters to sell and build over the whole site of the church, and it was only by the action f the Metropolitan Open Spaces Society that an Instruction was promoted and moved in another place to the Committee, which dealt with the Bill, and this Instruction led to the introduction in the Bill of Clause 9, which deals with that part of the sites of the old church and old churchyard which is not to be built upon. The Bill, as originally introduced in the other place, proposed to override no less than three Acts of Parliament, by which the old burial grounds attached to the churches were to be preserved as "free spaces. The society and the local authority, the Borough council, In the interest of the public amenities and the health of the community, succeeded in getting this Clause introduced. It is very easy for anybody who is interested in the matter to prove clearly that this Clause is not worth the paper on which it is printed, and to prove that the open space which will be secured by this Clause will not be worth having. I ask the House to look a little closely into this matter, and I wish to put before hon. Members this point of view: The promoters are to get from the site as much money as they can. I quite recognise that their object is a very laudable one. One of the promoters of the Bill is the Bishop of the Diocese, and he looks at it entirely from the point of view of the church. He wishes to utilise the proceeds of the sale for the creation of a parish in some other part, where he says it is very much needed, an unknown locality, and at any rate nowhere near this part Of London. The promoters of the Bill made anagreement with the London County Council, who appeared by petition, and it was proposed in regard to the proceeds of this site that the London County Council should obtain the sum of £5,000, in order to devote that to open spaces as near as possible to the actual site. It was maintained that, by this proposal, the principle of the three Acts of Parliament which I mentioned would be maintained.
  Looking at it, however, from the point of view of the constituency which I

  2483
  represent, I strongly protest against that arrangement, and against the value of this site being taken by the promoters of the Bill with the object, no doubt, of promoting the spiritual welfare of people living far from this district, and by the London County Council, who wish to devote the sum I have named for open spaces nowhere near. I do not think this is a very praiseworthy method of dealing with this matter. This neighbourhood is badly in need of open spaces; it is surrounded by poor parishes, and I want to secure such value as can be obtained from this site for the inhabitants of the old parish and its surrounding district. I want to see that the principle of the three Acts of Parliament is maintained, not in some site in the suburbs, but in this very place.
  My hon. Friends who will speak for the London County Council will doubtless pour scorn upon this small open space which is preserved in this compromise Clause. It has been said that it is not much more than the size of a lawn tennis court, but I say that a piece of ground even that size in the situation it is proposed to be by this Bill is infinitely more valuable to the people of London than any extension of a great park in the suburbs. Further, the view to be obtained from this small open space is very fine. From it you can see the whole of the arches of London Bridge, the Fishmongers' Hall, and the fine buildings on that side of the river. There is no open space near, and it will be an excellent place in which people can take their midday meal It is far more important to retain even these small spaces£ and I quite admit I would rather have a larger space if possible£than to sacrifice the "whole of the site, build it over, override previous Acts of Parliament, and devote the money towards an open space in the suburbs. Without any desire to obstruct the spiritual work of the promoters, I would say that if the people of this unknown parish in a distant part of London want a church, let them pay for it, and let the ground landlords of that parish pay for it, but let us keep this site for those who are natives of the place. This small space is valuable to the people who have to live and work there, and that is why I have taken up the attitude that I have adopted. I trust that the rather specious arguments which are always put forward to overthrow a
  2484
  compromise will not be pressed very far. The compromise was arrived at by the promoters, by the Bermondsey Borough Council, and by the Metropolitan Open Spaces Society. I admit that the London County Council was not a party to it, but I think we are justified in supporting this part of the Bill. If the Bill is to be passed, let it be passed with this compromise, without which it will be a grave injury to the cause of open spaces and to the needs of the district, and if any money is to be taken from the proceeds of the sale and given to any public body I say it should not be given to the London County Council, but to the local authority, the Bermondsey Borough Council.
  Mr. PETO: I have been listening to see what arguments the hon. Member would address to the House in support of his Motion. He told the House quite frankly that he looked at it from the point of view of his constituency, the Borough of Rotherhithe.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Do we understand that the hon. Member is seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: He has given notice of seconding it, and I presume he is doing so.
  Mr. PETO: I was going on to point out to the House, when I was interrupted, that I have wider grounds for the Motion, which, stands in my name as well as in that of the hon. Member who moved it, than those which he has put forward. I found it a little difficult from his speech to see how he would gain his object or why he moved the rejection of the Bill, because it is quite clear that he believes in the compromise embodied in Clause 9, and he appears to be moving the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, because he is so much afraid that if it goes to Committee, Clause 9 will be taken out of it. I am anxious to bring this matter before the House from a different point of view, and I would like to give my account of it, as I have got it from the agents of the promoters and from a careful perusal of the Debate on Third Reading in their Lordships' House, which has hardly been alluded to in this Debate. The position in regard to this Bill is very curious. First of all, the Bishop and the present Rector of St. Olave's (Canon Craig) are the promoters

  2485
  of the scheme. They want to be able to sell the site of the church, lock, stock, and barrel, so to speak, and to utilise the proceeds for a new church, a new rectory, and the endowment of a church somewhere within the Diocese of South-wark. I do not think anyone would maintain that that was not a laudable object, or that a church which is practically disused, and which serves no resident population worth speaking of, would not be very much better if it were done away with and an adequate church provided somewhere with a proper endowment and a rectory where the population has moved to.
