Commons Sitting of 21 April 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
South Hants Water Bill [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Exmouth Urban District Council.
Liverpool Copper Wharf Company (Delivery Warrants).
Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Bead a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    OVERSEAS ALLOWANCE (RAILWAYS).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for India whether revised scales of pay have been given to
    366
    the Indian Civil Service, the Public Works Department, and the educational services; whether the increase has been granted to those recruited in Britain as an overseas allowance; whether the British mechanics working on Indian railways requested such an allowance, which was refused, prior to the grant to Indian civil servants; and whether the concession now made to civil servants will be enjoyed by British recruited mechanics on the railways?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Revised scales of pay have recently been sanctioned for various services which are recruited partly in England and partly in India, the pay of the officers domiciled elsewhere than in India being fixed on the basis of that of the officers domiciled in India plus an overseas allowance. Overseas allowances were not granted as a method of increasing pay, but as a method of defining an important element in that pay. I am not aware of any request for overseas allowance by British mechanics working on Indian railways, and I do not think such an allowance would be appropriate in their case. They do not belong to a regular service of which the pay can advantageously be fixed on this basis, but are engaged under agreement on rates of pay which vary according to circumstances, and there would appear to be no object in dividing their pay into Indian pay and overseas allowance. They have been granted substantial increases of pay since the beginning of the War, including separation allowances up to the 31st March, 1920, to their wives and families in this country.

    RAILWAYS (VOLUNTEERS).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is obligatory for those in control of the Indian railways to maintain among their employés a battalion or other number of volunteers; whether, to enable this to be done, soldiers taking their discharge in India are engaged as guards, firemen, etc.; and whether he will state the hours of employment and the wages paid for such work, apart from overtime payments, to ex-soldiers so employed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not obligatory on the several Indian railway administrations to maintain volunteer forces from

    367
    among their employees, although most of them do so. Discharged soldiers are engaged as guards, firemen, etc., not with the object of maintaining the volunteer corps, but because they are suitable for work which the railways have to offer. Their hours of employment and wages are the same as for other railway employees of the same class. A normal day's work is usually reckoned as eight hours. Wages vary on different lines, and in the case of both guards and firemen are usually made up of a fixed amount plus a mileage allowance.

    DEPORTATION (MR. HORNIMAN).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for India under what Laws, Rules, or Regulations a British subject can be indefinitely excluded from British India; what are the exact terms of the provision or Rule by which Mr. B. G. Horniman is thus excluded from British India; and under what Act covering such Rule or provision the order of exclusion is made?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Horniman was excluded under the terms of Rule 3 (d) of the Defence of India Rules, 1915, a copy of which I have placed in the library. The Rule was made by the Government of India in the exercise of powers conferred on them by India Act No. IV., of 1915.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: When does the Defence of India Act come to an end?
    Mr. MONTAGU: To the best of my recollection, six months after the conclusion of peace.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the recent refusal of the Government of India to allow Mr. B. G. Horniman to re turn to India and the statement made by him on 23rd May last in this House regarding Mr. Horniman that there was plenty of case to put before the courts, and the fact that Mr. Horniman has publicly asked to be put on his trial, he will order such trial to be held or communicate to the House the materials on which his statement was made or, in the alternative, withdraw the statement?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question of putting Mr. Horniman on his trial is one within the discretion of the Government of Bombay.
    Mr. RENDALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that so serious a decision as the exclusion of a man from India should not take place in peace time without trial, and possibly conviction, and nothing else?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that this gentleman's removal was ordered by Sir George Lloyd, who is by no means an autocratic tyrant, and that his action has met with general approval on account of the manner in which this gentleman conducted himself?
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is the House to understand that this gentleman has been deported from India without trial, when he denies totally the allegations made against him?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question of trial entirely lies with the Governor of Bombay. I would appeal to the House to support the Governor in the exercise of a discretion which has been given to him by Acts passed by a competent legislative. Sir George Lloyd would, of course, be the first to admit that trial is always preferable, but he must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be better to appeal to this House to give the ordinary rights of fair play to a British subject who cannot find out what his offence is?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There is no question of finding out what the offence is; Mr. Horniman knows perfectly well.
    Mr. RENDALL: I merely want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to recommend to the Government of India eventually, not now perhaps, that this man shall not be kept out of India without a fair trial, and also conviction if that trial shows him to be guilty?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am prepared to repose complete confidence in the Governor, Sir George Lloyd.
    Mr. SPOORasked the Secretary of State for India whether any investigation has been made into the grave charges made against Mr. B. G. Horniman by him in this House in his speech on the East Indian Revenue Accounts on 23rd May, 1919, in justification of the deportation of that gentleman from India by the Government of Bombay without charge or trial;

    369
    and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the full correspondence passing between the Government of India, the Government of Bombay, and the India Office regarding this matter, and any other papers concerning it which may be available, and in particular the details of such charges as have been made by the Government of India and the Government of Bombay against Mr. Horniman?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The statements made regarding Mr. Horniman were based upon the contents of the issues of the paper which he edited. There is no need of any inquiry regarding them. I will place a copy of the orders of the Government of Bombay on Mr. Horniman's deportation in the Library.
    Mr. SPOOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a resolution dealing with Mr. Horniman's case was disallowed in the Bombay Council, and can he give a reason for that decision?
    Mr. MONTAGU: What reason?
    Mr. SPOOR: For the refusal to allow discussion on a resolution with regard to Mr. Horniman.
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, I cannot, but I will certainly make inquiry.
    Mr. SPOOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year there was an extensively signed petition by hundreds of the leading residents of Bombay sent to the Government asking for the reconsideration of Mr. Horniman's case, and does the right hon. Gentleman know what reception that appeal got?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I was not aware of the fact, but I can quite accept it from the hon. Gentleman. I would point out that the system of deporting necessarily leads to the difficult question when that deporting is to come to an end. On that question I propose to leave the matter entirely to the Government of Bombay.

    MADRAS PRESIDENCY (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether, under Lord Meston's award, non-Brahmins receive 28 out of 65 elective seats in the Provincial Legislative Council of the Madras Presidency; and whether this award has been accepted by him and becomes operative when the Government of India Amendment Act comes into force?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The first part of the question is correct, according to the telegraphic information I have received from the Government of India. The award will become operative when it is embodied in rules under the Act and the rules have received the approval of Parliament.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he proposes to take any action on the memorial submitted to the Governor-General in Council by the Madras Zamindars' and Landowners' Association regarding the inadequate representation proposed for the zamindars of the Madras Presidency in all the three councils to be constituted under the Reform Act; whether he is aware of the desirability of adequately interesting this loyal class in the new reforms; and whether he has himself received representations on the subject?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have not seen the memorial referred to, but have received telegraphic representations from three Madras landholders on the subject. The draft rules have not yet reached this country.

    VIZAGAPATAM (HARBOUR AND RAILWAY).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India proposes at an early date to deal with the Vizagapatam Harbour and Raipur-Vizagapatam Railway project?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is the intention of the Government of India that the Vizagapatam Harbour and Raipur-Vizagapatam Railway project shall be proceeded with as soon as the necessary funds can be made available.

    COINAGE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the issue of nickel coinage; and whether the issue of such coins of values higher than eight annas is contemplated?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In September, 1919, legislation was passed in India authorising the issue, in addition to the existing two anna and one anna nickel coins, of eight anna and four anna nickel pieces. These coins are legal tender for payments up to one rupee. The object of the measure was to conserve the available supplies of silver for the coinage of rupees

    371
    and consequently to reduce the demands of the Government of India on the silver market.
    Up to the end of February the absorption of nickel coins exceeded in value 5 crores of rupees. Th coins, with the exception of the 8 anna piece, the mintage of which has been temporarily discontinued, were well received by the Indian public. The recent Indian Currency Committee pronounced against the issue of a nickel rupee, and I am not at present contemplating the coinage of nickel pieces of any new denomination.

    INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can state what is the present shortage of officers in the Indian Army; and what steps are being taken to remedy it?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Until the post-war establishment of the Indian Army is finally decided it is not possible to determine whether there is any shortage among regular Indian Army Officers. To meet difficulties caused by the demobilisation of a large number of temporary Officers, about 550 Officers have recently been engaged for temporary service with Indian units.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any chance of any more being engaged in the immediate future?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of the necessity, but we are still making some appointments from the Regular Indian Army.

    AFGHAN OPERATIONS (MEDAL).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state what medal is to be given for the operations on the Afghan frontier last year; and when orders for the wearing of the ribbon will be issued?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The recommendation of the Government of India has now been received. I hope that an announcement will be made at an early date.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPS SALE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty
    372
    whether the sale of any ships of the Royal Navy to foreign countries, without any stipulation as to their being broken up, is contemplated; and, if so, which are they?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The reply to my Noble and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative; but pending completion of the negotiations, I am afraid that particulars as to the countries and vessels concerned cannot usefully be given.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Have these transactions been considered by the League of Nations?
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it not possible to give the House particulars of the sales of these vessels, and is it not a matter for the Members of this House as to the advisability of disposing of these vessels and the eventualities?
    Mr. LONG: Of course, the House has a right to know all that is going on, but, as I have just said, this information cannot be given now. There is no desire to withhold any information.
    Mr. BILLING: When can it be given?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that the House cannot be consulted in the details from step to step regarding these negotiations.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a question of change of principle, and is it not a fact that prior to the War the Government of this country did not dispose of vessels in this way, and has the right hon. Gentleman consulted this House as to whether it is a reasonable change of principle?
    Mr. LONG: There are plenty of opportunities for the House to discuss it on the Navy Estimates. As regards the change of principle between now and before the War, my hon. Friend knows that the circumstances are entirely different.
    Mr. PALMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these vessels shall not be disposed of till the House has had the opportunity of discussing the principle involved?
    Mr. LONG: No, I could not give any assurance of the kind. There is no intention whatever to withhold information that hon. Members are entitled to

    373
    have, and I do not think hon. Members are entitled to press me further.
    Mr. A. SHORT: When does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to give the House the information it seeks?
    Mr. LONG: I cannot give an exact date. We shall have the Navy Estimates under discussion again very shortly.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no danger of these vessels passing into the hands of potential enemies?
    Mr. LONG: I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Board of Admiralty are as anxious as he is to prevent that.
    Mr. BILLING: Does the contract of sale provide that they shall not be re-disposed of without the consent of the Government itself?
    Mr. LONG: I think I would like to have notice of that. Every precaution is taken that we think necessary, and I should think that is probably covered, but I would rather have notice of the question.

    NEW PENSION SCHEME.
    Sir F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, under the new naval pension scheme, officers who retire will, if called up, retain their pensions, and if any service during war or on emergency will count for an increase of pension; whether the proposed arrangements will be confirmed by an Order in Council; and, if so, whether such Order will deal clearly with this point to guard against the injustice done in this respect to retired royal naval and royal marine officers who were called up during the late War.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): It is assumed that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the scheme recently published for clearing the lists of surplus officers. On this point I would observe that, with the exception of warrant officers and, in some cases, of mates, officers who retire under this scheme will only receive a pension if over the age of 36. An officer retiring on pension under this scheme if called up will not be paid his pension in addition to full pay, nor will his service during war or emergency
    374
    count for increase of pension. Instead of his service counting for increase, the bonus on full pay payable under existing Regulations will be granted.
    The scales of gratuities and pensions will be confirmed by Order in Council, but as indicated in the answer to the first part of the question, nothing will be inserted in the Order varying existing Regulations bearing on the points in question.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the reiterated statements on behalf of the Admiralty that the distribution of prize money would take place in the early part of spring of the present year, if he will state how many officers and men have received their grants up to the present time; how much has been distributed; and if the Board are aware of the fact that many of those entitled to the said money are being handicapped by the delay in paying it?
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the approximate total amount of the Prize Fund; whether any estimate can now be given of the amount available for distribution to the Royal Navy; if there is likely to be a balance between these two sums; whether any payments have yet been made out of the Prize Fund for any purpose; when a distribution will begin; and if the amount of one share can yet be stated?
    Mr. LONG: The Admiralty are only concerned with the Naval Prize Fund, and not with the Prize Court Fund generally. The Court cases are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable an estimate to be made of the total amount of the Naval Prize Fund, but a sum of £5,600,000 is now in hand. There will, of course, be a balance between the Prize Court Fund and the Naval Prize Fund, but the Admiralty are only entitled, on behalf of the Naval Prize Fund, to Droits of the Crown, and are not concerned with the balance. Payments to the amount of about £1,300 for various charges have been made under Schedule 2 of the Naval Prize Act. A distribution of the sum in hand will begin forthwith, and an announcement to that effect is being published in Fleet Orders of this week.
    The amount of one share for the present distribution is 50s.

    375
    Payment to Naval officers and men still serving with the Fleet and in Naval Establishments will be undertaken forthwith.
    Payment to discharged and to demobilised officers and men, and to the representatives of those deceased who are eligible to participate, will begin early in June—due notice of which will be given in the Press. No applications made prior to the issue of such notice can be dealt with.

    ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that certain classes of the Army Reserve are receiving an additional grant of 6d. per day, making the amount they receive 1s. per day, if he will state what action is being taken by the Admiralty to place the Royal Fleet Reserve on a similar footing?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The conditions prevailing in the two Services are not analogous. Substantial benefits have, however, recently been granted to the Royal Fleet Reserve, as stated in the House on the 18th ultimo by my right hon. Friend the late Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and reported in Volume 126, No. 28, Columns 2503 and 2504 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    SURGEON REAR-ADMIRALS.
    Sir W. CHEYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the April Navy List only four officers are shown under the heading of surgeon rear-admiral, and that no surgeon captains have, been promoted to fill the two vacancies created by the retirement in February last of Surgeon Rear-Admiral Dimsey, D.S.O., and the addition of one surgeon rear-admiral to the list as announced in March, and whether he is aware of any reason why surgeon captains should not be promoted at once, on the occurrence of vacancies in the same way as captains in the executive branch are promoted to fill vacancies in the rear-admirals' list?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The question of promoting officers to fill the vacancies on the surgeon rear-admirals' list is now under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and it is hoped to announce the promotions at an early date.
    With regard to the second part of the question, the reason is that promotion to
    376
    the rank of surgeon rear-admiral is by selection, whereas promotion to rear-admiral is normally made by seniority.

  RUSSIA.

    BALTIC (BRITISH WARSHIPS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to keep a British squadron in the Baltic this year; if so, what its functions will be; and whether it is intended to interfere with merchant ships bound to and from Russia?
    Mr. LONG: It is intended to maintain a few vessels in the Baltic for the present, in order to show the Flag and to maintain touch with British missions in plebiscite areas such as Plensburg and Dantzic. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    DENIKIN'S ARMY (TRANSPORT TO CRIMEA).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Naval vessels were used in the transport of the remains of General Denikin's army from Novorossisk or other ports to the Crimea.
    Sir J. CRAIG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Cairns), a copy of which I am forwarding to him.

    COMMERCIAL MISSION TO ENGLAND.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister where the Commercial Mission which left Russia for this country, headed by M. Krassin, is now; what is the reason for the delay in its reaching this country; and when it is hoped to commence exchanging commodities with Russia?
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether M. Krassin and a deputation from Russia, as rpresenting the co-operative movement in Russia, is about to visit this country; whether he is aware that the co-operative movement in Russia has been suppressed for some time past; whether this deputation is coming on its own initiative or at the request of the Government of this country; and whether it will pay its own expenses while in England, or whether its members are to be treated as guests and accommodated at a leading London hotel?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): A trade deputation from Russia is at present in Copenhagen, and preliminary discussions have taken place between the delegation and representatives of the Supreme Economic Council.
    Further progress has been delayed pending consideration by the Allied Governments of certain questions of principle raised by the Russian delegates.
    The Russian trade delegation is coming as the result of a request addressed by the Russian Central Union of Co-operative Societies to the British Government through the London offices of the Russian Co-operative Societies. Its expenses in England, and the expenses of its journey to England, will be paid by the Russian Co-operative Societies or by their existing representatives in London.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that this deputation declines to come to England because we declined to allow M. Litvinoff to come here?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That point has been raised; I believe there are others; but I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the circumstances would it not be possible for the Government to reconsider their attitude?
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the co-operative movement has been suppressed by the Soviet Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know exactly what has happened, but I think the movement is under the control of the Soviet Government.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether private firms will be allowed to negotiate business with these people independent of the Supreme Council?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice of that question.

    MIDDLE-CLASS REFUGEES (SOUTHERN RUSSIA).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large numbers of Russians of the bourgeois or middle-class have, as the result of recent events, been driven to the sea coast in Southern Russia, and are in danger of being massacred by their Bolshevist
    378
    enemies unless they can obtain succour; and will the Government immediately despatch a sufficient number of ships to the Black Sea to bring away these unfortunate people?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Large numbers of refugees from the whole of South Russia congregated at Novorossisk before its evacuation by the Volunteer Army, and several thousands were evacuated largely through the instrumentality of the British Fleet. It is materially impossible to evacuate and maintain an appreciably greater number than those who have already been moved.
    The Volunteer Army hold a defensible position in the Crimea, and His Majesty's Government do not consider that they would be justified in acting on the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

    UNITED SERVICES FUND.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the present extent of the United Services Fund; who is responsible for its administration; and what proposals are intended for its administration in the future?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Pending the completion of the realisation of the surplus assets of Army canteens, it is not possible to say what sums will ultimately be available for the United Services Fund, but approximately £2,500,000 has already been handed over. A scheme has been drawn up by which the Fund is administered by a Council of Management, of which General Lord Byng is Chairman, and which includes representatives of the principal ex-service organisations.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is still the intention of the War Office or of the Department that is responsible to continue to call this Fund the United Services Fund, in view of the decision of the Navy upon that?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman issue a statement to Members of the

    379
    House showing the allocation of the Fund that has already been made by this Committee?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think if the hon. Member will write to those who have the Fund in hand, he may be able to obtain the information direct.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    VETERINARY SURGERY (TRAINING).
    Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Minister of Labour whether ex-Army students at the University of Liverpool proceeding through a five years' course to a degree in veterinary surgery may be granted an equal subsidy to that given to medical students, seeing that for the first two years the standard required for both classes is identical and training practically identical and that the expense to the student for both is the same.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his question of 24th March. As stated in that reply, the maximum annual awards permissible under the Training Grant Scheme for students proceeding to veterinary degrees at the University of Liverpool are the same as for medical students at the Institution. The scheme provides machinery whereby a student who feels that the amount of his award is inadequate, can appeal for an increase within the maximum permissible. Actually, owing to the continued high cost of living, the average awards now being made are on a somewhat higher scale than they were three or four months ago. In view of the fact that cases are dealt with individually and that adequate machinery exists for remedying defects in assessment of grants, a general equalisation does not seem to be called for. I might add, however, that instructions have been given to the District Director to make fuller inquiry into the question, which will be further considered on receipt of his report. If my hon. Friend has in mind any individual case of hardship, I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars of it.

    BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether the National Trade Advisory Committee of the Boot and Shoe Trade have made any recom-
    380
    mendation as to the future training of disabled soldiers; that there is no further opening in the industry for men trained in boot repairing, but that men can be trained in hand-sewn making; and will he state whether they have recommended the setting up of national factories whereby these men can be guaranteed employment after they have been trained?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The functions of the National Trade Advisory Committee for the training of disabled men in the boot and shoe trade have now been taken over by the Boot and Shoe Trade Board, and this Board have passed resolutions in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend. It is correct that the National Trade Advisory Committee pressed for the establishment of national factories for the employment of ex-service men in this trade, for the purposes of supplying the forces of the Crown with hand-sewn boots and shoes. After giving the matter careful consideration, in consultation with the Supply Departments, my Department was unable to concur.
    Mr. SMITH: May I ask whether it is impossible to go on training these men unless there is some guarantee of employment, and whether it is not obligatory on the Government to do all possible to help these men after training?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We must do all we can to help them, obviously. I have had the pleasure myself of seeing four men in training from Northampton a few days ago, and I have also been to another training centre. Certainly it is up to us to do all we can, but if there are not these posts for these men I do not see how we can create them.
    Mr. PALMER: Would it not be possible to absorb these men in the trade, if the trade unions would agree to them being absorbed?
    Mr. IRVING: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some reason why it is impossible to start factories to provide boots for the Army? To the ordinary man it seems quite an easy thing to do, and one wonders why the "No" answer is given.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I speak subject to correction, but I presume that the supply for a long time ahead must have already been provided by the contracts which were running.
    Mr. IRVING: Could the right hon. Gentleman find out and let us know if it is so?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, if my hon. Friend will put a question down.

  ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION.

    SOUTHAMPTON DISPUTE (WORK RESUMED).
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the action of the electrical trade union with regard to membership by employés of the Southampton electricity department of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association; and if, in view of the recent statement by his predecessor that the association is a bonâ fide trade union and recognised by the Government as such, it is proposed to take any action to prevent the electrical union employing such methods of intimidation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My Department offered its services in this dispute, and an agreement was reached on Monday night. I am glad to say that work has now been resumed.

    KING'S NATIONAL ROLL OF EMPLOYERS.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour if he is yet in a position to state when the King's Roll of the employers of ex-service men will be published according to towns and districts?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The first edition of the roll was arranged by counties, and it is not proposed to re-issue these names at present. Preparations are being made for the issue of a supplementary edition, in connection with which my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind; but this supplementary edition cannot appear for some time.
    Captain LOSEBY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the King's Roll as at present constituted does not fulfil the purpose for which it was created; and, secondly, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his predecessor clearly indicated the intention of publishing the roll according to towns and districts?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If that undertaking were given, it must be fulfilled; but, in any case, I should be glad to confer on the point.
    Mr. HURD: Has anything been done in the way of posting this roll in the Post Offices throughout the country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter has been taken in hand, bue I am not sure what stage it has reached. I will let my hon. Friend know.

    STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS, 1919.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the number of strikes and lock-outs, working people directly and indirectly involved, and the aggregate duration in working days of strikes and lock-outs during the year 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of strikes and lock-outs reported to the Minister of Labour during 1919 was 1,413. The total number of workpeople directly and indirectly involved, at the establishments where the disputes occurred, was about 2,580,000, and the aggregate duration of the disputes was about 34,480,000 working days. These figures are exclusive of some small disputes, involving insignificant numbers of workpeople, as to which statistics are not available.

    BAKING TRADE (NIGHT WORK).
    Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to introduce a measure to prohibit night work in the baking trade?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am afraid I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 17th March last to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for the Silvertown and Newton Divisions, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of discontent in consequence of the Government not having introduced a Bill?
    Major BAIRD: I was not aware of the existence of that. The answer to which I referred was that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation, but we are not yet in a position to give a date.
    Mr. BILLING: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the advisability of hearing representations from the bakers before introducing it?
    Major BAIRD: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Is it the intention of the Government to see that the first two Clauses of the Bill contain provisions for the abolition of night work in the House of Commons and the Post Office?

    TRANSPORT WORKERS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether the Minutes of Evidence of the Dockers' Court of Inquiry will be published; and, if so, when?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. The whole of the evidence will be published as soon as possible; it is now in course of preparation for publication.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the necessity of closer medical supervision of elementary schools; and if he can arrange for a weekly attendance of a doctor at each school, when he can pass the children in review, thereby anticipating illness and improving the health of the children and also saving parents loss of time, worry, and expense?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): My hon. Friend may be assured that the necessity of doing all that is practicable in this matter is fully recognised, but it is not, I think, necessary or practicable to ask authorities to arrange for the weekly attendance of school doctors at each school as suggested by my hon. Friend. I may remind him also that in 310 out of the 318 local education authorities in England and Wales there are school nurses performing some of the functions to which he refers.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing tooth-cleaning drill in the mornings for small children, having regard to the extraordinarily beneficial effect clean teeth have on small children?
    Dr. ADDISON: I think it is already in operation.
    Mr. IRVING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in New York, and certainly in some countries, a daily review of children takes place; and is it not a fact that there is a daily variation in the health of children?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is quite so; it depends on the reviews you have. There are not enough doctors and nurses in the country to review every child.
    Mr. IRVING: In the cases I have mentioned there are men qualified.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Gentleman may be assured that the school teachers review these children every day, and the children are well trained and instructed in this matter. I do not think it requires special action.

  HOUSING.

    UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the shortage of housing accommodation is aggravated in many industrial areas by owners purposely keeping houses unoccupied; and is he prepared to deal with this matter by immediate legislation, either in the new Rents Restriction Amendment Act or by a special Act empowering local authorities to require the immediate usage of all such buildings as domestic dwellings?
    Dr. ADDISON: As I have stated in reply to previous questions, the Housing Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, already empowers local authorities to deal with this matter, and I do not think that further legislation is necessary. Effective local action would meet the necessities, of the case.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the powers they have are only powers of purchase, which means a considerable cost and delay? Is he aware that if the procedure suggested

    385
    of compelling usage, were adopted, it would give an immediate supply of a large number of houses at present kept empty?
    Dr. ADDISON: They are able to acquire any property that is available.

    CONSTRUCTIVE SCHEMES (LABOUR PARTY).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Health whether any constructive scheme for house building has been furnished to the Department by the National Executive of the Labour party; whether he is aware that this organisation issued a manifesto at the general ejection in favour of building at once 1,000,000 new houses at the State's expense to be let at fair rents; and whether he has ascertained the cost of 1,000,000 such houses and what is a fair rent on them?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question may I ask whether it was the Coalition party and not the Labour party?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the manifesto to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but no constructive scheme or practical suggestions for giving effect to its extensive programme has been laid before me.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As the Labour party now has a general staff, could not my right hon. Friend invite them to produce a scheme?
    Dr. ADDISON: I invited the Labour party and other people on numberless occasions to make suggestions, and I am still awaiting their answer.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Was not that manifesto based upon the assumption that the same service during the War would apply in times of peace; and is it not a fact that the increased cost of building is due to rings, trusts and combines?
    Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that a certain proportion of the increased cost of building is caused through a large number of bricklayers not laying so many bricks as they might?
    Dr. ADDISON: The state of mind to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) refers is, I am afraid, an expectation, and I wish I could see it realised.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Health how many men are now in the building trade, and how many men
    386
    would be required for the programme put forward by the national executive of the Labour party of building 1,000,000 new houses at once, allowing for men engaged on normal work outside this building effort?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the full statement as to skilled labour available for building work which was circulated by the Prime Minister in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Spen Valley on the 15th ultimo, but I may say that house building at the rate of 200,000 houses per annum would absorb almost all the present supply of skilled bricklayers and more than all the slaters and plasterers at present available.
    Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the answer, as it would take five or six times as many men as are now in the building trade, could the right hon. Gentleman induce the Labour party to extend the facilities for men to join the building trade?
    Dr. ADDISON:I am quite certain that, if the housing programme is to be completed, facilities must be provided for more men joining the trade.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Is it not a fact that at Newbury the Labour party there have taken part in a scheme which is facilitating the erection of houses on very sound lines; and if that policy were extended, would it not help in the erection of houses?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I think the experience of Newbury is very encouraging. At the same time, if that were universally adopted, there would still be a great shortage in the labour required.

  ALBANIA.

    FUTURE FRONTIERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an Albanian Government has been elected by the people and is working well; and whether, in view of the general acceptance of the principle of self-determination by the Peace Conference, it is proposed to recognise this Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): There is a provisional Government in Albania, nominated by the National Albanian Assembly. The information at my disposal does not enable me to form any very exact estimate of its work.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the French withdrawal from Albania, a Serb army has been concentrated just across the Boyana threatening Scutari, the Albanian capital; whether a Greek army is also concentrated in the South close to the Albanian town of Koritza; whether the pledge given by Great Britain in 1913 that the frontiers then drawn will not be infringed upon still holds good; and whether steps will be taken to secure the withdrawals of the Serb and Greek armies which are now causing anxiety to the Albanians?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no very recent information with regard to the disposition of the troops in the districts referred to, but they have reason to believe that the advance of the Serbian troops on the Boyana was undertaken as a police measure before the withdrawal of the French troops and was sanctioned by the French General commanding the Inter-Allied Forces. It was clearly understood that this movement of troops could not prejudice any eventual decision of the Allies. We have no official information in regard to the position of the Greek troops in the South.
    The question of the future frontiers of Albania is receiving the consideration of the Supreme Council.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask whether both the British military and diplomatic representatives are now being withdrawn from Albania; and if so, will the hon. Gentleman consider sending them back so that the presence of impartial witnesses may discourage aggression by both Serbs and Greeks?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of the first part of the question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: How did the hon. Gentleman get his information and what is going on in Albania now that
    388
    there are no British representatives there? [An HON. MEMBER: "From the Italians!"]
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to have notice of that question, too.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is it the fact that one of our representatives here, Mr. Eden, probably knows more about Albania than any other Englishman, and would it not be a calamity if he is withdrawn? But has he been withdrawn?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That point is being considered with the other questions.

    CAPTAIN MORTON EDEN.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether Captain Morton Eden is being withdrawn from Albania and, if so, what British officer is going to replace him in that country; and whether his withdrawal will be postponed until the replacement has taken place in order that the British military authorities may be kept closely informed regarding any military or political developments in the independent parts of Albania?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Morton Eden, who has never held military rank, was withdrawn from Albania in January, 1920, with the concurrence of the Foreign Office. As it was considered that there was no longer any necessity for such services as had been rendered by Mr. Eden, he was not replaced by any other British representative. An answer to the second part of the question does not now arise.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is it not a fact that this gentleman also held the position of vice-Consul; and, if so, how are we to get on without consular representation in Albania?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    SEX DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL ACT.
    Major HILLSasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Orders in Council regulating the admission of women to the Civil Service under the Sex Disqualification Removal Act will be laid upon the Table?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): As I informed the hon. Member on the 17th February, the question of the recruitment

    389
    of women to the Civil Service was referred, with other questions, to the joint committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. That committee has now submitted a report on the main point of its reference, but a number of subsidiary questions remain to be discussed, and it is not yet possible to draft Orders in Council embodying the changes to be made.
    Major HILLS: Can any date be given for the draft Orders?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot give a date yet; there is a good deal of detail to be arranged.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Are there any women representatives on the National Whitley Council?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My impression is that there are.
    Lord R. CECIL: Very few!

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMANY (COAL AND LIVESTOCK).
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister the exact extent to which the Germans have carried out the handing over of livestock as stipulated by the Peace Treaty, with the object of partially making good German depredations in the War?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if Germany has delivered to France the coal to which she is entitled under the provisions of the Peace Treaty, and, if not, will he state the extent of such noncompliance?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer either of these questions.

    SELF-DETERMINATION (GERMAN STATES).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House of the progress and results of the self-determination of various peoples included in the former German Empire as stipulated by the Peace Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The only plébiscite which has yet ben held under the Treaty of Versailles is that of Schleswig. There
    390
    the result of the vote in the Northern Plébiscite Zone was in favour of Denmark, and that in the Southern Plebiscite Zone was in favour of Germany. The International Commission charged with administering the vote will presumably shortly submit their Report to the Ambassadors' Conference, by whom the final decision as to the disposal of this area will be taken. Arrangements for holding the other plebiscites necessitated by the Treaty are making progress.

    DENTISTS ACT, 1878.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session of Parliament for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 19th February.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he is likely to be able to make a statement?
    Dr. ADDISON: I should think very shortly, possibly before Whitsuntide.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I put a question down in a fortnight?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    INSPECTION OF MEAT.
    Mr. JAMES BELLasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the lack of a uniform system for the inspection of meat and that the want of such a system constitutes a menace to the public health; and whether he will arrange for the establishment of a uniform system which will include the ante-mortem and post-mortem examination of all animals intended for human consumption?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the desirability of securing uniformity in meat inspection in the interests of public health, and I am considering what steps can best be taken and what further powers may be necessary to that end.

    FLOUR MILLING.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAWasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, under the present system of flour milling, the germ and certain other constituents of wheat necessary for the provision of the most nutritious form of bread are removed from the flour; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to enable the public to obtain bread made from flour containing the germ and other essential constituents, in addition to the percentage of extraction required by regulation?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the percentage of extraction required by regulation is a minimum. There is nothing to prevent the making of bread from flour containing a higher percentage of the wheat if the demand for it exists.

    COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
    Sir CHARLES HANSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the great increase in the weekly cost of maintenance of patients in county lunatic asylums and in view of the additional burdens of a national character thus thrown upon the rapidly increasing local rates without any corresponding increase of the amounts of grants-in-aid, the Government will consider the revision of the insufficient scale of payments now made to boards of guardians throughout the country in respect, particularly, of the maintenance of lunatics and union officers' salaries, the present grants being inadequate to meet the purposes for which they were originally made?
    Dr. ADDISON: As regards the maintenance of lunatics, I can only refer to the reply given on the 15th instant to the Member for Bedwelty. The considerations mentioned in that reply apply with equal force to the other grant mentioned in the question.

  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.

    DEATHS FROM PNEUMONIA, BERMONDSEY.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of a man, his wife, and one child, who are
    392
    reported to have died of starvation in Bermondsey Hospital; whether he can state how such a thing was possible; and what action he has taken, if possible?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. Immediately my attention was called to the case I instructed one of my Inspectors to report upon it. The Medical Superintendent of the Infirmary reports that the man, his wife, and a child of four years old were admitted to the Infirmary on the 10th instant, all three suffering from pneumonia. The man died from pneumonia on the 13th instant. The wife was delivered of a still-born child on the 12th instant, and died of pneumonia on the 13th instant. The child of four is still in hospital. I propose to make further inquiries into this case.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making inquiries, strictly investigate the houses in which the people are living?
    Dr. ADDISON: I shall certainly do that.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the circumstances which have come to light, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of a change in the present Regulations under which this type of case is catered for; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically there is no relief in this particular type of case under the present poor law administration?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in calling for a report on the cases that still exist in London, of seeing whether some comprehensive scheme could be introduced into the poor law administration with the view to preventing death rather than burying people after death?
    Dr. ADDISON: All I can say is, that for several months we have been considering a comprehensive scheme relating to poor law reform and other matters arising out of it

    OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he will

    393
    consent to pay to boards of guardians the old-age pension due to some of the inmates of the workhouse and the infirmary, and thus to that extent relieve the local rates?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have no power under the Old-Age Pensions Acts to take such action as the hon. Member suggests.

  GERMANY.

    DETENTION OF STEAMER.
    Mr. JELLETTasked the Prime Minister whether a steamer purporting to contain a cargo of lager beer from Germany was recently detained at a port in the United Kingdom and on examination was found to contain machine guns, light artillery, rifles, and ammunition, all of German manufacture; whether these warlike munitions were forwarded by persons in Germany for the purpose of aiding the Irish Sinn Feiners in their treasonable campaign against His Majesty and the British Empire; and what steps His Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, to prevent a renewal of the secret conspiracy between Germany and Ireland which existed during the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question presumably refers to the ships in regard to which an answer was given yesterday by the Admiralty, to which I can add nothing.

    RENT COURTS, DENMARK.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has obtained any Report on the working in Denmark of courts composed of representatives of landlords, tenants, and the local authority, with an impartial chairman, empowered to decide questions between landlord and tenant; and, if so, has he been able to consider the setting up of similar rent courts in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I have not yet received the report, but I hope to do so immediately.

    JERUSALEM (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether an inquiry has been ordered by the
    394
    Foreign Office into the recent outbreaks of disorder and fanaticism in Jerusalem, involving the killing and wounding of a large number of Jews; whether the Mohammedans' ringleaders have been arrested and tried; and whether the chief administrator has been instructed that the Zionist Commission is to continue its work and that the declaration of November, 1917, is to guide the administration in its future policy.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: An inquiry into the causes which led up to the recent outbreaks in Jerusalem has been instituted by the Military Administration, which is under the orders of Field-Marshal Lord Allenby. The majority of the leaders have been arrested and will be tried for inciting to disturbances. No fresh instructions have been sent to the Chief Administrator, nor are any considered necessary, and no change has been made in the status of the Zionist Commission.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Government satisfied with the way in which the Administration is going on and carrying out its duties in Palestine, so far as keeping the peace between the Mohammedans and the Jews is concerned, and do the Government contemplate any change of personnel?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: So far as the War Office is concerned I understand that they are quite satisfied with the arrangements they have now.