  Then the London County Council step in and say that, though they strongly approve of the objects of the promoters, they think they are asking to get a little too much for the church; that the scheme, if it were carried out, would undoubtedly override the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, and something, therefore, should be done in the way of an open space. It was said in the House of Lords that the open space to be rendered vacant would be in about the most unsuitable place you could possibly conceive for such a purpose. Even stronger language was used by Lord Southwark, who ought to know the subject as well as anybody, having represented the constituency of West South wark for twenty-two years. "As an old Member for West Southwark for twenty-two years," he said— [An Hon. Member: "This is not in that part of the borough at all!"] It is not as remote as New York, any way! The London County Council said that some portion of the proceedings of the sale should be handed over for a suitable open space, and it was agreed that £5,000 should be handed over to the county council, that a memorial of the old church should be erected in a suitable manner on the site by way of a tablet or otherwise, and that the old church, the actual structure, instead of being destroyed, should be removed and re-erected elsewhere where the population had moved to and where the church was required. That scheme is the scheme which was put forward as an alternative to Clause 9. Lord Crewe did not move his Clause 9, because Lord Muir-Mackenzie's Clause, which is the one in the Bill, had already been introduced, but Lord Crewe said in his speech that he anticipated that the question would be raised in the House, and that it would be debated and his scheme would be con-
  2486
  sidered. Clause 9 as he proposed it was supported in an extraordinarily able speech by Lord Curzon and some other Noble Lords, who took the trouble to go down to the locality and to see whether the scheme was really a workable arrangement or not.
  The first point I want to make is that the scheme as it is in the Bill pleases nobody. It clearly does not satisfy the county council, because it is the opposite of their scheme. It does not satisfy the promoters of the Bill, because it cuts the site into two halves from the river towards Tooley Street, leaving a frontage of only about 50 feet available on the river, and practically making what is already a rather narrow site for the purpose of a wharf and a warehouse into an almost impossibly narrow site for the purpose, and consequently enormously diminishing the value. It certainly did not meet with the approval of Lord Muir-Mackenzie, who was the Chairman of the Committee, because he solemnly warned their Lordships not to use the mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Lords as a precedent, because it landed them in various difficulties in regard to this Bill. The Instruction which they found so difficult to get away from is referred to in this way in Lord Muir-Mackenzie s Committee's own Report:
  "In accordance with the Instructions passed by the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Committee have inserted a Clause reserving out of the power to sell the premises an obligation to retain the existing churchyard as an open space; but they feel it their duty to represent to the House that the result must be the dropping of the Bill and the loss not only of the benefits which were in view for the diocese, but also of the abatement of the sad conditions now prevailing."
  So that the actual Instruction which caused all this difficulty was one which could not possibly be carried out because the promoters would not have proceeded a single yard with their proposal. Therefore this compromise was arrived at, and we are in rather a curious position, not only with regard to the Bill as a whole, but with regard to this particular Clause. Clause 9 states that
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to allow any building to be erected on so much of the disused burial ground forming the churchyard attached to the old church and of the site of the old church being not less than one-half of the whole area of the existing churchyard and church site as is delineated on a plan signed in duplicate by the Lord Muir-Mackenzie, Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, one copy to be

  2487
  deposited in the Parliament Office and the other in the Private Bill Office of the Home of Commons."
  8 0 P M.
  On inquiry, I am informed that there is no such plan. I asked the agents of the promoters where the plan was, and they told me that the plan did not exist. It never has been signed by Lord Muir-Mackenzie, it is not deposited in the Bill Office, and it may be completed to morrow, and if it is it will then be signed by Lord Muir-Mackenzie. We are therefore in the curious position of debating a Bill without having a plan which shows the two rival proposals, but the Debate in the House of Lords makes the matter fairly clear. Of course Lord Muir-Mackenzie's position was that the Committee, having an instruction which it was quite impossible to carry out, had to make the best compromise they could, and they thought that this was the best. Lord Crewe, in addressing their Lordships, expressed a hope that they would not agree to the Amendment of Lord Muir-Mackenzie, as it was that most unfortunate sort of compromise which was practically agreeable to nobody. He indicated that the space to be given by the compromise was only 60 feet by 54 feet, with, perhaps, a few feet added by the proviso. But his Lordship added a hope that their Lordships would not give an almost pedantic adherence to the rule, an admirable one in itself, that disused burial grounds should not be built upon. The Disused Burials Act lays it down that it shall not be lawful to erect buildings on disused burial grounds. But there is also a proviso such as our ancestors were in the habit of introducing into their legislation, whereby they avoided landing themselves in the tangles and boggles such as this Bill represents. They always left a loophole, and now it seems to be forgotten that in exceptional cases Parliament may, in its wisdom, say the Act shall not apply. I think if there is a case in which that can be said it is the case of this particular site. This has been spoken of as a very poor neighbourhood. It is not a residential locality. It is a valuable little bit of river frontage of about 100 feet, at the side of which is Hayes Wharf, one of the natural mouths through which London gets its food supplies. It is proposed in this absurd compromise to cut this narrow little site into halves, and to have a wretched little piece
  2488
  of 50 feet, with Hayes Wharf on the one side and another wharf, the name of which I forget, on the other, with enormously high buildings on each side of the site. By stretching out one's neck the arches of London Bridge may be seen. One of the approaches to the site is through Tooley Street, which is absolutely thronged with vans and a most dangerous place for the children and people who are likely to frequent this proposed open space. I believe under the county council scheme it was proposed to take another 9 feet off the site in order to widen the Tooley Street approach. The church tower is to be kept where it is, sticking into Tooley Street, although the church itself is to be entirely demolished.