    GENERAL DENIKIN'S VISIT TO ENGLAND.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Denikin is visiting this country in an official or un official capacity; and what Government does he represent?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is that General Denikin is visiting this country in an unofficial and private capacity. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  RUSSIAN ICE-BREAKER "SOLOVEI BUDIMIROVITCH."

    RELIEF EXPEDITION.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    395
    whether his attention has been drawn to the Russian ice-breaker "Solovei Budimirovitch," which has been icebound for three months with over 80 starving people on board; whether Norway is willing to send a relief expedition, but the only ship fit for the task is the ice-breaker "Cosma Minim," which is now in England, and which the British authorities refuse to loan; whether the Norwegian legation in London and the Moscow Government have made urgent appeals to the British Government for the "Cosma Minim," but without result; and whether, in view of the urgency of this matter, he will state if the Government are prepared to send out an expedition to rescue these people, or to loan this ice-breaker to the Norwegian expedition?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have been in correspondence both with the Norwegian Government and with the Soviet Government on the subject of the "Solovei Budimirovitch." When the question was first raised there appeared to be evidence, based on statements issued by the Soviet Government themselves, that they possessed the necessary resources for a relief expedition. This, however, now proves not to be the case, and His Majesty's Government are, therefore, fitting out with all despatch the ice-breaker "Sviatogor," which will leave in a few days accompanied by a collier, and are also effecting the necessary repairs in order that the "Cosmo Minim" may follow as soon as possible should that vessel be required. Details are still under discussion, but meanwhile all preparations are being pushed ahead as rapidly as possible, and it is hoped that the distinguished Norwegian explorer, M. Sverdrup, will organise the expedition, as he has a unique knowledge of the conditions in the Kara Sea.

    CILICIA.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any recent news as to the town of Adana, in Cilicia, and particularly as to the British subjects therein; whether the Turkish bands are still threatening that town and its inhabitants, together with the 30,000 refugees in and around it; whether the
    396
    French authorities are now able to give an assurance that they can protect that town; and, if not, what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no news of more recent date than 6th April as to the situation at Adana, nor is it known that there are any British subjects in immediate danger there. There is no information to indicate that the town and its inhabitants, together with the refugees in the neighbourhood, are in any immediate danger from Turkish bands. No assurances have been given by the French authorities as to the protection of the town, nor have His Majesty's Government asked for any such assurances. Meanwhile, instructions have been issued to station Allied warships at Turkish ports with a view to watching over the interests of Christians in the interior, and arrangements are under consideration for the evacuation of refugee children from Cilicia to Cyprus in case of necessity. The Turkish Government have also recently issued a proclamation denouncing excesses by Moslems against Christians, and vice versa.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French consider the position of Adana so serious that they have withdrawn their women and children from there?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could not answer that question off-hand.
    65. Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any news as to the position of the towns of Hadjin and Sis, in Cilicia; whether these towns are still resisting the attacks of the Turkish bands; and whether he can say what steps the French authorities are taking to relieve them?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The most recent information in the possession of His Majesty's Government as to the situation in Hadjin and Sis, which in the former case is dated 8th March, is to the effect that both towns are closely invested. In the case of the former the Turkish bands are said to be quiet; in the case of the latter the French Governor and possibly a small French force are believed to be still in the town. No information is

    397
    available as to relief measures being taken by the French authorities.

    SIBERIAN BANK (SALE OF SHARES).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the shares that the Government hold in the Siberian Bank have been sold; and, if so, to whom and on what conditions?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but negotiations are in progress.
    Mr. SCOTT: Has an option been given to any individual with regard to those shares?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think it would not be advisable whilst negotiations are in progress to say anything about it.
    Mr. SCOTT: Are the Government confining the negotiations to one person, or are they willing to receive offers from other persons with regard to the shares?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to that depends upon the point which negotiations have reached. Negotiations generally do end ultimately with an individual.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman think he is giving information when he gives that answer?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I told the hon. Member that I was not in a position to give information because negotiations were proceeding.

  AFRICAN COLONIES.

    EAST AFRICA (LABOUR).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Ainsworth Circular respecting labour from East Africa; and will he have the same laid upon the Table or circulated with the Official Report?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery):I have not yet received the Circular from the Acting Governor of the East Africa Protectorate. The question of laying it on the Table will be considered when it is received.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much longer shall we have to wait for a Circular which was asked for months ago?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I understand that it has been on the road some weeks.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Member cable for a copy?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir. It is on the way.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (WEST COAST).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a great sense of insecurity exists among officers of the Civil Services on the West Coast of Africa; whether this is due to the fact that the conditions of service are liable to alteration at the discretion of the Governors; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting these officers on contracts of service similar in security to those enjoyed by the Indian Civil Service?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not the case that the conditions of service of West African officers are liable to alteration at the discretion of the Governors, except as regards minor details; and I am not aware that Indian Civil Service officers are in any better position than Colonial officers in this respect.

    NORTHERN NIGERIA.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether shortly before the War the regular tour of service for Civil Servants in Northern Nigeria was lengthened by the late Governor, Sir Frederick Lugard; whether this alteration caused such a high rate of mortality and sickness that it had to be abandoned; and whether it is intended to repeat this experiment?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Noble Lord is probably referring to the 18 months' tour for political and police officers only which was introduced in Northern Nigeria in 1903 and abandoned in 1907.
    Health conditions in West Africa have greatly improved since then, and a Committee which included the recently retired Director of the medical and sanitary ser-

    399
    vice of Nigeria has unanimously recommended that the normal length of tour should be lengthened and that the rules should be made more elastic so as to enable the length of tour to be varied according to circumstances. It is proposed that existing officers who have been confirmed in their appointments should have the option of coming under the new regulations or remaining under the old.
    The report of this Committee is being referred to the West African Governments.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OAK-LEAF BADGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether the award of an oak-leaf badge, worn on the medal ribbon to denote a mention in despatches, is to be confined to those who were mentioned in the late War?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir.

    HEADQUARTERS, COLOGNE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether any German civilians are employed at the British headquarters in Cologne or in connection with the British Army of Occupation in Germany; and, if so, will he state how many are so employed, for what duties they are engaged, and what is the approximate weekly rate of pay of such persons?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As I stated yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay, I have called for a report on this matter.

    TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
    Captain BOWYERasked whether, in the case of a serving soldier who obtained a temporary commission from the ranks during the War, it was necessary for such a soldier to be discharged before his commission could be granted him; and whether this discharge was considered to be a break in his service for the purpose of assessing pensions and retired pay?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer is in the affirmative.

    PACKINGTON ESTATE, WARWICKSHIRE (EVICTIONS).
    Captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the cases of eviction that are taking place on the Earl of Aylesford's Packington Estate in Warwickshire; and, if so, whether any representations on the subject have been made by the Ministry to the landlord?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir, it has been repeatedly represented to the Ministry that notices to quit have been unreasonably served by the Earl of Ayles-ford on the tenants of the Packington Estate in Warwickshire. Unfortunately the legal position is one as between landlord and tenant, and I much regret that, in the existing state of the law, the Ministry have no power to intervene. The question of amending the law in the direction of giving the Ministry power to intervene in cases where an estae is being managed in such a manner as to prejudice the production of food thereon is now under consideration, and it is hoped to deal with it in the promised Agriculture Bill.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is not this one of those estates which is very heavily mortgaged; and has the Earl any control over it all?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should like to have notice of that question.

    FOOT-AND MOUTH DISEASE (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES).
    Captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he can state the European countries in which foot-and-mouth disease still exists; whether any conclusion has been reached as to how it was last imported into this country; and when the Government Committee considering causes, prevention, and cure is expected to report?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: According to the latest information in the possession of the Ministry, there is reason to believe that foot-and-mouth disease exists, or has recently existed, in every country of Europe, with the probable exceptions of

    401
    Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Many of the returns are, however, not of recent date, and no records of any kind are available in the ease of Russia and nine other European countries. In spite of every inquiry, the origin of disease in the recent outbreaks remains obscure.
    The Committee of Scientists to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers has only recently been appointed, and it is probable, in view of the difficult nature of the problem, that its investigation will occupy a considerable period. It is, therefore, impossible to indicate at what date a report will be presented.

    HOME-GROWN SUGAE, LIMITED (MACHINERY CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether the difference between the tender of the French firm who received the order for machinery for Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, and the two nearest British tenders is largely made up of the difference between the exchanges; if he will state how much of the difference is due thereto and how much to the alleged difference in price; and whether it is the settled policy of the Ministry to foster agriculture at the expense of other industries?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The directors of the company gave the order to the French firm mainly on account of their special experience of beet sugar factories which the competing British firms do not possess. The difference of price was, therefore, not the primary consideration, but I may point out that the estimates were received before the recent rise in the rate of exchange took place. In reply to the last part of the question, I may say that, in view of the financial interest of the Government in the company, they would not be entitled to endanger the success of the company in order to foster other industries.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to how far the difference is due to the difference on exchange. Is he not aware that for 150 years there have been sugar machinery merchants in Glasgow making machinery when the French people were only eating honey, and did not know anything about sugar machinery?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The object of this company is to make sugar, not honey.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But why go to people eating honey and ask them to make sugar machinery?

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (COMMITTEE REPORT).
    Major J. EDWARDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether it is proposed to introduce legislation embodying the recommendations of the recent Departmental Committee on agricultural machinery.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The recommendations of the Committee on Agricultural Machinery are now under consideration by the Ministry. The Ministry hopes to be able to obtain financial sanction for early action on certain of the proposals. No legislation will be required to give effect to the recommendations.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS(WAGES).
    Mr. SPOORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether the minimum rate of wages for agricultural workers in England and Wales has now been fixed at 42s. per week; and whether any evidence has been given that farmers could not afford to pay rates of wages which would bear some relation to the present cost of living.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Over the greater part of England and Wales the minimum rate fixed for agricultural workers of 21 years and over is 42s., but in some districts it is higher. In fixing these rates the Agricultural Wages Board had regard to the cost of living in rural districts.
    Mr. J. DAVISON: Do the Agricultural Board also have regard to the profits being made by farmers?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that since the Agricultural Wages Board agreed to the recent advance of wages of 4s. and 5s. 6d. the Government have advanced prices for the farmers from 76s.

    403
    to 95s. per quarter; and whether, in view of this increase, he will take steps to see that the Wages Board agree to the minimum of 50s asked for by the labourers?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry on the 19th instant. In reply to the last part of the question, the Ministry has no power to influence the decisions of the Wages Board.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that all the labour representatives on the Essex District Wages Committee voted against the recent 4s. advance as being too small, and that the workers' union in the county has repudiated the minimum of £2 2s. 6d.; whether, in consequence, a serious situation has arisen; and what steps he is prepared to take to raise the status of the agricultural workers from being the worst paid class?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is understood that the resolution of the Essex District Committee to accept the 4s. increase was carried against the workers' representatives. The duty of fixing minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers is placed by statute on the Agricultural Wages Board, and it is not the function of the Ministry to interfere in the discharge of that duty.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to whether a serious situation has arisen in Essex and whether the agricultural workers down in this district are practically on strike?
    Mr. BILLING: Are there not four or five boards and committees dealing with these various agricultural problems with out consultation with each other, and will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of appointing one comprehensive board to deal both with farmers' and with farm labourers' questions?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope that something of that sort will be done as a result of a Bill which is to be brought in. In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Maclean), I am not aware that the situation is so serious, and I venture to think it is not.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Arising out of the answer, may I ask when we may expect the Agricultural Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think it arises out of the answer.

    MANCHESTER AND SALFORD CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the Board of Works was given an option to purchase for £25,000 the premises of the Manchester and Salford Boys' and Girls' Refuge and Children's Aid Society; that on the 10th April the society was informed that the Board intended to take such premises compulsorily, without paying the £25,000; whether he is aware that this step involves hardship on this charity; and what action he will take in the matter?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I am aware that an option was given to purchase these premises, but, in view of the doubt as to the premises being permanently required by the Government it was not considered desirable to purchase the property. I have already instituted inquiries with a view to considering the financial aspect of the matter.
    Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this society is in urgent need of the capital value involved, in order that it may acquire other premises in which to carry on the work it did in these?
    Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that fact.
    Major NALL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inquire?

    UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GRANTS).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the financial difficulties of universities and university colleges and the desirability of encouraging local authorities to increase their grants to these institutions, he can see his way to reconsider the Regulation excluding from the calculations made in arriving at the

    405
    amounts on which deficiency grants are payable the grants made by local authorities to universities and university colleges?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The responsibility for subsidising universities and university colleges out of State funds and for dealing with all questions affecting their financial relations to the State now rests with the Treasury, and the Treasury, in view of the greatly increased direct grants made to universities from the Exchequer, have directed the exclusion of contributions of local education authorities to these institutions from the calculation of Deficiency Grants. The hon. Member will, no doubt, realise that the non-exclusion of such contributions would have the result, in fact, that the Exchequer, in addition to its own direct grants, would be paying part of the local authorities' contribution.

    UNIVERSITY JOINT BOARDS(TUTORIAL CLASSES).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the remuneration of tutors for the tutorial classes conducted under the auspices of university joint boards is in the majority of cases at the pre-War level, and in consequence of this low rate the services of the experienced tutors are being lost; whether he will have inquiry made into this matter with a view to increasing the grants for the purpose of raising the rate of pay proportionate to the increased cost of living; and whether he will grant a return showing the number of tutorial classes each year since their establishment, the number of tutors each year and the average length of service as tutors of persons who have taken such classes, and the present and pre-War rates of remuneration in the various universities?
    Mr. FISHER: Some University Joint Committees still pay their tutors of university tutorial classes the same salaries as before the War, but others have made increased payments to some or all of their tutors. I am aware that the view is held that existing salaries are at least in some respects inadequate and insufficient to attract or retain the best qualified tutors. The matter has recently received my personal consideration, but I
    406
    regret to say that I have not found it practicable to increase the rate of grant paid by the Board of Education in respect of these classes. I will consider whether a return can be made for the information of the hon. Member on the points which he specifies at the end of his question.

  IRELAND.

    MILLTOWN MALBAY DISTURBANCES.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has any further details with reference to the unfortunate events at Milltown Malbay; whether he still adheres to his statement that the attack was first made by the crowd on the military and police, and whether it is not the fact that there were only about 30 persons present, with a large number of children without banners or bands, and that no provocation whatever was given by the crowd, and that the firing upon them came only after a minute's notice?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I gave the hon. Member all the information in my possession in answer to the question he put on Monday, and in the course of the Debate he raised on the Adjournment. I have been informed—and I have had no information since which contradicts it—that there were 150 people assembled in the square at Milltown Malbay, and that shots were fired at both the military and police. The only additional information I can give the hon. Gentleman is that owing to the illegal way in which the Coroner summoned the jury it was necessary for us to apply to the Court of King's Bench. The Coroner admitted his error, and the inquest is now being proceeded with, with a freshly summoned Jury.

    MURDER OF DETECTIVE DALTON.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the Attorney-General for Ireland give the House any information as to the murder in Dublin of Detective-Sergeant Dalton?
    Mr. HENRY: Detective-Sergeant Dalton was 26 years of age. He had six years' service in the Dublin Metropolitan Police and was recently transferred to the G Division. While proceeding on duty to Broadstone Station shortly before one o'clock yesterday afternoon he was

    407
    fired at by four men, armed with revolvers, sustaining five or six wounds. He was removed to the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital and died there in two hours.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is it true, as stated in the papers, that another policeman was with him, and if so, why did not that policeman return the fire of the assailants?
    Mr. HENRY: I have seen the statement in the papers to which the Noble Lord refers, but I have no information whether or not the second constable did return the fire. I have no official confirmation of the statement in the papers.
    Colonel BURN: Were any arrests made?
    Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.
    Lord R. CECIL: Was the street crowded or empty at the time?
    Mr. HENRY: I have no information, but from my knowledge of the locality, I am certain that at one o'clock in the afternoon a number of persons would be there, as it is the direct way to one of the principal railway stations in Dublin.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not quite certain that a number of persons were there? A woman was hit in the leg, and the bullet could not have gone round a corner.
    Lord R. CECIL: Has any information been given by any people who were there?
    Mr. HENRY: Not so far as I am aware.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it true that the Lord Lieutenant has resigned?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Have all the Government resigned in Ireland?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the Motions which are on the Paper for a quarter-past eight to-night—[(1) Congestion in Ports, (2) Incidence of Taxation (Workmen)]—not being proceeded with, the Government have any idea as to what business they might take?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Should there be time, the Government propose to take the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Kent Charge (Rates) Bill, and, if
408
there be further time, the Financial Resolution of the Imperial War Museum Bill.
Mr. DEVLIN: Do the Government intend to proceed with the so-called Home Rule Bill?
Mr. BONAR LAW: They certainly intend to proceed with the Government of Ireland Bill—but not to-night.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. SPEAKER: Yesterday the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Mr. Grattan Doyle) called attention to a grievance, namely, that questions which he had handed in had not appeared on the Paper. I have made inquiries, as I said I would, and I now find that one question was held up because it reflected on the capacity of one of His Majesty's Judges of the High Court, and, therefore, could not be put. Another question which was held up reflected upon the decision of the Kingston magistrates, which, in the judgment of the hon. Member, was not sufficiently severe. That question could not be put. The other question which the hon. Member complained was not down upon the Paper was, I find, the second question on a paper which he had drawn up and handed in. The paper was then a complete paper, and at the head of it was written, "Mr. Grattan Doyle, Wednesday." For the purpose of setting it up in type, the printer cut the paper into two parts, and, in order to carry out what he thought was the desire of the hon. Member, he wrote the hon. Member's name at the top, and continued, "Wednesday.' Therefore I do not really think the question was improperly delayed.
Mr. DOYLE: I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for the explanation. I was not aware that the two questions which did not appear were not drafted in proper form. Had I known that they were inconsistent with the rules, I, very naturally, should not have put them, and should not have mentioned the matter.
Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that, when a question is not put down on the Order Paper for the day, the Clerk of the House communicates with the hon. Member—as a rule, anyhow?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is so. I do not know why that was not done in this particular case.
Mr. DOYLE: May I further say, in extenuation of having transgressed, quite innocently, the rules, that, had I received any intimation that my questions were contrary to the rules, I should not have put them, and all this trouble would have been saved.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member probably raised the matter yesterday before the Clerk at the Table had had an opportunity of communicating with him. I should think that that is probably the explanation.
Mr. BILLING: May we understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within the authority of the Clerk at the Table, but only on your authority, that a question can be refused?
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot look at every question. It is the duty of the Clerk at the Table to look through the questions. There are certain well-understood rules and principles, and he applies them. Should he be in any doubt whatever, he always comes to me on the matter.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  IRISH EDUCATION.
  On this day four weeks to call attention to the Irish Education question, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Allen.]
  WOMEN IN PUBLIC SERVICES.
  On this day four weeks to call attention to the position of women in public services, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Hills.]
  SUNKEN WRECKS (INTERFERENCE WITH TRAWLING OPERATIONS).
  On this day four weeks to call attention to the disadvantages experienced by fishermen in certain areas in carrying out their trawling operations, owing to the numerous wrecks sunk by enemy action, and the heavy loss of gear occasioned through coming in contact with these wrecks during the operations, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Burn.]
BILL PRESENTED.

  PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) BILL,
  "to amend and extend the duration of the Profiteering Acts, 1919," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Sir
  410
  Ernest Pollock, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Bridgeman; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from. Standing Committee A: Mr. Galbraith; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Farquharson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Captain STARKEY reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Captain STARKEY also reported from the Committee; That the parties promoting the Upper Mersey Navigation Bill had stated that the evidence of Captain Frederick Mace was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Captain Frederick Mace do attend the Committee on Monday next, at Eleven of the Clock.
  Ordered, That Captain Frederick Mace do attend the Committee on Group C of Private Bills on Monday next, at Eleven of the Clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
  De Vesci's Divorce Bill [Lords],—That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of De Vesci's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, with a request that the same may be returned.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL,
  Reported, with Amendments [Title-amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WAYS AND MEANS.
[Progress, 20th April.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS—AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  Question again proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in receipt of a very large number of congratulations, but I am sure that—
  Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. I was speaking last night at the Adjournment of the Debate, and I ask your ruling, Mr. Whitley, whether in the cir cumstances I have not the call of the House on the recommencement of the Debate to-day.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. It is not so in Committee of Ways and Means or in Committee of Supply. There is no carry-over in these cases from the proceedings of one day to another. The hon. and gallant Member closured himself at eleven o'clock last night.
  Mr. J. JONES: You must hear the Oracles first.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: At any rate, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall be very brief, so as to allow him as much time as possible later on. The congratulations which my right hon. Friend received from all quarters of the House were fully deserved, but I am certain that what he will appreciate more is the intimation in this morning's papers that Consols showed some tendency to rise. I have no doubt that, if a considerable portion of his speech had been devoted, not only to the raising of revenue and the starting of a Sinking Fund, but to a denunciation of unnecessary expenditure, Consols would have gone up still further. I shall direct my remarks in the main, except for some comments on one or two of
  432
  the taxes, to that very important subject. I should like to make one general observation. Our Budgets at all times are of international importance, but they have never been so important as to-day, because now, and I fear for many years to come, this country will be called in to redress the balance between the old world and the new. Look where we like east of us, there is nothing but finance in a state of chaos. All the belligerent Allies, of course, have a deficit, and apparently their only hope of meeting it or filling it up is by the product of the printing press. It is, indeed, a matter of congratulation to us, although I take a very strong view as to the application of the realisation of assets to current revenue rather than to the reduction of debt, that whether by hook or by crook, I fear mostly by crook so far as my views are concerned—I do not use that in any offensive sense—our deficit has been made up from revenue and from realisation of war assets. There is one point upon which I would like to place some emphasis. It was made by my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Asquith), whose speech yesterday covered the ground in so ample a manner that it leaves little necessity for me to deal with more than three or four points. I refer to the most objectionable method of presenting the net Estimates and to the use which has been very frequent in the Estimates which have been presented to us during the last few months of Appropriations-in-Aid. It is only by knowledge and experience that Members can get anything like a clear idea what the net Estimates really mean. We had, for example, the Ministry of Munitions Vote before us last week. The total sum put from the Chair was £15,000,000, but the real Estimate was one for £58,000,000. They brought in Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £30,000,000, and they had £12,000,000 on account. It therefore left it necessary for you only to put that question to the House. I am glad to note that in the Estimates, presented to Members, but not before the House, there are only two or three Civil Service Estimates which we find presented in that objectionable form. Appropriations-in-Aid are disappearing according to a note which appears on one of them, and I am glad that the Committee will be glad of it.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend does not wish to convey the impression that the practice which he condemns was initiated by me, or even by the present Government.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Certainly not.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been the usual practice of the House and of all Governments.
  Mr. J. JONES: They are all alike.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The new practice which the right hon. Gentleman commends is an innovation for which, no doubt, he can take large credit.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is one which I strongly supported when the question was brought before me in my official position, and I am very glad indeed to welcome it. There are a few comments that I should like to make on one or two of the taxes. I think the business community are entitled to some measure of grievance that the announcement of the increase of the Excess Profits Duty came without any warning at all. I quite agree that there is a risk in raising the necessary money this year except by keeping that tax, and perhaps it may be necessary to keep also the increase, but I want to repeat what I said last year, though it does not find a measure of support among those with whom I am often associated, that I regard that kind of tax as really bad, and we may as well face the fact at once. Nobody who is acquainted with the practical working of that tax can come to any other conclusion than that it leads to extravagance in management, and to an amount of evasion and dishonesty. I am talking of what I know. It is bad for the whole of the community as well as for the taxpayer and the Treasury concerned. I agree that it was really a necessary tax. A more effective emergency tax, I think, it was impossible to devise, but the sooner the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can face the opportunity of doing away with it and getting back to much more normal and sound methods of raising money, the better it will be for us all. On the whole, I welcome the proposals with regard to the Income Tax and the allowances with regard to the lower incomes and married
  434
  men. I suppose that my right hon. Friend has had many suggestions made to him with regard to the taxation of bachelors. I regard them as useless and dangerous; they ought to be abolished, anyhow apart from the bachelors in this House, and I should be glad if their abolition could be brought about by means of a tax.
  I would like to say a word or two about the Land Duties. I know that I am touching on ground that has been rendered almost classic by the observations of my right hon. Friend and Leader yesterday. There is one quite interesting point in connection with the land. An immense amount of war wealth has gone into the land, and as far as we can see land is going to be the special pet of the Government and is going to be absolved as far as they can possibly do it from the incidence of taxation which, in my judgment and in the judgment of those with whom I associate, might well fall upon it. The Government in taking the line which they have initiated of abolishing the Land Duties are deliberately raising an amount of opposition in the country of which they know little. The principles upon which those duties were initiated still stand, and I regret indeed to hear that it is proposed to abolish them. At any rate, I can promise my right hon. Friend that the funeral rites will be accompanied, I hope, with no measure of real Parliamentary disorder, but at any rate with a certain liveliness, because we shall make as clear as we can our position with regard to those duties and the proposals of the Government in connection with them. It has been stated, I do not know with what authority, that the Corporations Profits Tax is intended to be applied to the Cooperative Societies. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with that question when he comes to reply. I can only say that if he does apply it to those societies he will raise a veritable hornet's nest, but of course we shall hear what he has to say. Of course, the tax is one which will commend itself on the ground of sound finance. It is always a very easy task to start whittling down a tax no matter how sound one may think it to be. I would only put this to my right hon. Friend. He might take into his sympathetic consideration the incidence of such a tax on cottage building societies in the very urgent condition of the country in regard to housing. It might react very

  435
  unfavourably on such societies. I simply put that point for his consideration.
  I now come to the main point which I wish to raise. What is the general outlook with regard to the Budget of my right hon. Friend? We shall, I hope, get through this year, but I have considerable doubt whether we shall get through the year without largely increased Supplementary Estimates. I see that he has budgeted for only £20,000,000. Let us hope the conditions of this year will be very much more stable than last year, but I must remind him of the fact that, starting in July last year, we had a Supplementary Estimate for the Civil Service of £20,441,000, another of £1,500,000—that was the Out-of-Work Donation—and a further Supplementary Estimate on 4th December of £37,978,000. This is all exclusive of Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy. I forget for the moment whether there was a Supplementary Estimate for the Air Force or not. Dealing only with the Civil Service, the Supplementary Estimates last year—I do not mean the last financial year—amounted to £59,919,000. Since this Session began—again, I am confining myself entirely to the Civil Service Departments —we have had Supplementary Estimates amounting to no less than £28,432,000, making a total of well over £87,000,000 for the financial year. That has been our experience in the last twelve months of the miscalculations of the Departments concerned. What guarantee have we that we are going to have a much better state of things? So far, none. What evidence was there in the Estimate presented last week for the Ministry of Munitions of any desire to economise or of any determination to cut down wasteful and unnecessary expendiure? It is quite clear that we shall need a regular revenue for two or three years to come of about £1,400,000,000, on the present basis of taxation, to meet the needs of the country, allowing for about £300,000,000 for the debt service, and leaving out the special contributions which will fall in from realisation of assets. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to fill up the inevitable deficit?
  We are often charged with asking these questions and suggesting no remedies. I suggest an obvious one, and that is retrenchment and economy all round—sweeping economy. A penknife is of no
  436
  use; it is an axe you want. It was Burke who said, "Retrenchment is one of the very best forms of taxation." Never was it so glaringly obvious as it is to-day. How is it to be done? Quite apart from what I think could be done, what we hope to show in the Estimates to come before us ought to be done with regard to the £500,000,000 of Civil Service Estimates, it is quite obvious that so long as the Government is spending money like water in Mesopotamia, looking for oil-fields, and painting the climate and the country in glowing terms, as the Prime Minister did, which seemed to me very much at variance with the actual facts of the situation—as long as you have that kind of thing going on, what is the use of only putting down £20,000,000 for Supplementary Estimates? As far as one can see, the Army alone on its present scale of expenditure, which is consistent with what is apparently the present policy, will require £20,000,000 alone. It is futile to talk about making ends meet and having a substantial sinking fund so long as this kind of policy is allowed to continue. I daresay we shall also have the Navy and the Air Service in for a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with regret of the fact that he has to raise revenue to make the Post Office balance its accounts. He proposes to do it by making the postage, formerly 1d., into 2d. What I feel so strongly about is that the necessity for a tax like that, which hits the very poor, could be done away with by a simple alteration of policy in one or two directions. An alteration of your military policy alone would make it unnecessary.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the State ought to carry on the Post Office services as subsidised services at the expense of the general taxpayer?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to say that. The matter was obviously in my mind at the moment. Such a service as that, I feel certain, ought to pay its own way, but I am just taking the hardships of the situation which are brought about, as I suggest, by the policy of the Government. I and those who think with me are thoroughly dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude on the subject of the Estimates Committee. A chance ought to be given to the House to enter into partnership with the Execu-

  437
  tive for promoting and effecting economy. Economy can only be effected by bringing down our State Departments to ordinary, simple, humdrum methods of administration. There is no difference between expenditure by the State and by the individual. The same results follow from good expenditure as from bad expenditure. There is no magic about the Government apart from spending money or saving money, except that it is on the grand scale, and is a great public example for either good or for bad.
  Sir E. CARSON: And the House encourages it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman said that more than once last Session, and I am not saying he is not very largely justified. There are subjects of expenditure which even in this House we cannot afford to curtail if we wish to hold our place amongst the nations of the world as an effective unit in the family of nations. But my right hon. Friend has not been here on occasions when we have been fighting for economy and have been resisting expenditure, and I will join with him every time I possibly can in standing up against any popular outcry in this House. I agree that it is one of the worst features of any popular assembly, but whether that has been a feature of it in the past or not it ought not to be a feature of it in the future, and until we get through the highly dangerous position in which we still are, do not let us live in a fool's paradise. We have £8,000,000,000 of debt; our Budget this year is £1,400,000,000, seven times more than it was before the War, and are we richer or poorer than we were before the War? Vastly poorer. I am astonished sometimes at one's own confidence in the future because I believe we shall get through at some time, but we shall only get through by getting back to the ordinary humdrum common-sense management of finance. I close with a quotation of Lord Morley in the "Life of Cobden" on that point when he says:
  "From the fall of the Roman Empire to the mortal decay of Spain and the ruin of the ancient monarchy of France history shows that Cobden"—
  and that is a splendid name in inter national and national finance—
  "was amply justified in laying down the principle that the affairs of the nation come under the same laws of common sense and
  438
  homely wisdom which govern the prosperity of a private concern."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly have every reason to be grateful to Members of the Committee for the generous appreciation which they have shown of the efforts I have made in this Budget, and the Government have every reason to be satisfied with the reception it has met with, not merely in Committee, but in the country generally. It has not only met with a wider acceptance than I should have anticipated, but the proposals which I submitted on behalf of the Government for meeting the present financial situation hold the field. There is no sort of practicable or equitable alternative to them. There was indeed one alternative to an important part of my proposals which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), but with that alternative the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) was careful not to associate himself. There have of course been demands for further information and there have been criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) asked for a return of the capital liabilities and assets of the State. I shall be very happy to furnish it, and in order that the House may have it in the best form, when I have got it in proof, I will submit it to him and see that all the information which he thinks we ought to give is being given The fuller the information I can give the House and the nation as to the condition of its finances and its position generally the better I shall be pleased.
  Then I was asked for some information as to the proposed Corporation Tax. I think my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) did not quite appreciate the scope and the limitations of the proposed new tax. There is first the major limitation that in no case is it to exceed 1s. in the £ of the profits and income of the corporation, but there is the further limitation, directed specifically to the protection of such cases as he mentioned, where amount available for distribution in the form of dividends to ordinary shareholders or to shareholders with no fixed rate of interest is limited, namely, that the tax is to be at the rate of 1s. in the £ on the profits, after deduction of Excess Profits Duty, subject to this further limitation, that in no case is it to exceed one-tenth of the sum available as dividend or reserve for the benefit of the ordinary shareholders after deduction of fixed

  439
  charges in the nature of a fixed debenture interest or a fixed preference interest on debenture and preference shares already issued.
  The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) asked for further information. He inquired whether the tax applied to co-operative societies, and he spoke in menacing terms of the trouble which I should be bringing on myself if I had the audacity to make that suggestion. It does apply to co-operative societies, and I think I am running no such risks as he supposes. The taxation of co-operative societies is a subject dealt with by the Royal Commission on Income Tax. It is a subject on which they were divided. The majority, not a very large majority, but still a majority, recommended their subjection to Income Tax. The minority, or the larger portion of the minority, in which were included the two Labour Members of the Commission and the representative of the co-operative societies themselves, dissented from the recommendation that the co-operative societies should be chargeable to Income Tax. I will quote from a reservation signed by "C. W. Bowerman, William Brace, E. E. Nott-Bower, late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, N. F. Warren Fisher, present permanent Secretary to the Treasury and also late Chairman of the Inland Revenue, Henry John May, representing the co-operative societies, William Graham, and A. C. Pigou." While dissociating themselves from the recommendations of the majority that these societies should be assessable to Income Tax, they said:
  "If there was in the United Kingdom, as there is in the United States of America, a corporation tax, levied specially on corporations as such, it would, no doubt, be proper that a co-operative society should, as a separate legal entity, be liable to that tax."
  As my right hon. Friend will see, I have high and domestic authority for the proposal I make, and I hope it will not give rise to the controversy which he anticipates. As regards the class of building societies to which he alluded, so far as I can see they fall outside the tax. But of course there is an infinite variety of these societies, and I do not like on the spur of the moment to make a general statement which may be taken to cover certain cases which I have not in my mind at the time. I think, however, my right hon. Friend may feel pretty secure
  440
  in his confidence that a building society of the type which he has in his mind is exempt. Similarly, the right hon. Member for Paisley asked for some information as to the bearing of the corporations tax on bonus shares distributed. I am not quite sure that my right hon. Friend exactly appreciated the present position of the law; probably he did, but, of course, these profits which are accumulated by companies and eventually distributed in the form of bonus shares have all paid Income Tax. There is no avoidance of Income Tax by placing profits to reserve. What they have not paid is Super-tax. The Royal Commission made a recommendation on this subject. The corporations tax, which may be regarded as a composition in lieu of Super-tax, will affect the sums first placed to reserve and subsequently distributed in the form of bonus shares. It will, therefore, to the extent of its operation hit the evil which my right hon. Friend described, and correct that evil in practice.
  I deal first with the minor requests for further information, and I am happy indeed that they have been so few, which, perhaps, is a tribute to the success of my effort to make myself clear. Many of the minor criticisms will be more suitable to the discussions of the Finance Bill in Committee, where we can deal with them with greater knowledge and with more particularity. Such a criticism, and yet one which is of sufficient consequence for me to refer to to-day, is that of the proposed increase in the wine duty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and others who have spoken of the possible feeling of our Allies on this subject will not think that I or the Government have ignored that consideration. If I thought that this tax would seriously impede the restoration of French prosperity and really add appreciably to the difficulties of our Allies, France and Portugal, I would ask the House to forego it, and that in spite of the fact that to forego it would be to involve direct injustice to our own traders, because you cannot make a continuous and immense addition to the taxes on the output of State alcohol, British spirits and British beer, without a certain disturbance in the habits of the nation, and without causing people who were previously drinking spirits or beer to have recourse in larger measure to wine. I am not apprehensive that it will have any such unfortunate consequences to our Allies. Let me, at this point, say that I suppose

  441
  my right hon. Friend and the Committee have observed the action which is being taken in France. I see from the newspapers that my French colleague, if I may so describe him, the French Minister of Finance, and the French Government, propose to take very drastic steps to restrict the importation of luxuries. It is stated that they are going to prohibit absolutely the importation of a large number of luxuries and to tax others at a very heavy rate of Customs duty. That must affect British trade; but I make no complaint of it. I utter no word of criticism. Neither on their side nor on our side is the action which we take unfriendly, still less is it in any sense retaliatory. It arises out of the national position of each country, and the necessity for restricting expenditure upon luxuries and for raising an immense revenue to meet the obligations which our different countries have incurred.
  I would like the Committee to see what the course of the wine trade has been. I think it will interest them. The total clearances in 1913, the year before the War, were 11,367,000 gallons. In the year 1918, for several months of which severe restrictions were imposed, the clearances were almost the same amount, 11,317,000 gallons. Last year they were 19,174,000 gallons. That is to say, from a pre-War clearance of a little over 11,300,000 gallons it has sprung to over 19,000,000 gallons. If you examine the figures and take out the different classes of wine you find that sparkling wines, which accounted for 1,165,000 gallons in 1913, and which dropped in 1918 to 783,000 gallons, rose last year to 1,498,000 gallons. Heavy wines, which in 1913 accounted for just under 2,800,000 gallons, rose in 1918, in spite of the restrictions, to over 4,000,000 gallons, and last year to over 8,500,000 gallons. Clearances on that scale were exceptional, and I do not pretend that they will continue, but I do say that they show an increased consumption in this country of an article of luxury, because whatever it may be elsewhere, in countries where wine is the natural product of the country, wine in this country is a luxury. It shows an expansion of consumption in an article of luxury which points it out as a suitable matter for increased taxation at the present time.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the effect in revenue receipts of the wine duty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The wine duty has been unaltered. I have not the figures with me, but if my right hon. Friend will put down a question I will give him the actual receipts. There has been no alteration in the wine duties during that period.
  Mr. J. JONES: Has there been any alteration in prices?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe so.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is not the increase in the drinking of wine due to the serious decrease in the quality of spirits and beer.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already explained that the immense increase in the spirits and beer duties must disturb the habits and customs of the people, and had caused a certain diversion of drinking from spirits and beer to wine. I said that before the hon. Baronet came into the House. These are comparatively minor matters, some of which we shall return to in the later discussions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley called attention to a phrase towards the conclusion of my Budget statement in relation to the yield of the Excess Profits Duty. The actual words which I used were:
  "These changes which I have mentioned will produce in a full year £198,230,000, or, excluding £9,500,000 drawn from the Post Office, £189,000,000, derived as to £125,000,000 from direct taxation and £64,000,000 from indirect taxation."
  My right hon. Friend will see that my object in bringing the yield and the tax so imposed together in that way was to show what proportion of the new taxation imposed is derived from direct and what from indirect taxation. I guarded myself from any misapprehension that that would be the yield in the present year by immediately afterwards saying:
  "In the current year they will give me an additional revenue of £76,650,000"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1920, col. 99, Vol. 128.]
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the Excess Profits Duty brought in £5,000,000 more with the 40 per cent. duty than it did with the 80 per cent. duty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me first to answer the question put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley yesterday.

  443
  The yield of the increased Excess Profits Duty is not £100,000,000 in the year, but £100,000,000 is one year's excess yield of the tax at that increased rate. It is quite true, as I explained, that the actual payment of the duty is made not in one year, but in three. But the proportion of the increase of 20 per cent. arises in one year, and one year only. I think I can now explain the figure with regard to the yield of Excess Profits Duty. The exact figure was as much the yield of the 40 per cent. at which it stood last year as of the previous year. The whole of the yield of last year has not yet been received. That comes, except to a small extent, either in this year or in the succeeding year. What was received in cash last year is the produce of the tax in the previous year. That is the case, and that is what probably interests the hon. Member. It undoubtedly goes to show that the produces of the Excess Profits Duty have begun to show an increase; at any rate, they did not diminish. They showed an increase.
  I think I have dealt with many of the minor points, and I now come to the major criticisms which were addressed to me in regard to my Budget proposals. The first that was dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, and again repeated by the right hon. Gentleman who immediately preceded me to-day, is as to my treatment of the realised assets resulting from the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, echoing the complaint which is rife outside, argued that the whole of these assets, the whole of the £280,000,000, ought to have been excluded from the revenue. That is the sum which I derived from the sale of the whole of these assets last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley would thus lightly propose the reversal of the whole of our system of public accounts. Would he suggest how I could have accounted for these receipts if I had omitted them from the revenue account? The system I have pursued is in the main that which is the settled practice of Parliament, and is held to be the Palladium of our financial? security and Parliamentary control. My right hon. Friend suggests that this £280,000,000 should have been treated as capital and used in the reduction of debt. That is a view widely
  444
  held outside, where people are not accustomed to the Parliamentary system of accounts and judge this matter in the light of the accounts of trading companies. If the Committee would allow me, I should like to show, with the assistance of a colleague whom I have brought in to help me, what would have happened if we had followed the course which he has suggested to us. In other words, what would have been the result if the £280,000,000 had been treated as capital and dealt with, not in the revenue account, but in the capital account. I will assume against myself, for the purpose of this calculation, that the whole of the expenditure of past year, including the whole of the abnormal expenditure, of which nearly £450,000,000 has already ceased, and does not reappear this year, and which, therefore, I think, might properly be treated or classed as capital expenditure—I will assume that the whole of that was properly chargeable as expenditure of the year. For the purpose of better illustration I will use the form of accounting adopted by trading companies. I take a profit and loss account and a balance sheet. What would have been the result of such a profit and loss account? We should have had on one side £1,059,000,000 total revenue, excluding the £280,000,000 in question. On the other side, we should have had an expenditure of £1,665,000,000 showing a deficit of £606,000,000 on the year's accounts. How would a company have dealt with such a deficit as this on its profit and loss account? It would have carried the loss for the year to its balance sheet. I will follow the same procedure now.
  The balance sheet will have as its first item the loss on the year of £606,000,000, that is to say, the capital would have been reduced by £606,000,000. But during the year capital assets amounting to £280,000,000 have been realised. That must be set off against the £606,000,000, so that there would remain a deficit of £326,000,000 which would have had to be borrowed. That is the amount of the deficit on the Revenue and Expenditure Account which has, in fact, been met by borrowing. I hope this explanation that I have given will make the matter clearer both to the critics inside and outside the House, and that they will see that on the past year's accounts, if this sum realised from these assets was not

  445
  carried to the reduction of debt, it was used for the reduction of borrowing. A commercial company would have treated it, so far as the deficit was concerned, by carrying it from the profit and loss account to the balance sheet and dealing with it there. The system of accounts imposed on the Government does not include a balance sheet and therefore both the capital loss and the £208,000,000 are dealt with in the Revenue and Expenditure Account, but the result is exactly the same. We have a deficit of £280,000,000 which has to be borrowed.
  I think I need not pursue this matter and will now turn to the question of the extraordinary receipts of this nature included in the Revenue of £302,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley thinks we might properly have appropriated some part of this in aid of the expenditure of the year. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would dispute this, that I may include in my reckoning, with due regard to financial purity, such part of this as directly corresponds with expenditure falling within the year. I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute that. I might include in my revenue so much of my receipts as I have dealt with to a similar extent on the other side of the account. Let me take an illustration. Among these miscellaneous items of expenditure is a sum of £15,000,000 for coal. That sum appears in the expenditure; it has to be advanced in the early part of the year and has to be recouped before the year ends. Clearly my right hon. Friend agrees that it might properly be included in this year's accounts. Then there is Loans to Allies, £16,000,000, which will be repaid within the year. It is rather a complicated transaction relating to the settlement of our accounts and of currency matters in connection with the wheat purchases, and so on; we being the bankers for other nations. That £16,000,000 will be repaid within the year and that also is included. Then there is the Ministry of Munitions Account, £27,000,000, and the Shipping Accounts for £16,000,000. These are expenditure incurred in the getting in of the receipts, and I am entitled to put them into the Revenue Account just as I put the receipts in the Post Office Account against the expenditure, but the difference between them is that in the one case it brings me in an enormously greater sum than the
  446
  expenditure, whereas in the Post Office the expenditure is greater than the receipts. I think these items will not be challenged by the right hon. Gentleman or other Members. They appear in both sides of the account and they amount to £74,000,000. The total amount of the realised assets is £302,000,000, and the total amount provided for the reduction of debt is £234,000,000. If I deduct this amount of £74,000,000 from the £302,000,000 of the assets realised this year, the provision for debt already exceeds the balance. In fact, we are providing for the reduction of debt more than the whole of the amount of the nett assets realised within the year.
  I take, for the purpose of this argument, only cases where the revenue may be taken as a proper set off to an equal amount on the expenditure side. Why in this year should we bear all the extraordinary and abnormal charges, which are the direct result of the War, and take no credit for the abnormal receipts which are equally the result of the War? I might follow the example of certain other nations, such as France, of having an "Ordinary" and an "Extraordinary" Budget. I do not follow that course because it is contrary to our whole tradition and would not be acceptable to the Committee. What would that extraordinary Budget contain? It would contain the £302,000,000 receipts less the £74,000,000 to which I have referred. See what extraordinary charges would be carried to the other side. On the Army alone for sea transport and other services, and restoration and other expenses in the course of demobilisation there is a sum in this year of £29,500,000. For the Air Force, the Navy and similar services there is £27,000,000. For loans to Allies and relief to distressed districts in Europe there is £36,000,000, for the bread subsidy £45,000,000, and for the Ministries of Munitions and Shipping £43,000,000.
  5.0 P.M.
  Let me say that of the total of £27,000,000 for the Ministry of Munitions, £17,000,000 is for the liquidation of war contracts. That is as direct a war charge as any we have yet met. There are grants for railways, £25,500,000. So little are those an expense proper to the present year that they are the result of a bargain made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley with the railway companies at the very commencement of the War. It was

  447
  a very proper and necessary arrangement, but he cannot saddle me with it in this particular year as an expenditure properly debitable to this year. It is for the payment of his debt of 1914. No, Sir; he must have a little consideration. I am paying his debt. He must allow me to use the assets which are available for the purpose. Lastly, there is the Coal Mines Vote of £15,000,000, to which I have already alluded. The only other thing I need mention is the training and reinstatement and land settlement of ex-soldiers, for which £27,000,000 is included in the current year's expenditure. Take items like that and you have a purely transitory, a wholly abnormal and exceptional expenditure, due directly to the War, of a sum not of £70,000,000, but of more than the whole £300,000,000 of extraordinary resources, which are brought into the account, or at least equal to the whole £300,000,000. I really think there has been a great deal of misconception and an insufficient appreciation of what we really are doing.
  I must say that it has amused me to listen to this Debate. I, who have listened with becoming humility and patience, while I have been rebuked for showing no signs of making any effort to reduce debt—I sat yesterday, with some amusement, while I heard hon. Gentlemen asking whether I had not been a little precipitate and exaggerating in the amount I had taken for the reduction of that same debt. It is a pleasant change, at any rate, after being smitten on the one cheek to get hit on the other cheek, which is less bruised. I do not want to have obscured by these discussions or by the attention which is very properly given to a single portion of the debt, namely, the Floating Debt— I do not want to have obscured from this House or the country or from the world the immense things we are doing as a nation. So much attention was paid to the subject that I think it did lead to some obscurity of that kind. Let me ' say that the right hon. Member for Paisley will appreciate that the distinction between the Floating and the Funded Debt is no longer as keen as it was in pre-war days. The old Funded Debt was represented by Consols, and Consols were not a debt repayable at any moment; they were an annuity payable in perpetuity. They were not repayable at all. All that you were
  448
  liable to find was the interest you had agreed to provide year by year. During the War you could not borrow on those terms, and you could not borrow on those terms to-day. The people who hold our securities would wish that we had borrowed on those terms. We cannot borrow to-day in perpetuity on terms which as taxpayers we are ready to accept, and accordingly we borrowed with fixed maturity. Many of these stocks are maturing at a comparatively early date. Take the past year, Ways and Means advances and Treasury Bills. We had to meet the bonds maturing within the year. I have to do the same this year. So, as these different securities approach their maturity, they become gradually indistinguishable from the Floating Debt. What was at one time classed as Funded Debt because it had ten years to run, or as semi-Funded Debt because it had five years to run, becomes a liability of the next 12 months or the next six months. The distinction is not as clear as it was.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The real point is the meeting of capital repayment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so, but the moment the right hon. Gentleman states that, he and the Committee will see that to measure our effort by the reduction of what is called the Floating Debt is not enough. It is very much greater. We are met by these maturities as well—the calculation I put before the House will show that—and we have to absorb and cancel all the longer-dated maturities which taxpayers have the right to tender to us in payment of Death Duties or of Excess Profits Duty.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I quite agree that that is so, and the £160,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman will have to provide this year, is, I imagine, to a considerable extent, due to repayments of that kind. I do not in the least minimise that. At the same time the Floating Debt remains most serious.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree that the continuance of the Floating Debt, especially the early maturities, is most felt by me. What we are able to do in that respect is no measure of what we are doing for the reduction of debt, and my right hon. Friend knows it. I am not suggesting that he represented that it was, but I am afraid lest in the attention given to the Floating Debt the world at

  449
  large did not realise what we are doing. The Floating Debt may be what concerns us most in this country, but there is also the foreign debt, the debt of our external obligations. The world is thinking more of our external obligations, and of how we are facing our responsibilities, what strength we are showing to meet our burden, and what resilience we have under the strain and pressure of the War. Let me remind the Committee what we are doing. We propose to reduce our debt this year by £234,000,000. I think I am safe in saying that we shall be able to devote £300,000,000 to the same purpose next year. That is £534,000,000 for the reduction of debt in two years. It is a prodigious sum. We make this effort on the top of all the immense sacrifices of the War. In my belief there is no nation in Europe which could do such a thing, and we do it without recourse to any extravagant method, and without recourse to any levy, whether on war wealth or on capital. I think that that shows a position of such remarkable strength that we may find confidence in it ourselves, and that through it we shall inspire confidence in the world at large.
  That brings me to the second large body of criticism, which was with reference to the Excess Profits Duty. I do not desire for one moment to minimise the objections to that Duty. I stated them as fairly as I could last year. They are real, and I do not deny it. I should be very sorry to think that this Duty was going to be a permanent part of our financial machine. But I beg the House to consider what alternative I have. What alternative has anyone at the present time? What are the circumstances in which I ask them to continue it and to continue it at an increased rate? Some hon. Member said that the continuation and the increase of the Duty must lead to a rise in prices. Is the converse true? I reduced it from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. last year. Where is the fall in prices? I am not exercising a moral judgment on the profits which are made, not for one moment. I say that the state of the world, the relative conditions of supply and demand, are such that men cannot help making abnormal and extravagant profits if they are producing to the full extent of their capacity, which it is in the higher interests of the world they should do. There is such a condition of
  450
  scarcity as practically gives a monopoly in great areas of production, or all the conditions of monopoly as regards prices in great areas where in normal times there is acute competition. In other words, the demand so far exceeds supply that there is no competition. The buyer will pay any price that the producer will charge. He is prepared to pay. That is what forces prices up. He wants to pay; he is glad to get the goods on any terms. Under these circumstances I think we are justified—
  Captain STANLEY WILSON: No. Read your own speeches of last year.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I was justified in saying that I made a mistake in my forecast of last year. Had I known what the conditions of the year would be, I never would have reduced the duty to as low as 40 per cent. at that time, and I consider that we are justified in asking that, subject to the one condition which I indicated in my Budget speech, the duty should be raised, not, indeed, again to 80 per cent., which I think is too high a rate, but to 60 per cent. I think it better at once to say, in view of the fact that a foolish rumour was started yesterday, that by that proposal I stand or fall. There is no going back. But I stand or fall also by the alternative which I mentioned in my Budget statement. If the inquiry into the taxation of increases of war wealth results in practicable proposals acceptable to this House, I am prepared to forego the increased 20 per cent. I think that the future of the Excess Profits Duty, as apart from the rate at which it may be levied, cannot depend wholly on the results of that inquiry, but must depend partly on the continuation or cessation of the peculiar conditions of supply and demand which I explained a moment ago Yet, on the result of that inquiry and the verdict of the House of Commons must also depend to a great extent the time at which the Excess Profits Duty comes finally to an end. Some of my hon. Friends do not like the idea of a levy on increases of wealth during the War—
  Mr. CLYNES: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to forego the advantage of the one impost before the other can take effect?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. I will make my meaning quite clear. The 20 per cent. of Excess Profits Duty imposed