  Will the House listen to what Lord Southwark said on this point? "I do not think we can afford to throw away such advantages as we have got right in the heart of the City. From my little practical experience of the locality, and looking at it from a business point of view, it will be a horrible waste of money to carry out Lord Muir-Mackenzie's Report." Now we have no money to waste at the present time. All the arguments in the House of Lords were against the compromise. We cannot judge properly of the effects of the proposal, because the signed plans to which the Report refers do not exist at the moment. All the weight of the argument was in favour of the county council's proposal. I also am strongly in favour of the proposals of the county council. This Church of St. Olave is not a very ancient structure. It was built, I believe, about 1730. It is not one of Sir Christopher Wren's designing, but it is the work of one of his pupils, and not a very good example of the somewhat debased classic style of that period. But, at any rate, it has a history of nearly two hundred years, and what I want to suggest is—and. it is quite as important as the principle that disused burial grounds should not be built on—that where, owing to the pressure of business and change in the density of population old City churches, or other churches, cease to be of any use in the place where they were originally erected, and become only an encumbrance and a hindrance, they should not be demolished, but the traditions of the church should be kept up, the churches themselves should be removed stone by stone, whether they be fine examples of architecture or not, and should be re-erected in some outlying suburb of the City or in some other place

  2489
  where the population has grown and where a church is required, and in re-erection any necessary improvements or enlargements can be made. I think it would be a great feature in popularising these garden suburbs, to have some definite chain connecting them with the past, such as a church. I like the county council scheme, because it provides that St. Olave's Church shall be taken away and be re-erected, including the tower which is to be left under the scheme of the Bill, where it will only be an obstruction.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I have listened with much interest to the speeches of the two hon. Members who have proposed to kill this Bill. My powers of observation may be deficient, but it did appear to me that each of them was in favour of keeping the Bill alive. One wants the Bill as it entered the House of Lords; the other wants the Bill as it left the House of Lords. I cannot conceive any matter more suitable for a Committee of this House to examine into and to pronounce upon. We have great confidence in the Committees of this House. I am informed that both parties—the borough council on the one hand and the county council on the other— have lodged Petitions to appear and state their case before the Committee should the Bill be sent to one, and, therefore, we may anticipate a full consideration of the plan by the Committee. It may be, perhaps, that the members of the Committee will think well to visit the site. It does therefore appear to me this is eminently a case where we ought not to throw out the Bill on the Second Reading but to let it be properly examined upstairs. I can say to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill that I will take care that the point he raised about the charity, which may not be mentioned in either of the Petitions, shall be carefully looked into by the Committee if the Bill goes upstairs. I can assure him also with my knowledge of the Committees of this House 'that they will not look merely at the size of the open space which may result from a proposal of this kind. I can well believe that a small site with a frontage on the river may be of more real public value than a larger area or perhaps an addition to an existing open space in some other district. I am quite certain a Committee of this House will be very careful on a point of that kind, and I am quite sure also that any Committee of this House will come to a consideration of
  2490
  the question with a feeling in favour of maintaining the principles of the Disused Burial Grounds Act. We have had many contests in days gone by on that matter, and it is well known how much store is set by the provisions of that Act. I do not mean to say that that or any other Act should absolutely never be departed from if a Committee of the House, subject to the agreement of the House itself, so decides. But I think quite rightly any Committee will deal with it with a desire that an Act of that kind shall not be overridden. I strongly recommend the House to read the Bill a second time and to send it upstairs for examination by a competent Committee.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not know whether the Mover or Seconder of the Amendment propose to press the matter to a Division. It seemed to me they were anxious rather to dispute with each other than to defeat the Bill. At any rate, I do not quite know what line they expect hon. Members to take. I rose more particularly to apologise to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who, when he commenced to speak, adopted what appeared to be an antagonistic tone to the Mover, and I thought that probably he had changed his mind, and was going to throw him over; but he has given a very interesting historical account of the proceedings, and I think now the appeal of the Chairman of Ways and Means might be responded to forthwith.
  Mr. BURNS: The Chairman of Ways and Means, in my judgment, has very properly and very fairly, and with a knowledge of the subject, which affords ample justification for his advice, asked the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I cordially support his appeal for one or two reasons, which I may briefly state. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I think, misunderstood the reason why the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm) put down his Motion for the rejection of the Bill, in terms similar to the Motion of the hon. Member himself. It was in the hope, not that it would be carried, but that it would give him an opportunity of putting, as he has very properly done, the views of the locality with regard to the preservation for the district itself of a small open space which, in my judgment, ought to be retained where it is. I am sure that the last thing that the Member for Rotherhithe wished was that

  2491
  the House of Commons should carry the Motion that this Bill be read a second time upon this day three months. The hon. Member for Devizes did not press the point that he would like the Bill destroyed. I do not think he will press his Motion to a Division. He only put it down, I gather, so that he could give expression to the view that whatever the other points of view about this open space were, he preferred that of the London County Council. I have been many years in this House, and I have invariably supported the London County Council in nearly all its works. It seems to me that this is about the only time in thirty years that the county council has been coming to the House of Commons in connection with public affairs relating to the Metropolis that I have heartily disagreed with their attitude upon a particular subject. The fact is that the value of an open space in London, on the river, to the district in which that open space is situated is in inverse ratio to the size of the open space if it happens to be on the River Thames, and my own view is that 100 feet, or 50 feet, secured opposite the Tower, opposite London Bridge, with the Monument and many other public objects in view, with the movement and light and shade of the river itself, gives enjoyment from a limited view point much better than if you were to have ten times that area attached to southwark Park, or Clapham, or Battersea, or somewhere else where open spaces are not needed to the extent they are in this particular district.