  451
  this year brings the revenue into the Exchequer next year except as regards a very small portion. The revenue really comes in next year and the year after. If, in the course of this Session, the House adopts a levy on increases of War-time wealth, then in the same Bill in which I lay that proposal before the House I will include a Clause to reduce the Excess Profits Duty again from 60 to 40 per cent. for the current year. The Bill which imposes the levy is the Bill which will repeal the 20 per cent. I was on the point of saying, when my right hon. Friend interrupted me, that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) addressed some observations to the Committee which left me in a little doubt of his exact attitude. I was not quite clear whether in his view a levy on War wealth was worse than a general levy on capital, or whether he only felt that it made a general levy on capital easier. I, at any rate, hold that there is a very clear distinction between the two, and I would like to try to put it to the Committee once again. I do not say that either kind of levy is free from objection; it is not. If it is immoderate in amount, either form of levy would do a great injury to industry, would destroy credit and security, and would depreciate sales and might very seriously affect our financial stability. The one advantage of a general capital levy, of which I make my hon. Friend a present, is its easier assessment and collection, but are they comparable in justice? I do not believe either resort is one to which we ought to turn except for a great national emergency such as a great war. A general capital levy strikes with the same proportion everywhere, the man who has lost, the man who remains in the same position as he was, the man who has gained, and perhaps gained enormously.
  Again, let me say, and I am anxious to say, that anybody who talks of the capital levy or war levy as a method of moral justice or who speaks of the increases of wealth made during the War—I am not talking of a particular individual case the circumstances of which may be known—but speaks of them generally as if they cast a moral stigma on the possessor, is really obscuring the whole issue and fatally injuring his case. There is no question of morality. Many men were in a position where, if they did their duty to their country, they could not
  452
  help making big profits. Many men were in a position where, if they did their duty to their country, they were involved in big losses. Some men survived, others did not. But what is the national position? We are not richer after the War than we were before; we are poorer. But there has been a great redistribution of wealth. The financial sacrifices demanded by the War have fallen unequally. It is not a moral judgment that I should suggest we should pass on the individual profits of particular persons in attempting to asses a levy on increases of War wealth; it is some approach to an equalisation of War sacrifice. You do not get it by a general capital levy. A general capital levy goes directly counter to it, but if you make, I will say not only a fair, but a generous allowance for saving and such as may cover to a large extent such an abnormal circumstance as, say, the value of money, and if you then say that allowing for all these things here where the great bulk of the community are worse off, certain people by good use of opportunities which they were fortunate enough to possess, became very much better off, is it not fair, if you can collect your tax, that some greater sacrifice should be asked from those fortunate people than from their less fortunate or actually unfortunate neighbours?
  Mr. MARRIOTT: In reference to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend, I want to make it perfectly clear that I object both to a general levy on capital and also to a levy on war wealth. I conclude from what has been said by some of my hon. Friends around me that that impression was not given by my right hon. Friend. What I did say in my speech of yesterday, and what I intended to say, was that a general levy on capital was more easy to collect and more easy to assess, and that a valuation would be more easy to make than it could be in reference to war wealth alone. I did not enter into the respective merits of the case except on that point.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said there was an alternative proposal. The proposal of the right hon. Member for Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) was a capital levy. For the reasons that I have expounded to the House I think a capital levy exaggerates the hardships which war has brought, and has in it, to an intensified degree, every objection you can bring

  453
  against a levy on increases of war wealth, and by reason of the fact that it is not associated with war conditions, and is therefore capable of repetition at any moment, there is far greater danger to future credit and security than is contained in any proposal for which I have ever shown myself ready to take responsibility.
  My right hon. Friend, in language which I regretted, contrasted not very fully or fairly what the State was doing for the ex-soldier with what it was spending on interest on the debt. My right hon. Friend forgot on the one hand that the pensions he spoke of were only a part of the charge we have incurred on behalf of old soldiers or other ex-service men. He omitted altogether from his calculations the immense amount of the expenditure of the State which goes directly to the benefit of the classes on whose behalf he professes to speak. If he will permit me to say so, I think it was unfortunate that he should do so. It seemed to cast a doubt upon his willingness—I will not say on his willingness, but on the willingness of those he represents to face and maintain the national obligations. He spoke of the charge for the public debt. He must remember that a great part of that debt is not held by people in this country at all, and that of the debt held by people in this country a great part is very widely held by people of very small means, much more widely held now than ever before. If he is going to menace the security of that then he will sit on that side of the House for the rest of his life, whoever sits on this side. My right hon. Friend admits that in the ultimate sacrifice no class of the community was behind the other where life was at stake and that men of every class gave their lives equally readily. Certainly, as he and others have borne witness, the highest and most fortunate were not behind in the race to serve their country, but has he considered what their financial sacrifices were. I cannot say what they may have contributed to local taxation or by indirect charges, but I will take just three taxes, Income Tax, Super-tax, and Death Duties. My right hon. Friend said that he had a friend with an income of about £26,000 a year. How much of that income does his friend enjoy after he has paid Income Tax and Super-tax and made provision for his Death Duties? He gets 7s. out of
  454
  every 20s. Where would Members' salaries be if the same rule were applied?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood my statement yesterday. What I said was that I knew a man whose total investments in War Loan permitted him to receive, after he had paid all Income Tax and Super-tax, a weekly sum of £400.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I misunderstood my right hon. Friend, but perhaps he will at any rate allow me just to show—I think it is desirable that it should be shown—what is the burden of some of these taxes upon big incomes, because it is these big incomes that excite jealousy and hostility, and it is desirable that it should be known what burdens they bear in order that people may know how far it is fair. Take a man with an income, then, of £26,000 a year. He pays 13s. out of every 20s. in these three taxes to the State, and he gets 7s. for himself. On an income of £50,000 he pays 14s. out of every 20s. to the State; on £100,000 he pays 15s. 3d., and on £150,000 he pays practically 16s. out of every 20s. to the State.
  Mr. IRVING: Then he is very much better off than most folk.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I am pointing out to the hon. Member is that he is making a terrific contribution. If the hon. Gentleman, whatever his income, found that he retained less than half of it, and perhaps less than a third, for his own use after deduction of taxes, I should be surprised if he would view it as philosophically as he does the sacrifices of others.
  There is one other point with which I must deal, and which I did not mention in my Budget statement. I am asked, "What about expenditure?" I have called the attention of the Committee to the marked reduction of expenditure this year as compared with last year, and last year as compared with the year before, and I shall be gravely disappointed if there is not another marked reduction in expenditure next year. I am not going to adventure into the realm of prophecy. I am not going, at the beginning of the year, to make estimates for the next year, but I recognise it as the duty of the Government and of the Treasury to watch carefully all estimates, to cut down any wastefulness, to stop

  455
  any extravagance, and to bring to an end at the earliest possible moment any service which, though it may have been necessary during the War, can be dispensed with now. In the appeals that I have made to the House I have never desired to shirk any part of the responsibility attaching to the Government or to myself. I place the duties and the rights of the Treasury as high as anybody, and with my colleagues' assistance I mean to keep them in their proper position; but I do not regard it as any part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down to the House and seek popularity for himself by dissociating himself from Estimates in which he has concurred, which he has approved, and for which he is equally responsible with his colleagues. I have never thought it very dignified to do that. Estimates which are before the House are the Estimates which, in the opinion of the Government, are necessary, and I share that opinion, and if we did not hold that opinion they would not have been presented. If circumstances permit us in the course of the year to make a reduction in them I shall be very glad, and, in any case, I expect a reduction next year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley said expenditure depends upon policy. That is why I invited him and others to place their finger on any change of policy which they were prepared to recommend that would save us a substantial sum.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Peace with Russia.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware at the present time that we should save anything in that way. Does my right hon. Friend always think of that connection between policy and finance when he is speaking about policy? He drew attention very fairly, and, indeed, generously, to the uncertainties of the future, and he said, "What may happen in the Middle East?" Well, what may happen in the Middle East? I agree there are uncertainties, but when he was condemning the policy of the Government with regard to the Turkish peace, had he thought for a moment of the financial effect of the policy which he advocated? That is not the way to save money. I do not know of any recommendation that has come from my right hon. Friend that would help the Government to save any money.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about peace with Mesopotamia?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not propose that we should vacate Mesopotamia.
  Mr. ASQUITH: We have not yet discussed the Turkish Treaty. I suppose my right hon. Friend was referring to the discussion on the Austrian Treaty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on Constantinople.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I refer him to the speech I made about Mesopotamia and the Middle East.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee of Ways and Means. We are discussing the raising of revenue and not questions of policy.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I will content myself with saying that expenditure does depend upon policy and that right hon. Gentlemen, when they are criticising the policy of the Government or offering alternatives of their own, must at least bear in mind the effect of those policies upon the expenditure of the Government. I cannot be certain that all our provisions of this year will be exactly realised. All I can say is that we have made our calculations on the best basis available, and on that basis we have made such provisions as no other country has made or can make to face our great responsibilities, and that I believe, by adopting those provisions and settling this as the finance of our year, we shall indeed start ourselves on a new path of credit and stability.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am sure the Committee will have heard with great pleasure the frank statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the beginning of his speech in regard to co-operative societies coming under the Corporations Profit Tax. I consider it is only right and fair that they should bear their proportion of taxation May I, in passing, refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend in regard to champagne? I think it would be wicked to take that tax off, and if we did so we should create throughout the country the old cry we have heard before, that while we tax the poor man's beer the rich man's champagne goes free. At the last two elections I advocated that luxuries should bear a fair proportion of taxation. I am

  457
  sure the French people, as well as ourselves, will realise that we are not taxing French champagne because it conies from France, but that we must make a point of taxing all luxuries. I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the colossal task that in two years he hopes that we shall reduce the National Debt by £500,000,000. It is a wonderful thing, especially at this time, when we have not yet recovered from the effects of the War or indeed got into our normal stride. I have had numerous letters from all sorts of traders and merchants and manufacturers throughout the country on the question of the Excess Profits Duty, and it was with regret that I heard there was no foundation for the rumour we saw in the Press this morning that we were going to revert to the 40 per cent. In the course of my daily work I meet men deeply engaged in the industrial life of this country, and I have frequently been asked in the last two days to express the views which they hold in regard to this matter. They all view with great alarm the increase in the Excess Profits Duty from 40 percent. to 60 percent. Of course, money has got to be found somewhere, but it seems to me a great pity that some other means could not be found of collecting the necessary revenue than by raising this tax. We all know that it has proved to be an absolutely unsound method of taxation, and I think instances will occur to everyone where this attitude has been adopted over and over again: "As the Government are contributing 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the cost, why should we worry?" That spirit, which has been engendered by the Excess Profits Duty, has to a large extent been responsible for the enormous rise in wages and the increased price of commodities in general. It is a distasteful method of collecting revenue to one who has the true interests of industry at heart. The four points I am desired to emphasise are the inequality of the tax as between an old business and a new one, the restriction imposed upon trade expansion, the incentive to extravagance, and, lastly, the liability of it being passed on to the consumer.
  With regard to the first point there is certainly an allowance ranging from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. or more in special cases of the capital employed in a business, but especially in businesses where
  458
  a large amount of capital is necessary this is quite inadequate as compared with the ordinary trading profits made by a similar concern before the War. As equity should be one of the fundamental principles of taxation, on this ground alone the Excess Profits Duty at the earliest possible moment should be abolished. We must congratulate ourselves that we have weathered the storm in a much more satisfactory way than any of the other belligerents, but with the very high wages which are now being paid, it is absolutely imperative that increased efficiency and great expansion in our trade is necessary to place this country permanently in the position it occupied in pre-War days. With this end in view, it should be, and I am sure is, the policy of the Government that by every means in its power it will encourage the development of our industries and our foreign trade. How does the business man with capital to invest view the Excess Profits Duty? We have to realise what these people who have capital say to themselves. We want to encourage them to spend it and invest it in this country. He says, "Sixty per cent. of my profit in the first instance goes to the Government, and I am left with forty per cent., out of which I have to pay Income Tax and Super-tax amounting to fifty per cent., so that eventually I shall be left with twenty per cent. of the profit resulting from my enterprise." The result of that is that if it were to continue he would forthwith turn his eyes abroad to seek for investment elsewhere which would yield him a better return with far less trouble, or he would resort to speculation.
  A large percentage of the profits of a business undertaking over and above a certain standard being appropriated by the Government tends to make those responsible for the management of the business less careful in the matter of expenditure, so that the spirit of extravagance which we see on every side to-day is fostered. If you take, for example, the 40 per cent., the incentive to economy is reduced by 40 per cent. If the duty is 60 per cent. the incentive is reduced by a like amount. The Government and hon. Members of the House preach economy, but if we wish to encourage it we must do it by such legislation as will not encourage extravagance—for example, this pernicious Excess Profits Duty. The

  459
  fourth point is that we are faced with the problem of increasing prices, whether on the necessities of life or on luxuries. At the same time we are confronted with the demand that the rising tide of prices shall be stayed. In a great many cases, as has been found by experience, the proprietor of a business falling within the grasp of the Excess Profits Duty takes the view that if the Government are going to appropriate 50 per cent. of the profits, he must see to it that his profits are doubled, so that there will still be left the profit that was made before. I have heard it said over and over again in the last two or three years that people are doing that, believing they are doing right in the interests of the whole of the shareholders of the concerns they represented. Nevertheless, it is certain that whenever this view of the case is taken, it results in the consumer paying the duty, and that in a very direct manner. So that, undoubtedly, one effect of the increase in the rate from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. would be that the price of commodities would go higher. I was interested to-day in a discussion with a member of the deputation of the British Federation of Industries which was seen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this tax. The deputation left with the impression, rightly or wrongly, that it was not the intention of the Chancellor to maintain the two taxes, but that if he kept the Corporations Profits Tax he would give up the Excess Profits Duty.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Corporations Profits Tax was never mentioned.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: This particular Member hopes that if the Corporation Tax was maintained my right hon. Friend would revert to the 40 per cent. instead of 60 per cent.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What they suggested was that for the Excess Profits Duty there should be substituted a tax which would fall on a great number of people who do not now contribute to the tax.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: That was the Corporation Tax.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No it was not; it was a tax on the profits of all businesses, professions, trades and agriculture.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am much obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's answer. It will probably help to clear the air in that direction. I always think, whether one is a back bencher or whatever position one takes up in this House, it is always one's duty if he objects to a policy proposed, to offer some alternative or make some suggestion of a helpful nature. I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Corporation Tax. In my opinion it helps to level things up. There are a lot of private concerns which were subject to the whole bag of tricks. They had to pay Excess Profits Duty, then Super-tax and then Income Tax. The Corporation Tax is admitted all over the country to be one of the standing features of the Budget which gives us some hope of a quick and early reduction of the Excess Profits Duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this point his sympathetic consideration. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the principle of the Excess Profits Duty. It is not the best method by any means, but necessity drives him to that form of getting in revenue. I should like to make one suggestion here, which I put forward after conversations with serious business men, various classes of the community, and those engaged in industrial work, and that is, if I understand aright, that they would much prefer to have a 2s. instead of a 1s. Corporation Profits Tax as now suggested if by that means you could do away with even a portion of the Excess Profits Duty. Such a proceeding would be welcomed, especially if it were found that that extra 1s.—2s. instead of 1s.—would produce something equivalent to that expected by the proposed increase of the Excess Profits Duty. I have been asked to make that point, and I have pleasure in putting it to my right hon. Friend, who I am sure will give it his consideration—I hope with some effect!
  Perhaps later he will be able to say that if the Corporations Profits Tax is satisfactory and he can ascertain something like the net result, that he may think it advisable to increase the one as I have suggested if by that means he can revert to the 40 per cent. Anything, and almost any method, is wished for than this excess 20 per cent. as proposed. I am bound to admit that the sooner this Excess Profits Tax is

  461
  abolished the better, and the Corporations Profits Tax takes its place, even graduated up to perhaps 5s.—whatever amount you like!—for this method is a better one of obtaining the money that we have to get, and get from somewhere; and it is no good our squealing, for everybody has to pay his share. Now, as to the increased tax on champagne. My medical adviser has ordered me a bottle of champagne per week, and my heart sank into my boots when I heard of the increased cost of it. That, however, by the way. If we can get the Excess Profits Tax removed we shall inspire trade, and help to prosperity quicker than by any other means we can devise. Half the trouble between employers and employed is due to the tax, for the workmen press forward claims for increases of wages, thinking that there is plenty from which to get those increases when Excess Profits Taxes are paid.
  Let me make a suggestion which may produce a million or two. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not object even to that small amount if he sees an opportunity of getting it. In the course of constant travel I go on board different passenger-ships to all parts of the world. I find that on these ships I am charged just as much for liquid refreshments as I am on shore, though the ship gets the spirits out of bond without paying any duty. I suggest that a substantial sum could be collected, and quickly, in view of this fact—for you do not get these things cheap on board ship. Whether I have been on the "Lusitania," the "Mauretania," or ships sailing to and from South America, a "whisky-and-soda"—or whatever the refreshment might be—is the same price, yet they do not pay taxes. I think that is a shame. That sort of treatment has always rubbed me the wrong way and I have always said that I meant to get a bit of my own back, and, in endeavouring to do so, I am putting forward my suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will perhaps consider whether there is anything in it. Before I leave what I may term the "cork" part of the business, I should just like to suggest a corkage flat rate on every kind of bottle in which there is a cork—1d., 2d., ½d., or ¼d. on ginger pop or ginger ale.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And on champagne?
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Yes. Then what about an advertisement tax? Why should the right hon. Gentleman not collect, as in most other countries, revenue from advertisements? Lastly, I should like to mention the motor tax. All I am going to say about that is, because so much has been said, is there no chance of halving it and making the horse-power unit 10s. instead of £1? To balance the loss of revenue, let us collect a similar tax on the spirit. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to come down to this House in the near future and budget for new money. If the Chancellor has to come here again and ask for more money, in addition to that for which he is asking now, I think every Member will agree that we will feel that the bottom has dropped out of the business. I appeal to him—perhaps it is presumption to do so—that the Government will endeavour to cut down their expenditure to the measure of their income, no matter who suffers by the way; that the Government will stick to the amount that they have voted, and if one Department exceeds what has been allotted to them, they will take such action as is necessary, so that, on the whole, the Estimates before the House will not be exceeded.
  Mr. BARNES: I returned to the House last night after a long absence. Therefore I had not the pleasure of hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer present his Budget to the House. I have, however, heard most of the Debate to-day and yesterday. I have made myself acquainted with the other portions of the Debate; therefore, I should like to submit a few observations to the House. First of all, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be congratulated on his good fortune in being in office at a time when the Revenue has shown such extraordinary buoyancy, thus enabling him to come out with a balance on the right side. I will express the hope, as expressed yesterday by the ex-Prime Minister, that he will not allow that balance to be frittered away by the demands that may be made upon him by the various Departments. I say that after having had the opportunity and privilege of an inside view. Speaking from knowledge derived from that inside view, I should say that there is still a good deal of cutting down to be done in the