  I trust we shall not have—and, indeed, I am sure we shall not have—any of the ecclesiastical elements entering into this. There are really no ecclesiastical points in this particular Bill, but I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Devizes that the promoter of the Bill, the Bishop of Southwark, and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, with thirty-three others, voted in favour of Clause 9, which is the compromise Clause that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe has declared himself so firmly to be in favour of on behalf of the district. When to the Bishop of Southwark, who is the promoter of the Bill, there is added the weight and authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and that of Lord Muir-Mackenzie, who himself was chairman of the Committee that considered the Bill, it seems to me that all the authorities moral, spiritual, ecclesiastical, and archi-
  2492
  tectural, are on the side of Clause 9 which the hon. Member for Rotherhithe so stoutly defends this evening. The only point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Devizes is, if he will allow me to say so, a narrow and a technical one. He complains that there has not been yet seen the deposit plan in connection with this particular open space. The hon. Member for Devizes can rely upon it that the House of Commons Committees, which are punctilious in these matters, will have that plan. Members of the House of Commons will have an opportunity of seeing it, and from that purely technical point of view there is not much claim for the case of the hon. Member for Devizes. I would ask the House to remember that it is not sufficient that the county council should say, "Let the promoters of the Bill clear away this church." I have nothing to say upon that. Let us have the site of the burial' ground for £5,000, so that the London County Council, which is the Metropolitan parks authority, can spend that £5,000 elsewhere. The value of this site is where it now is. There are historical, literary, ecclesiastical, and religious as distinct from ecclesiastical grounds for that burial ground being retained as an open space and an amenity for all time on the banks of the River Thames.
  I will only put one other point, and it tells rather against the fact raised by the hon. Member for Devizes. He said it would be preposterous that next to Hayes Wharf—a large wharf on the River Thames where, there are many hundreds and at this moment probably thousands of men and women employed—you should have a narrow open space wedged in between Hayes Wharf and the next wharf but one. The very fact that there are hundreds and thousands of men and women, dockers, stevedores, lighter men, and a large number of women and girls to whom a rest-place on the river of even a limited size is a great boon either in the breakfast, the lunch, or the tea hour, in my judgment is the strongest argument for its retention as an amenity, as a recreation ground, and a strong reason against it being sold and the money spent by the county council in a district that will never have such a claim for an open space as this poor district, that is now more park-less and has fewer gardens and fewer acres of open space per thousand of its population than any other district of

  2493
  London. That area and district has a claim, and now that this compromise has been blessed by Lords spiritual, temporal, and ecclesiastical, and the Archbishop and the Bishop of Southwark are in favour of this project, I hope the House will not accept the advice of the hon. Member for Devizes, but that it will take the advice of the Chairman of Committees and let this Bill go upstairs. I am satisfied that if the Committee see this open space and read the Debate which took place in the House of Lords, whereby, by 35 to 6, the proposal of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe was forced on Lord Curzon, who, in my judgment, made the most unconvincing, the least artistic, and the most repeliant speech he has ever made in the course of a long public career—when, by 35 to 6, the House of Lords decided against the county council and in favour of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, I trust that the House of Commons, on this particular occasion—it is rarely I have an opportunity of saying it—will say ditto to the majority in the House of Lords, and will reject the Motion of the hon. Member for Devizes.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: Like Lord Southwark, I represent part of the borough in which this particular open space is located, and, further, I have had the honour of representing this very constituency on the London County Council for twelve years. I should just like to say with regard to our borough that we feel very strongly that an open space which at some period or other was paid for by the people in the district should be the property of the district, and we recognise in the circumstances the necessity for some compromise which will yield us at least part of that which was previously paid for by the local population. There is a very considerable population in that neighbourhood now. There is an enormous block of dwellings only a few hundred yards from this site. It has some six storeys, and I think no less than 649 different sets of dwellings are in that block alone. Although the district has a river frontage this particular site happens to be the only site on a river frontage of three miles and a-half that is approached from any main road. Anyone who wants to get to an open space from London Bridge to Deptford has to go down tortuous back turnings before reaching it. We would rather have the whole of it, but we do resent the London County Council coming and
  2494
  saying, "You have something here that is of very considerable cash value. We propose to sell it, to walk off with the cash, distribute it to some other people who do not require a site nearly as much as you do this one. We propose to take away what you at some time or another have paid for and to give you something else twenty-five miles away." The people of the district strongly resent such an attitude, and they are very much surprised that the London County Council should come forward with such a proposition.
  Mr. PETO: They never did!
  Mr. GLANVILLE: We want as much of that site as we can get left to us in the district to enjoy. It joins the two railway termini, and a tramway terminus is only a few feet from the entrance to that church. It is a very convenient spot, and I do not think there is the slightest danger of people meeting with accidents there any more than in any other part of the Metropolis. I think that is simply an excuse brought forward in order to enable the vendors to handle the scheme in such a way as will suit mainly the objects of the purchasers rather than the interests of the public.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR (PEM-BROKESHIRE).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. ROCH: I wish to take this opportunity to call the attention of the representative of the Ministry of National Service to the way in which agricultural labour is being called up in the county of Pembroke under the new combing-out which is taking place. First of all, the hon. Member is, of course, aware that the combing-out in question has mainly affected the men of eighteen to twenty-

  2495
  three who are at work on the farms, and he is also aware that, as the effect of the administrative Orders which now exist, none of these men are able to appeal to the Appeal Committee unless they have the sanction and permission of the war agricultural committee. In this case I am told that the war agricultural committee took very great pains indeed, not with the object of exempting men, but really to try and see how many men they could get for the Ministry of National Service, having due regard to the interests of the farmers in the locality, and, after considerable pains, they made the recommendation as to the men who were entitled to appeal. It was unfortunate in the case of the Appeal Committee that there were three members of that committee who were also members of the war agricultural committee, and I think most unfortunately the Local Government Board, for which my hon. Friend, of course, is not responsible, issued a decree that those members who were members of the war agricultural committee and also the Appeal Committee should not sit on the appeals at all. The history of these appointments is this: when the original Appeal Committee was formed there were not a sufficient number of representatives of agriculture placed upon it. I went to some trouble in the matter, and ultimately, by taking advantage of an adjournment on a night such as this, I was able to induce the President of the Local Government Board, in the interests of agriculture and of fair representation, to allow those three representatives of agriculture to be added; but, under the decree of the Local Government Board, the farmers in this county have been denied the right of having their special representatives on the Appeal Committee at all. I think it most unfortunate, because the war agricultural committee sit in no way as a judicial body, and in no way pass judgment, and, after great pains, gave a recommendation that these men should have a hearing. I think it was most unfortunate that they were not able to sit on the Appeal Committee, so as to give their knowledge and experience of agriculture in helping the Appeal Committee to come to a wise decision. That is 'a special reason, upon which I lay very great emphasis, why I ask my hon. Friend to see if he can take any steps to deal with the difficulty that has arisen.
  2496
  The second point I would like to make is this. I am informed that the quota of men which it was suggested should be raised from agriculture was 30,000 for this year, and I am told, as the result of the comb-out, that that quota has been exceeded by between 3,000 and 4,000 men, so that the recent requirements laid down by his Department have been exceeded in the sparsely populated counties in which the main industry is agriculture. There is one point which I do not think the National Service Ministry have recognised in this drastic comb-out. The effect of their administration has been that there has been a rigid comb-out of all the men between eighteen and twenty-three on the farms, and that has worked in the most ludicrously unfair way as between different farmers. In some cases the farmers have been left with the whole of their available labour. In other cases the whole of the labour has been taken away, and that is not the fault of the farmer. It so happens that some farms on well-managed estates have ample cottage accommodation, and are, therefore, able to house the older married men and get their labour, whereas a lot of the small farms have no accommodation whatever, and they are precluded from getting the older men who are married, and are, therefore, practically tied down to the labour of young men between eighteen and twenty-three. I have had scores of cases put before me, and I am not selecting isolated ones. I will give just two typical cases put before me during the past week. Here is a farm of just under 200 acres. It has 70 acres under the plough, of which 25 acres are additional, ordered by the war agricultural committee to be broken up in view of national necessity. The man who farms it is a widower. He had three hands beside himself, two being under twenty-three and one an older man. Both those have been taken, and he is left with this farm of 200 acres, 70 being under the plough, with seventy cattle and between forty and fifty ewes and lambs, and only one man beside himself who is able to look after the farm. I would put it to the hon. Gentleman, who represents an agricultural constituency himself, that that farm cannot be carried on with that labour.
  I will give a worse case still. It is again a typical one of several put before me. Here is a farm of just under 150 acres, 55 of which are arable and 30 of which have been ordered to be ploughed

  2497
  up this year. The way in which men have been called up leaves this man without any labour of any kind on his farm. He is left to handle that farm entirely by himself, and he has, in addition to the 60 acres of arable land, thirty-eight cattle, sixty sheep, and fourteen horses, many of which are young ones, which it is necessary to break for purposes connected with the Army, and there is literally no one on the farm except himself and wife, and his father and mother, the father being aged eighty-five and the mother seventy-one. Those, as I have said, are typical cases which have arisen. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a great amount of feeling in the locality that the farmers are not being fairly treated. They have been asked to alter their whole course of agriculture. They have been asked to plough up additional acres—in a very drastic way in some cases; far beyond what, in many cases, I think it was wise to do. We had all kinds of assurances when we were asked to carry out this ploughing that fair consideration should be given to their claims for that labour necessary to reap the fruits of the earth. I can assure my hon. Friend there is a very, very great feeling of unrest and disquietude at the way they have been treated. My hon. Friend knows that farmers are not men who are readily got to public meetings. I am told, however, that in a not very large town a meeting of very nearly 1,000 of them were called, and that those assembled gave very strong expression to the views which they held at the way they have been treated. I think I can say that they will consider, in the way I have presented their case, that I have been most unduly mealy-mouthed.