  463
  Government Departments. Some of the departments of a Department exist, I am afraid, only because they have existed, and, for my part, while I am here I shall be very glad to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury in taking any drastic action that may be thought proper. I agree with what has been said by the Chancellor, and others I think, in this Debate, that policy very largely determines finance. To that I would add that sometimes events determine policy; therefore the Chancellor does well to have a nest-egg in hand so as to be prepared for any unforeseen event. It is true he has got £20,000,000 in hand for any supplementary demands that may be made upon him. I have, however, just returned from the East, and I have been impressed with events as I have seen them there developing. It seems to me that the East just now is somewhat in the nature of a pot boiling over. From all I could hear in one place recently, and from all I know of the circumstances connected with the Turkish settlement and various things in the Middle East, I should say it is not at all improbable that we may have trouble there, and that we may have to incur expense; therefore it is desirable that the Chancellor should keep a little in hand if that trouble should come.
  The Chancellor may also be congratulated on having made a start in the reduction of debt. I would not go so far as some hon. Members did yesterday to say that he has made a bold start. I do not see anything very bold about the Budget except one aspect with which I will deal later. At all events, he has made a start, and I think that may be described as the beginning of wisdom. It is clear, or might be clear to all and sundry outside this country, it is being made clear by this Budget, that we have turned, or are turning, the corner from doubt to confidence. It must be clear that the fact of our having started to pay off debt, that we are paying off the Anglo-French Loan, and the further fact stated by the Chancellor that in all human probability if there were 20 such Budgets we might wipe off the whole of our colossal indebtedness—all these things are a clear indication to the outside world that the resources of this country are by no means done, but that, on the contrary, we are going now to put our house in order in such a way
  464
  as to contribute to the conditions under which trade will revive. I wish to express my opinion that the Budget does not do as much as it might have done to equalise the burden of the War amongst various sections of our people. I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a sympathetic reference to the possibility of some kind of special war charge if it could be made. I hope the Committee will go into the matter and have another investigation, and come to the conclusion that such a charge can be made and point out the way. Everyone in this House will remember how we asked young men to go and fight for us five or six years. Later on they were conscripted and had to go, and we all know that to nearly the number of 1,000,000 those men sacrificed their lives and gave their all, and while doing that, many of those at home waxed fat and grew rich as a result of the War.
  It is perfectly true that a great number got exceedingly rich during the War. There is no need to trot out the figures. There are cases of men who were comparatively poor before the War who have now blossomed out into millionaires. Riches simply fell into their laps. I think we ought to see if we cannot reach them in some way, and get some contribution from them commensurate with their good fortune and the needs of the case. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a very strong case, showing that these men were already contributing a very large part of their incomes to the country's needs, and he gave the case of a man with £26,000 who had to contribute 13s. out of every pound, and another case of a man with £50,000 who was contributing 15s. out of every pound. That looks like a strong case against any further exaction being made upon those rich men. But may I remind the Chancellor that this £26,000 or the £50,000 is quite abnormal, and that money has been taken by the receivers in such a way as to provide for the tax. I was talking to a manufacturer the other day, and he told me some of his experiences in regard to what he had to pay for certain things that entered into his production. One article, which was 1½d. per lb. before the War, was now 1s., and he gave other instances of cases where he had to pay six, eight and even ten times as much as he did before the War. He told me of one article which he had to buy now at 7d. per lb., which used to be one-fourth or one-fifth of that price

  465
  before the War, and he pointed out that the people who produced those articles come to London once a month, and being few in number, they fix the price at whatever they liked, and that practice is getting largely to be the case with all commodities. Manufacturers meet in London and they decide what the price shall be, and it is generally altogether abnormal and sufficient to cover the tax however high it may be.
  Therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that a man with £50,000 has to pay 15s. in the £, he might have told us that that money had been made out of the customers who sold those goods and the consumer was being bled in this way. These things are sinking into the minds of the people of this country. I do not think hon. Members realise how deeply the people are thinking of these iniquities, great at any time, but greater in consequence of the War. I am sure if the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) were to mix more with labouring people he would discover the truth of what I am saying. I do not know how this can be remedied, whether it can be done by the Death Duties or some other method of reaching those people who have got rich during the War, but I am sure that if it is not done the demand for a capital levy will become almost irrisistible. For my part I cannot see why the ordinary method of apply taxes should not operate just as well as the capital levy. I do not see any particular merit about a capital levy at all, but if it cannot be done by an increase of the Death Duties or in some other way as to reach those who have got rich during the War, then I am sure that the demand that has been made for a capital levy will become so strong as to become almost irrisistible.
  My second point is in regard to the land values taxes, and I want to express my sincere regret that they have been dropped. It may be that there has not been much got out of them, but I do not think there is a more appropriate subject for taxation than the accretion of wealth to the land-owning classes on account of the increase in the value of land due to the presence of the population around it and the needs of the people. An hon. Member objected to some observation by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who referred to landlords generally as being extortionate,
  466
  although the right hon. Gentleman explains that he would not include in that category agricultural landlords, and possibly he was right, because they are a class quite apart, and have sunk capital into their business. I would, however, ask any sensible man what capital is sunk in the land adjacent to big towns? None at all.
  It may be true that the cultivation of agricultural land is a business, but, so far as the land adjacent to a town is concerned, the owners are drawing incomes from it on account of the needs of the population, and I am sorry that these special taxes, upon which such great hopes were placed in 1909, have been dropped. I think they have been a failure, but, at the same time, that failure has arisen, in my opinion, because we have not tried hard enough, and I believe some future Chanchellor of the Exchequer will have to try a little harder to tax the men who get rich at the expense of other peoples' efforts. With regard to the Corporations Tax, I do not like it, and I am afraid of its effect. I think by this tax you are altering the whole basis of the Income Tax. I heard some speeches yesterday and a discussion as to whether it was really more of an additional Income Tax or Death Duty.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Excess Profits Duty.
  Mr. BARNES: To my mind the matter is quite simple. It is simply an Income Tax under another name, but it is applied in such a way as to alter the character of the Income Tax. The Income Tax is an individual tax imposed because an individual is assessable upon income over and above his actual requirements. What is going to arise as a result of this Corporations Tax? A great number are not taxable at all. It does not matter whether the income is to be £250 or under, he has to be taxed because the money coming to him is taxed at the source and is taken away before it reaches him. This point was made clear by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), who pointed out that at present the individual Income Tax payer got relief. The man who is taxed under the Corporations Tax has to bear the loss, and we have already been told that there would be no return. This Corporations Tax alters the whole character of the Income Tax. Whereas a man is taxed above £130 or £250, if he is getting half that amount

  467
  from enterprises that come under the Corporations Tax, he will have to pay on the lower amount.
  With regard to what has been said about co-operative societies. I think you are going to tax co-operators unjustly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is my view. I have not seen their representative nor have I said a word to the Labour representatives on the Committee on this question, but I should like to know something more about its bearing in regard to the corporations tax in America. I do not know anything about the operation of this tax in America, but what is the use of citing the imposition of taxes in America unless they are com parable. There are no co-operators in America, and when I was in that country I looked out for a co-operative society and I never found one, with the exception of one in Canada, and I had to go 2,000 miles to find that one. When the statement is made that a tax should be put upon co-operators because a similar tax is put on them under the corporations tax in America—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman professes to be quoting my words or the argument of the Commission. He is, however, under a misapprehension, because that was not the argument at all. The statement of those who signed this reservation in the Committee's Report was, that if there were in this country such a tax as the corporations tax known in America, then it would be proper that it should apply to the co-operative societies here.
  Mr. BARNES: Of course I must accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the co-operators' representatives and the trade union representatives on the Committee accepted that view of the position. I can only say, if they did so, I am perfectly sure they did not understand it, and to my mind a great controversy will arise on this particular matter. What is the justification for taxing co-operators? I should like to hear some of those hon. Members who cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day when he said he was going to tax co-operators make out a case for such taxation. As a matter of fact, co-operators are taxed now. If a man's income is above £120 or £130, as the case
  468
  may be, he is taxed just the same as anybody else. For at least thirty or forty years it has been accepted as an axiom with regard to this matter that the dividends of co-operators were not taxable because they were not income. Are you going to go back on that? If you are, remember this, co-operators can get over the difficulty at any time they like by simply charging less for the goods they sell and making no profits at all. Therefore, for my part, I should say you are launching on a campaign which is unjust, and being unjust, will certainly create much opposition, not only among co-operators, but among a great many people who are not co-operators. Their income is already taxed, and co-operators can reduce their selling prices and pay no dividend at all. In that case, the private trader, as it seems to me, would be in a far worse condition than before. I would ask hon. Members to look with a good deal more sympathy on what co-operators are doing in this country. They are doing something which is of immense social value; they are educating the people. There are now nearly 4,000,000 members in their ranks in this country, all of whom are being educated in economic ways of conducting business, and that I believe to be one of the finest things for the country. The co-operators are building up a practically new movement from the bottom, and they have been encouraged to do it by the State. I believe they are thereby going to get an increased interest in the State, and they will, as a consequence, be interested in the State's stability. I appeal to hon. Members to think once, to think twice, and to think even thrice before making an attack on a movement so great and so full of potentialities, not only for the working classes, but for the stability of the country.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  Mr. BARNES: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I can only say from my point of view that this tax, if it be imposed, would be unjust, because it brings in a number of people who may possibly be below the Income Tax assessment limit, and it is also unjust, because it would tax co-operators who are already taxed on their incomes. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. I congratulate him on having made a really good start in reducing the

  469
  National Debt. I only wish he had gone a step further and imposed a special tax on War fortunes.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I wish to express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the many weighty and important matters which he has brought before the Committee in his Budget, has not been able to find time to deal with a small but important matter with which he expressed considerable sympathy when I brought it to his attention at the latter part of last year. I refer to the suggestion which was made then of placing an export duty on works of art sent from this country, in view of the large number of pictures and other works of art which have recently gone hence to America and elsewhere. When I raised this question in the House in November of last year the right hon. Gentleman greeted the suggestion with considerable sympathy, and informed me, in reply to questions, that if the proposal met with general approval and was likely to pass as a more or less uncontentious measure, he would be prepared to give the matter his favourable consideration. On receiving that reply I took the opportunity to bring the question before a number of Members of this House, and I secured the signatures of some 150 Members in a few days—Members of all parties —to a memorial which I handed to the right hon. Gentleman, suggesting that an export duty should be placed on works of art, the proceeds of which should be devoted to the purchase of pictures and other works of art for the nation, as, in view of the present national stringency, it is very unlikely that money from public funds will be available for the purchase of pictures or other works of art for the nation unless obtained from an export duty such as I have indicated. I also handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a memorial signed by the President of the Royal Academy and thirty members of the Council, which, I think, represented practically all the principal Academicians of the day, and, as I say, in view of the favourable reception which the proposal met at the right hon. Gentleman's hands, I hope that, even if not in the present Budget, at any rate at an early date he will be able to indicate to the House that he will impose an export duty such as I have suggested.
  470
  I only desire to make one or two brief remarks on the speeches delivered to-day. With regard to the Corporations Profits Tax, I take a rather different view to that of the last speaker. It seems to me that by the imposition of the Corporations Profits Tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to-day is a Super-tax for corporations, we are imposing the tax on that very small section of the community who are already burdened and over-burdened both by the payment of Income Tax and also by the payment of Super-tax. It will be largely the same people who are paying Income Tax and Super-tax who will also have to pay this new Corporations Profits Tax, and if it is persisted in it seems to me it would be very much fairer if a larger tax than the one suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were imposed, not on the whole profits of the limited company, but on the undistributed profits; that is to say, that there should be an inducement to the company to distribute as large an amount as possible of the profits amongst the shareholders, as, in that case, the Income Tax and Super-tax would be payable on them.
  I very much regret that the Commission on the Income Tax and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer have not seen their way to deal with what I consider is the injustice of putting an Income Tax on the joint incomes of husbands and wives. I do think that this is a crying injustice. The instance given by the dissenting members of the Commission is one which must appeal to everyone. It is the instance of three people living in each of two houses adjoining—three ladies living in one house, each with an income of £135 a year. They pay no Income Tax, but in the next house, where lives a man, with his wife and child, with exactly the same income, they have to pay £21 12s. in Income Tax. That is a very great injustice, and if it is too much to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the amount of income which he derives from this injustice—and the more income he derives, the greater the injustice—will deal with this crying injustice, yet he might deal with the injustice which is greatly accentuated now that Super-tax is to be payable on incomes of £2,000 and upwards, with the result that a man and woman who might otherwise be free from the payment of Super-tax are, by the mere fact of becom-

  471
  ing married, liable to it. If he cannot relieve married people of the payment of the Income Tax, yet perhaps he will consider the cases of people who, by the mere accident of marriage—well, perhaps I should not say accident, but by the mere fact that they are married—are made liable to the payment of a Super-tax which otherwise they would not be called upon to pay.
  I desire to associate myself with what fell from the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) on Monday last. I feel sure all of us are willing to be taxed as much as we can bear, and even more than we can bear, if we are assured that the money which is being taken from us is going in reduction of debt and especially in reduction of the Floating Debt. But we are not willing to endure these sacrifices if this money is going into a pool from which doles will be drawn as the result of pressure from powerful organisations throughout the country. In this connection I think the House of Commons requires to have more control over the doles and the bonuses which are given at the instance of one or other Member of the Government after consultation with these powerful organisations. These doles often involve the payment of twenty, thirty, and even forty million pounds, and I submit they should not be granted before the House of Commons has an opportunity of considering them. It is all very well for the House of Commons from time to time to discuss whether there shall be an employment exchange at Manchester or a new post office building in some other town. That is only a matter of thousands of pounds, but before the House of Commons has an opportunity of considering whether it can pay or not, we are often landed into the expenditure of millions and tens of millions which we are told we shall have to pay, or the country may be plunged into the throes of revolution, or some other disaster. I consider that the House of Commons in these matters ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before they have that expenditure put upon them.
  Sir CHARLES SYKES: I should like to associate myself with the praise bestowed upon the Chancellor of Exchequer on his courageous Budget, and I congratulate him on the attempt he is making
  472
  at the extinction of the debt, at the time when the inflation is probably at the highest point. I take, however, seriou3 exception to the Excess Profits Duty. Most people who criticise any proposals of this kind are concerned with putting the burden on other people's shoulders, but, as a business man, I want to make it clear that I am speaking for a class of people who are perfectly willing to bear their full share of the burden which is justly theirs. I consider, however, that the Excess Profits Duty is an iniquitous and extravagant tax. Everybody will agree that the money must be got from those who have it and from those who are going to make it, and the business community of this country are anxious to pay it. In levying any tax however, the general effect it will produce upon trade and upon the revival and stimulation of trade is a very important factor. Business people look upon the continuance of this tax as unsound and unfair. It was introduced, as we know, as a War measure, and I believe it was largely introduced by the Ministry of Munitions as a method of making sure, that they were not going to be bled too largely in connection with the contracts they made. It was extended to all other business, since, in course of time, as we know, almost every business had to do something for the War. Therefore it was admittedly a rough and ready way of meeting our great liabilities. But its basis is inequitable, and it discriminates unduly against new concerns, which is one of the chief points I want to make. It is an extravagant form of tax, and has caused much spending in business, which is a very bad thing for the country.
  I am glad to see the Financial Secretary (Mr. Baldwin) in his place, because I believe I shall have his sympathy in this matter. Pre-war standards are a very misleading figure to adopt with regard to business, when those pre-war standards are fixed on trade done, I believe I am right in saying, as far back as six years before the War. It is most unjust, in 1920–21, to say that a man's profit shall be fixed with reference to some trade which he did prior to 1914. We fought in this War for freedom, and I claim for the traders of this country that they should have freedom to say how they shall contribute their full share of the burden. They do not complain of the burden, but they complain

  473
  of the unjust way in which it is being levied. I say most emphatically that the Excess Profits Duty is going to give an advantage to the thriftless man, and is not going to encourage the man who has enterprise and energy. Firms which had a low pre-War standard have to pay taxation in 1920–21 on the basis of what they did then. In addition to that we have a Bank rate to-day of 7 per cent. Thousands of young men who have been to the War are most anxious and willing to develop businesses. That will not only be for their own good, but those young businesses will probably in the future become the leading firms in the country. By the continuance of this tax, all these firms are handicapped, and it is impossible for them to start under conditions such as are now proposed. No man can go to a bank to-day to borrow money at less than 8 per cent., and even then the bank will want security of some sort. If people are able to give that security, they can borrow money at 8 per cent., and the maximum they will get on the pre-War standard is 11 per cent. Is it possible to expect that they will show any enterprise when their profits are going to be limited to the narrow margin of 3 per cent.?
  I strongly urge that we should sweep this tax away altogether, and not tinker with it; and why should we have hanging over our heads the question of either a levy on War wealth or a capital levy? The Government are showing a weakness here of which I did not think they were capable. We are either going to be a country that is going in for nationalisation and socialistic legislation, or we are going back to pre-War conditions. Talking as you are doing—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"]—I quite accept your point of view, and I am willing to fight you on it. As we say in Yorkshire, there are "no heeltaps" about me. You know what I mean. I say most emphatically that this is an unjust tax, and that it is quite possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a tax upon profits. Let the people who make the profits contribute their fair share, but for goodness' sake do not let something that happened in 1913 prejudice the firms which make the money in 1920–21. I want to appeal for the young men who have come back from the War, and I say that by this proposal these men are ruled out absolutely, as far as I can see, from having any interest in opening up new business.
  474
  I do not know that I can make any stronger statement than to refer what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-day to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) with regard to the charges which have to be paid on railways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Why should I, in 1920, pay something that you incurred in 1914?" As we Yorkshiremen say, "Let every herring hang by his own yed." I believe the Chancellor of th Exchequer proposes that each year shall stand on its own account, and that it is intended that the three years' average shall be suspended. If that be so, and I think it is only right, let every firm pay its proportion. Do not raise one penny less than you propose by the proposals in the Budget produced on Monday, but let everybody pay according to what they are making in that year. Speaking as a manufacturer, I have no desire to escape paying my share, but I do object most strongly that a man should be prejudiced because he happens to have a business which had a bad pre-war standard. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get every penny he requires by putting a tax direct on profits. I think all the Members of this Committee will agree that it is very desirable that that tax should be graduated, and that those who get the most should pay the most. The same principle might be adopted with very great advantage in regard to the Super-tax. Several hon. Members have referred to the confidence which we all have in the future of our country. I share that confidence, but the pledges which have been given ought to be carried out. It was stated definitely and distinctly that this Excess Profits Duty was put on as a War measure and, if not by word, by implication, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year led us to believe that the 40 per cent. was only temporary, and that it was necessary to carry on for one year. If you find you want the money, by all means raise it by proper methods, but let us revert to pre-War conditions—let us have freedom, and know where we stand. If my hon. Friends opposite want nationalisation, let them fight for it. I am against it, and do not believe in it. I ask that we should enable the people who are paying their far share to keep the confidence that they have, and to develop our export trade. We