  These are the main points. It is not my wish to prevent the Ministry of National Service getting the men which we all appreciate are vitally necessary. What we want them to do is to get the men in the wisest and the best way, and in a way which will not interfere with things which, under contingencies which may arise this year, may be almost more vitally necessary to this country than even the raising of a few thousand men from the agricultural districts. I will make a suggestion to my hon. Friend that I think will meet the case. I have been down in the locality myself, and so far as I can ascertain the War Agricultural Executive Committee really dealt most fairly and equitably with the cases
  2498
  they recommended for the right of appeal. I believe their recommendations would have been a fair solution in the interests of the Ministry represented by my hon. Friend and of the agricultural interests which also arc involved. I would ask him in the cases whore these recommendations have been made by the war agricultural committee to reconsider those cases himself, or through a representative. At all events, I do beg of him to delay the calling up of these men who have been so recommended until the harvest is over. The harvest is coming, and it is a most vital thing to keep the good temper, good humour, and good spirits of the farmer in view of his great exertions and of the anxious times which lie before him. That is my first suggestion—to cancel the notices calling up these young men until, at all events, the harvest. That will, I think I can assure him, only mean a few hundred men in an industry which has already exceeded by several thousands the quota which he reasonably thought he could require from it. I make this further suggestion, let him, in selecting these men, not fix the age rigidly at from eighteen to twenty-three, let him fix it at, say, from eighteen to thirty-one, and then get the wider selection. This will be far fairer as between the different farms, and it will get you the men required with far less dislocation of industry, and, I believe, with the good-will of the farmers; in a way also which, I think, will not be detrimental to the interests which my hon. Friend represents here.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the extremely mode rate and clear way in which he has brought this matter forward. As the House knows, the Ministry of National Service works on decentralised lines—that is to say, our activities are controlled by eleven regional officers, who look after what is necessary to be done in their particular areas. It has not been possible, in the short time since I received notice of this matter, to look into the particular case of Pembrokeshire very fully. But I can inform my hon. Friend that not only have I heard his speech, but I will read it again to look over the points which he has brought forward, so as to see that they are most carefully investigated. Perhaps the House will allow me for a very few moments to

  2499
  explain the methods by which this agricultural quota is obtained, not only in Pembrokeshire, but throughout the country. First of all, I would make this point, that this quota is obtained by agreement with the Board of Agriculture, and really through the machinery chosen by the Board of Agriculture. I do not, of course, for a moment wish to pretend that the Board of Agriculture joyously saw men taken off the land, but they were convinced when the great emergency came, that it was necessary for us to obtain some more Grade I men from agriculture. Therefore, a quota was agreed upon of 30,000 young men, Grade 1, for England and Wales, and 5,500 for Scotland. The quota in Pembrokeshire is 375. How do we obtain these men? First of all we obtain them by what is called the "clean-cut policy." This clean-cut policy is, roughly speaking, applied almost ruthlessly throughout to the young men of the country, except to those in shipyards, coal-mines, and port labour. This is what happens in agriculture. These young men, though their compeers really lose all their rights except a very narrow personal appeal to the tribunal, these young men from agriculture, from eighteen to twenty-three, first of all are allowed to proceed to the war agricultural committee, which has the fullest local knowledge of the circumstances, and they can ask that committee to allow them to go to the County Appeal Tribunal. That right is not possessed by any other class of young men of this age, and these young men are of Grade 1. In Wales out of 5,071 young men who are affected by the Proclamation, I find that 4,011 have been granted leave to go to the County Appeal Tribunal. Having obtained this class of young men, from eighteen to twenty-three, if the quota is complete, if, say, in Pembrokeshire you get all the young men you want, then Pembrokeshire is finished with so far as agriculture is concerned, and the rest engaged in agriculture can be absolutely protected by the County Agricultural Committee. If, however, you do not get a sufficient number of young men by the clean-cut method we come to the second men from which the remainder of the quota is to be obtained. We turn to Grade 1 men up to the age of thirty-one. The war agricultural committees were asked to prepare lists of such men by 12th June. The men who appear in such
  2500
  a list—and they have been warned if they are in Grade 1 and under thirty-one—that they are likely to appear there—may go first of all to the local tribunal and then to the Appeal Tribunal, and appeal on every ground except that of occupation. They cannot appeal as agricultural labourers. They may, however, appeal as persons suffering hardship, or on conscientions grounds; on every ground except occupational. The quotas have to be obtained by 30th June. I do not wish for a moment to say that I minimise in the least degree the difficulties of farmers under the conditions outlined by my hon. Friend, but really, in view of the great emergency in which this country now finds itself, in view of the vital necessity in the armed forces for these young grade men, I do not think agriculture can consider it is unfairly treated. Agriculture has no more vigilant guardian than the Board of Agriculture, and I maintain that as compared with other young men the young men in agricultural pursuits have exceptional opportunities for putting any particular hardship which may affect them as individuals. These are all Grade 1 men under thirty-one, in many cases they would be much younger, and I cannot really hold out any hope that we can depart from the most elaborate arrangements and bargainings which are represented by the machinery which I have tried to explain. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that it can in any sense be called a severe comb-out. In Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire there are 4,300 men under thirty-one years of age, and under the quota system 875 will be obtained. I agree that they are all Grade 1 men, whereas the 4,300 are of all grades, but, leaving out entirely all the men over thirty-one, of the men under thirty-one only one in five will be taken by the quota system in these two counties in Wales.
  As my hon. Friend has reminded me, and I do not want reminding, I have the honour to sit for an agricultural constituency, and nobody realises more fully than I do, or more fully than the Ministry which I have the honour to represent, that the farmers are working under very considerable difficulty, but so are other people, and I think we can safely appeal to the patriotism of farmers to help us to obtain this quota by the most easy and smooth methods. As regards Wales, I dare say the conditions are

  2501
  difficult in regard to small farms, but Wales has made extraordinarily small use so far of the trained women. Wales herself trained a number of agricultural women and could not absorb them, and those women who were trained in Wales for Welsh agriculture have actually had to be sent into England in order that their services may be utilised.
  Mr. ROCH: That is because they have no accommodation for them in Wales. It is purely a matter of accommodation.
  Mr. BECK: Men employed quite recently in Wales as members of Agricultural Companies have actually been released by the farmers from the land, and I really would appeal—
  Mr. ROCH: Is that so in Pembrokeshire?
  Mr. HINDS: It is not so in Carmarthenshire.
  Mr. BECK: At any rate, there have been quite a number of cases in Wales, but I do not insist upon that point. I want to appeal to the Welsh farmers to do their utmost to realise that there is a crisis. They know quite well that in regard to military service we protected agriculture for two years, and it is only when the emergency caused by the state of affairs in France arose that this extra quota was asked for from agriculture. The hardships are undoubtedly great, but we must support our Armies in the field. I am afraid the delay my hon. Friend asks for, which we should like to give, cannot be granted. I may say that we had no intention of drawing these men from agriculture until this crisis arose in France, but if there is anything that is vital it is that we should get the largest possible number of these Grade I men under thirty-one as soon' as we possibly can.
  An hon. Member mentioned harvesting. I have the authority of the President of the Board of Agriculture for saying that he believes the arrangements the Ministry of National Service and the Board of Agriculture have been able to make will place an adequate, if not an ample, supply of labour at the disposal of farmers for the harvest time. I can assure the farmers of this country that the most earnest consideration is being given to this question, which is absolutely vital to our security, and that every conceivable means of reinforcing agricultural labour on the land during the harvesting period is being
  2502
  adopted. We believe we can rely upon the patriotism of farmers, in spite of the many annoyances to which they arc put, and I hope the farmers will believe me when I say that there is no question more earnestly being considered and more elaborately worked out than the provision of ample harvest labour for the coming harvest.
  Mr. HINDS: I did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) was bringing up this question to-night, but I wish to say a word or two with regard to the adjoining county of Carmarthenshire. My hon. Friend has referred to a large meeting of farmers representing Welsh counties, in which they passed a resolution of protest in regard to this question. I want to support the contention that more time should be given to these men to adjust themselves to these new circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us that there were 4,300called up under this Order, and out of those 4,011 obtained the authority of the war agricultural committees to appeal.
  Mr. BECK: It is not a question of an appeal. They obtain leave to apply to a tribunal.
  Mr. HINDS: I was present at the first meeting, at which so many of these men were present, and it was held just after the day of the great offensive, and the men composing those tribunals were impressed with the news in the papers. I do not want to keep the men of twenty-three back if we can get labour to take their place. The farmers have been promised that if they put their proper quota of land under the plough labour will be forthcoming to see the harvest gathered in. Here we are to-day in June. I made a request the other day that a representative of these men should be received by the Ministry of National Service and that representative went on Monday last and he got his answer to the effect that these men would be given a certain time up to the 20th June before they would be called up. I asked a question in the House in order to get the matter in black and white, and in this House the representative of the Ministry of National Service turned his representative down in his answer.
  Mr. BECK: I really do not think the hon. Member ought to say that. I asked the official concerned, and he said they had some difficulty at arriving at an

  2503
  understanding, but he did not make such a promise, and there is some misunderstanding. I know his views on other questions and he could not have given such an undertaking because it is contrary to our own policy.
  Mr. HINDS: That is what the deputation understood, but, if they were wrong. then I am sorry. Wales is a very different place to other parts of the country because it is so hilly, and you must take all these matters into consideration when you are deciding a matter of this kind. My hon. Friend has referred to a combination for getting women to help on the land. We cannot get women to help on the land, because we have not proper accommodation for them on the land.
  There are other circumstances which the Department ought to take into view. We do not want to keep these A1 men of twenty-three on the land if we can get other people in their places, but the harvest commences next week, when we shall be getting in the hay. It is all very well to keep promising that men will be forthcoming; we want something to-day. We want an assurance given to these men who have put their land under the plough and have done it loyally. It may be said that my county, as well as Pembrokeshire, has done its best. We know that the military situation is very serious, and that men must be got. In 1914 and 1915 men went out from the farms voluntarily to help the military machine in different parts of the world. To-day the men on the farms are reduced to the very lowest ebb. Labour was very short before the War. We could not then get enough labour to carry on the farms properly. We are near to a big industrial district which offers high wages. We have munition works and collieries near to us which take the men from the farms. There are many cases in which injustice has been done, and some cases in which the farmer has been taken and the labourer left. We get many letters of complaint of great hardship, and all we ask is that these farmers shall be given a little time to adjust themselves to circumstances. I think it is a most reasonable thing to ask, but the Department say, "No; these men must come up by the 12th under the Proclamation." The thing is so sudden that they are not prepared, and hence the disquietude that there is all over the country. I hope, even after what the Parliamentary
  2504
  Secretary has said, that he will once more reconsider the matter and grant a little time to these men to adjust their circumstances, giving them some assurance, not in a month's time but now, that labour will be forthcoming to get in their harvest.
  9 0 P.M
  Sir J. SPEAR: I am sorry that I was engaged writing letters and did not hear the early part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Beck), but the question under discussion was so important that I must make a few remarks. I hope to show him that if agriculturists represent to the Government the danger of removing so many men from agriculture it is not from any lack of patriotism on the part of the farmers. Indeed, the way in which farmers have revolutionised their system in response to the Government's appeal to grow more food is strong evidence that they are loyal in doing all that can be done to win this War, and we know that food is a very potent element towards winning the War. We do recognise, after what has happened in France, the great necessity of taking all available men possible to reinforce the Army, but last night we were debating the fact that the Government had destroyed 100 acres of corn in order to obtain land absolutely necessary for the due equipment of Army requisites, and if strong feeling was shown as it was shown last night at the destruction of that corn, surely we who are growing corn all over the country would be lacking in our duty if we did not impress upon the Government the necessity of making full provision for harvesting the corn which to an enormously increased extent is being grown. I would appeal to the hon. Member to do all that he can to co-operate with the farmers in their endeavour to safeguard and secure the crops for the food of the people. I know that the difficulty is great. I am aware that there are cases in which every man has been taken from the farm. I put a case before my hon. Friend to-day which I hope he has received. It was a case from near Tavistock, in which a man, occupying some thirty acres and having a considerable head of cattle, has been called up, and in which no one has been left on the farm. I know another case in which a man had to sell the whole of his stock a fortnight ago because he had no one to leave. He was of military age and was called up. That is a very serious step

  2505
  to take. There is another case in the parish of Bere Ferris in which a young farmer, the only one on the farm, is being taken. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman that an order should be issued to tribunals that in no case should a farm be left without a horseman. There are plenty of cases I know in which the only available horseman on the farm has been taken. That is an extremely serious step, and I do think that directions should be issued to the tribunals pointing out that except under dire circumstances no farm should be left without a manager or a horseman. I think the tribunals would respect that representation from the Government. I know how difficult it is for members of the Government to over-ride the decisions of tribunals. It is a very delicate matter. A large number of men have given extremely valuable services on the tribunals, and I admit that it would be disconcerting and unjust unthinkingly to over-ride their decisions, but cases do occur in which the public has a right to appeal to the Government and in which the Government can make representations that would correct mistakes. I brought to my hon. Friend's notice this week a case in which a young man was called up, and after he was called up his mother was taken ill and had to have an operation, and his younger brother of fifteen was injured by the horses running away. The farmer was in very ill-health, and I appealed to my hon. Friend that it was a case in which representations should be made to the Army authorities. No one asserts that the tribunal made a mistake, but circumstances have happened since the man was called up which have made it a cruel thing that he should be taken away and the farm neglected.
  Mr. BECK: He was specially allowed to go to the tribunal which decided the case.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I know that he was allowed to go to the tribunal on appeal, but I am speaking of what has occurred since the tribunal's decision. When these occurrences take place after the decision of the tribunals we have a right to come to the Government and ask them to intervene. That is in no way disrespectful to the tribunal and prevents an injustice feeing done. I have had a letter from one district to-day which says,
  "I forward this specific and typical case of a 300 acres farm with 100 acres of corn, 14 acres of roots, 11 horses, about 60 cattle, 12 milking cows, and nearly 200 sheep, with a young master
  2506
  only left in charge. The only other help available is an invalid father of seventy-two, suffering from heart disease, and a discharged brother staying with them receiving 16s. 6d. disablement allowance."
  In that case it is impossible that the crops on the farm can be safeguarded in the interests of the public. I heard with pleasure the assurance that men will be provided for harvesting purposes, but I do not know where they are coming from. That is not my business. I know that when quite recently a person spoke to me on the matter I told him that he must apply for soldiers, and he said, "I have. There is none to be got." That is a very serious position to be in with harvest close upon us and men being taken away to this extent. So far as we can ascertain, there are no men available to take their places. While farmers are prepared to do their duty they ask that extremely careful discrimination shall be exercised with regard to the men who are taken. I am sure that farmers will do their very best. They have done it all along. If it had not been for their courage patriotism, and perseverance during thirty years' depression, we should be in a very serious state to-day through the lack of food. The farmers are anxious to do all they can, but they want the Government to show a keen appreciation of the difficulties of the situation, and to leave them as many men as they possibly can, consistent with the number required to win the War. There are cases occurring which require consideration. Where I live in Devonshire there is a dairy farmer who has had two sons taken. The second was taken only a fortnight ago. The farmer is ill. I have made an appeal that this young man might be allowed to come home for a month or six weeks during his father's illness. The Army would not suffer if it met a special case of that kind. It is to the Government we have to look for considerate treatment in such cases. The farmer wants his boy back for about a month until the hay harvest is over. It ought to be in the power of the Government to meet such a reasonable request.
  Mr. BECK: If he is in England, I will do my best to help my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will be good enough to let me know, and I will try to help him.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I will give the hon. Gentleman full particulars. The boy is in England. He only joined up a fortnight ago. His father was ill when he went away, but, of course, he had to respond

  2507
  to the call. Many such cases as that occur. We simply ask that the Government should deal with them in a considerate spirit. The Army will not suffer by it. It will encourage agriculturists very much to know that the Government sympathise with them in the difficulties which have arisen through no fault of their own, difficulties they are combating with courage and patriotism. It is necessary that no farm should be left without a head, except in a very few cases, indeed, should a farm be left without a horseman. With the head on the farm, a capable horseman, women's help, and soldiers' help, when it comes, we shall be able to carry on. Even if soldier help is available it is of very little use compared with that of the trained agricultural labourer. A great deal has been said about farmers' sons holding back. I do not wish to shield farmers' sons any more than the sons of other people, but;
  2508
  they have a practical knowledge of farming, they know the nature of the farm, and if farmers have held on to them it has not been through lack of patriotism, but with the conviction that they were best suited to accomplish the purpose which we all ought to have in view, namely, increasing the food supply. The only complaint I have to make of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is always very courteous, is that he is too sensitive to interfere with the decisions of the tribunals. Tribunals make mistakes, and cases occur where circumstances change after a tribunal has given its decision. We claim that we have a right to go to the hon. Member and ask that he should intervene in those cases and see justice done.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next. pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.