  475
  cannot develop our export trade or any trade unless we have that confidence, which is our life-blood, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us that opportunity, although criminals may not select the manner in which they are to be despatched from this world. We are not criminals, but we have to pay our share; we have to pull our weight. Let us do it in the way which we think—and we ought to know—is going to do the least harm to our business and our Empire.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I propose to confine my remarks to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was directed to the question of co-operative societies. In the course of his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that some of us on these Benches had appended our signatures to a Report which seemed to indicate that we were in favour of the Corporations Profits Tax being applied to the co-operative societies of this country. Before I come to that, I want to try and make clear the general attitude of the Royal Commission on Income Tax as far as the co-operative societies were concerned. Possibly the best way to achieve that end is to make is clear as I can the position in which co-operators would stand if the present proposals, - or the present practice with reference to them, were to continue, and if certain of the proposals of the Royal Commission were adopted. I regret very much that not only in this House, but also in the country outside, there is a widespread impression either to the effect that co-operators pay no Income Tax at all, or that they are unwilling to pay that proportion of Income Tax which they should properly pay. The very reverse is the case. The great majority of members, I should say, of the co-operative movement in this country are sincerely desirous of paying their fair and just share of taxation, but they do claim the right to certain safeguards and protection, which they believe should be accorded to them by the nature of the business which they carry on. What will be their position on the lines of the argument which I have just developed? In the first case, they will pay Income Tax on their co-operative investments. There is not the least doubt on that point at all. In the
  476
  second place, under these proposals they will be liable for Income Tax on the profits of the so-called non-mutual trading; and, in the third place, they will continue to pay Income Tax, as they are paying it now, on the interest on their share capital. These three points my right hon. Friend opposite will not dispute. That practice will be continued, but we come to the keynote of this controversy when we have regard to what is commonly called the dividends on purchases, proposals for this taxation, which were made by a large number of the manufacturing concerns of this country, which have only been partly adopted by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax. Unfortunately, there is misapprehension in the country on that point. There is no proposal to tax dividends on purchases as such. The ordinary dividend was clearly recognised by all the members of the Royal Commission to be something which arose from the system of book-keeping and the method of trading of the co-operative societies. That dividend was returned to the members of the co-operative movement on their purchases, very largely because a range of prices was adopted by the co-operative societies which made that dividend or that result possible. It was clearly seen that the co-operative movement had only to charge a reduced level of prices in order to wipe out that dividend altogether and then there would have been nothing at all to tax.
  Quite apart from that argument, which would have been strong enough in itself, leading officials of the Board of Inland Revenue pointed to the fact that, if there were any attempt on the part of the Government to tax so-called dividends on purchases, then clearly when we had raised the Income Tax limit to £250 for married people and to something between £350 to £400 in the case of a home with one or two children, the great majority of the members of the co-operative movement in this country would not be liable to Income Tax at all and would not have to pay on those dividends, and we should have a great scheme of claims for repayment, which would involve public departments in this country in great expense, official and otherwise, for no end whatever. The majority of the members of the Commission took another view from that of the minority with reference to that

  477
  part of the net profits which were not paid to the members as dividends on purchases, but were placed to reserve or dealt with in some other way. What was the whole case in the minority statement? We utterly failed to understand how there could be any distinction between that part which was returned to the members, and held to be the result of mutual trading and non-taxable, and that proportion not returned, but which flowed from the very same course of action on the part of the movement. I cannot understand the attitude of the majority of the members of the Royal Commission on that point. But even if we cannot understand the logic of it, what have we to say of this matter with reference to its practice? Here is a sum, which may be large or small, in the possession of the co-operative societies which, under this new scheme, is going to be liable for the first time to Income Tax in this country. Is it to take the form of some kind of general tax, or are we going to try to sort out the liability of the members of the individual co-operative societies and their respective proportions of that fund which is liable to taxation? If that is to be the idea, the Government are only going to repeat all the difficulties which would confront them if they tried to recover Income Tax or charge Income Tax on those so-called dividends on purchases which have been recognised as a result of mutual trading, and not a profit in the ordinary sense of the term. That is, broadly, the contention which faced us in the Royal Commission, and while co-operators have no desire to escape their liabilities in any way, and whilst I should be the last to suggest that co-operative societies or individual co-operators should be exempt, there is no continuity of argument at all in the two propositions advanced by the rival schools in the Royal Commission. They are dealing with one subject flowing from one method of trading, and dealing with it in two ways. One must be wrong, and I submit on this occasion, as on many occasions, the Minority were correct.
  The other point I desire to make is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear this afternoon that he intends to apply the Corporations Tax to co-operative societies. Without dealing at all with the merits of the Corporations Tax, I think on
  478
  the whole it is a tax to be welcomed, and probably in the long run to be encouraged. It is going to deal with a certain class of returnable profits which may not be amenable to ordinary Income Tax, from some points of view, or only partially, and certainly not amendable in many cases to the Excess Profits Duty. We should get it in some shape or form, and I think it is not unfair to come along with a Corporations Tax of this kind, and try to secure to the whole of the people of this country revenues which it should rightly obtain, and the raising of which will confer no injustice whatever upon the people from whom it is collected. As a matter of fact, it may be necessary for Governments in future with a large social outlook to extend this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us from the very bosom of the Coalition now a precedent which may be usefully used and employed by other Governments which follow. The right hon. Gentleman read out—and I should be the very last to accuse him of unfairness—from the Report of the Royal Commission a statement which was signed by myself, amongst others, of minority Members of that Commission. They said that if we had a Corporations Tax in this country like the tax in the United States then it might be applied to Co-operative Societies, but they immediately went on to say that the Income Tax was not a Corporations Tax, and if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, I remember well the attitude of mind in the Commission, and that that was put in by way of illustration, although I am willing to admit that we had no idea that so soon following the result of our deliberations such a terrible result would emerge. That passage of the Royal Commission's Report, I submit, should be read as the lawyers very often put it—I think not unfairly—broadly and generously. I did not regard it as a definite statement of policy at all, but as an introductory statement merely to indicate quite clearly the basis of our case as regards the so-called mutual trading of these societies. We insisted that the Income Tax was not a Corporation Tax, as indeed it is not, and we used this by way of convenient illustration, unfortunately, no doubt, and we should revise it if we were coming to the discussion to-day. We certainly never imagined there would be a Corporations Tax in the history of this country.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. Member does not mean to say he asserted that a thing would be just because he felt confident it would never be done, and, now that he finds it is going to be done, he wants to withdraw his assertion that it is just?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Not at all. I do not suggest that for a moment. I am only suggesting most strongly that some of, us, at least, understood that it was there for purposes of illustration. It may be unfortunate that that phraseology was used, but, at all events, that was our point of view. I think we should press to-day for some information as to whether the Corporations Tax is to apply to the broad profits—we use that word loosely for the time being—of the Co-operative Societies, or whether you are only going to impose the Corporations Tax after the money returned in dividends on purchases has been taken into account or excluded. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that will make a very substantial difference to the operation of the Corporations Tax. If we assume that it is applied generally to the whole range of so-called profits of a Co-operative Society, the whole of the Members of the Royal Commission quite frankly recognised that these so-called dividends on purchases are the result of trading, are not profits as such, and should not be subject to taxation. I regret that I am obliged to make this intervention to-day. I have only intervened to make perfectly clear what I believe to be the point of view of the minority members of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, and I think I have summarised their attitude. There is no disposition on the part of co-operators to evade their just obligations, but they complain very strongly that in this country, having regard to existing social and industrial conditions, the Government are going to ignore the fact that the co-operative societies are doing a great deal of what may be called Friendly Society work. In many localities they are engaged in a great deal of healthy social enterprise and work which otherwise would only be done by the local authorities, who would make a call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that purpose. There are many illustrations which I could give if I had time, but I do submit that this is a position which we are bound to take into account. We should also remember
  480
  that the co-operators are paying all these taxes, and they are entitled to the consideration recognised by the whole of the members of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, in the light of the social and public service which the co-operative movement is rendering to the country.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I ask that the indulgence of the House, which I feel sure is always given to new Members, will be given to me. I am a very humble and recent addition to the House, and I suppose that I shall be described by the right hon. Member for Paisley as a product of some sort of political legerdemain. At any rate, I am here as a somewhat substantial representative. I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the very businesslike and clear way in which he introduced the Budget. This afternoon he threw out a challenge with regard to the Excess Profits Duty which I should like to take up. When hon. Members suggested that prices would go up if the Excess Profits Duty is raised by this Budget to 60 per cent. he asked whether the opposite would prevail in case the duties were lowered. I venture to say it would, and I will give him my reasons. There is somewhat intelligent anticipation of these things, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that a year ago he said that the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty was entirely wrong. Commercial men generally thought from these remarks that the Excess Profits Duty would be lowered. If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the price of values —and I can best refer back to those in my own trade of cotton spinning—he will find that the value of raw material in our industry at the time he brought in the last Budget were about half what they were at the time of the Armistice in November, 1918. He will also find that they were about one-half what they are at the present time, so that it is a fact that after the reduction of the Excess Profits Duty from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. there was a very considerable lowering in values and in prices. There are other things to be taken into consideration besides the question of duties in relation to values. There is the question of supply and demand, and that has affected the position in regard to the cotton trade. Further, last year, after he reduced the duties from 80 per

  481
  cent. to 40 per cent., trade in the cotton industry was vastly different from what it is to-day. To-day it is very good, and I should be the last to deny it, but from the time of the Armistice up to the time of last year's Budget the cotton trade passed through a very bad time. My own firm was working from 1914 on Government work at fixed prices as to 90 and 95 per cent. of their home production, and they never took an order in the ordinary way of business from the time of the Armistice being signed until April of the following year. But they never stopped a spindle during that time. All that production went to stock, which shows that the trade was in a very bad position, and prices were very much lower when the Excess Profits Duty was reduced.
  I feel very strongly about the Excess Profits Duty, not because I disapprove of the tax itself—I do not know any business man who does, certainly I have never come across a business man who does disagree with the tax as a tax—but only as to its incidence. I can illustrate its inconsistency by the case of two firms close together, one not being allowed, until they are chargeable for Excess Profits Duty, one penny piece beyond the statutory limit, while the other is allowed to make 80 per cent. on their capital before they become chargeable to Excess Profits Duty. That is what business men fight against, and I think the House will agree that they are justified in that. Business men like to have security in their business. There are two things that we ought to have in this country at the present time; one is security for labour and the other security for those who employ labour. One is almost, but not quite, as important as the other. When you suggest taxation with a view to aiming straight at one particular section of the community, you must be careful that in doing that you do not hit other sections that you have no intention of hitting. Now you are putting on this extra taxation in the way of Excess Profits Duty, especially after it was understood, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year, that it would possibly be taken off. We certainly never imagined that it would be increased. This means hitting at the very lowest classes in this country. It will put up prices without a doubt. I will
  482
  give an illustration from my own case of what was done by business men last year when the Excess Profits Duty was reduced from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. The Government asked people to try to improve the situation in the country as regards the housing of the people. We thought that, as this duty had been lowered, we would invest some of our money in building property, and we built property and people are living in the houses to-day. We built the houses at a cost of £800 each, which works out at 18s. per week in rent. This increased taxation, or this threat of increased taxation in Excess Profits Duty comes at a time when firms have to borrow money. I am not one of those who is in a position to lend money to my banker and to ask him what rate he will pay. I am one of those individuals, seeing that the country owes £8,000,000,000, which represents £200 per head of the population, who has to go to the banker and ask him to lend me money. Although many firms have done very well during the last period of good trade in the cotton industry, the cost of their stock has gone up very much in value owing to the cost of raw material being so much greater. It is eight times greater than in 1914. They require, therefore, so much more money to run their business, and the bulk of their money is locked up in their stock. I have gone over eight concerns, and every one of these concerns has to borrow money, not only to pay their dividends but to pay their Excess Profits Duty. If they wish to help in connection with housing as we did, they will have to build the houses on borrowed money. £800 for a house, at 6 per cent., means 18s. a week. £800 borrowed at the present bank rates means another 3s. a week on the rent of the house, and that is where you hit the working classes by taxation of this sort, because money has to be borrowed. I do not say that the Excess Profits Duty ought not to be used, but I do say that it is very unfair in its incidence. I suggest that all firms should be taxed on a fixed basis from before the War if there is to be any Excess Profits Duty at all. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow business men to have a certain amount of security in their business, and if he could see his way to keep the Excess Profits Duty at the present level, it would be much better not only

  483
  for employers but for employees and for the country generally.
  The right hon. Member for Paisley suggested that only one year could be taken as the standard for Income Tax, and that we should do away with the three years' average. It is inconsistent to suggest that we should do away with the three years' average in one case and in another that we should actually tax people according to what happened in 1913–1914. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may not have had the opportunity of hearing the views of our constituents about the Budget as a whole, but I can tell him that I went to Manchester yesterday, and those of my constituents whom I have seen who know anything at all about business are entirely opposed to the Excess Profits Duty being increased. They are opposed to it, not for selfish reasons but because they believe it will be against the best interests of industry as a whole. Another view is, and I have great sympathy with it, that the teetotaler is let off a little more than one would have expected. I saw one of my constituents yesterday, and I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he said. He said:
  "Will, aw'll tell thee this, lad. Aw've bin eawt feightin' durin' th' War, and aw doant see why aw should have to pay for it in my beer neaw."
  I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will understand that. We are asked to do a great deal out of our excess profits. We are asked in Manchester to extend our University and to extend our College of Technology. We are not told whether we shall be allowed even to consider suggestions for a building fund for our Cotton Industry Research Association out of trade expenses, or whether these will be subject to Excess Profits Duty or not.
  I should like to sympathise with the hon. Member who mentioned a point about the Income Tax of husband and wife not being separate. That point has been brought before my notice several times in my constituency and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that there is a very wide feeling of dissatisfaction about that particular point and that a great deal of injustice is being done. In regard to the Corporations Tax, which has been mentioned as a sort of substitute for the Excess Profits Duty, there arises a question which concerns
  484
  the industry in the district in which I live. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that this would be reckoned after all interest has been paid on debentures and preference shares. I should like to know whether loan money, which is used to a very great extent in the Oldham district, would be put on the same footing as debenture and preference shares, and if not I ask very respectfully, Why not? Because we get loan money from all over the world. Only this week we have got it from Japan, the United States and China. It is a matter which does help to balance the Exchange. The duty on share capital has been put up from 5s. to the £1 per £100. As a business man I regard that as an outrageous increase. To double it would have been a substantial increase, but to increase it fourfold means penalising new industries. I sympathise very much with position of doctors with regard to the cars used by them as professional men. I do not think that the remuneration of anyone who works has advanced less in comparison with the advance in the cost of living than that of the professional medical man, and I would like the Chancellor of Exchequer if he can to meet the position on this matter. The question has been asked as to why co-operative societies should pay Income Tax on the profits. But I will give the case of our own company, a corporation which has a thousand shareholders. There are only seven of those who do not earn their daily bread, who belong to those who toil not neither do they spin. What is the difference between that corporation and the co-operative societies? If the latter are free from taxation why should not our poor shareholders be free? We should look at the thing broadly in the best interests of the whole and not try to legislate for any particular section of the people.
  Mr. BILLING: I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to motor cars. It is very unfortunate that at the moment when adequate and efficient transport is absolutely essential for solving the various problems with which we are faced, the Chancellor should increase so enormously the taxation on this form of transport. The Minister of Transport tells us, and every Member of the Government tells us, as an excuse for the inefficiency and inability of his De-

  485
  partment to deal with any problem that arises, that there is congestion on the railways, and in transport generally. Yet in this Budget we find an enormous increase in taxation on all sorts of transport, an increase which is not fair and is not based on anything reasonable, and is not based on knowledge of the actual conditions. If they want to tax transport, to tax the users of the roads, why do not they tax the users of the roads, and not those who purchase vehicles? The taxing of horse power is a tax on every man who buys a vehicle, is a tax without any regard to the amount of use given to those vehicles. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to tax those people who are destroying the roads of this country, he can do so by taxing the petrol or the tyres. You cannot use a mechanically propelled vehicle without running it on wheels, and it is the part of the mechanically propelled vehicle which comes in contact with the road which wears out the roads. You cannot wear out the road without wearing out that part of the vehicle. Therefore, if you tax that part of the vehicle which comes in contact with the road you put a direct tax on the actual users of the roads in direct proportion to the extent to which they use them.
  If that is not satisfactory you might put it on petrol rather than relieve petrol. We all know what will happen. The profiteers in petrol—I am referring to all that gang who have cornered the petrol market in this country—will, penny by penny, or so great is their audacity that they will probably do it all at once, immediately put the 6d. on to the price of petrol. They will say, "If the public stood for 3s. 8d. per gallon with the tax on, they will stand for 3s. 8d. with the tax off," and industry will be seriously injured. A man who wants to start a small motor business must commence by paying £20 or £30 tax on a small motor-car. It is so funny. I happen to possess a motor-car which develops 109 horsepower, and which I cheerfully admit does more to destroy the roads of this country in a week than a Ford automobile would do in a year; yet according to the incidence of the Chancellor's tax it will pay £27 a year tax, while the Ford most probably will pay £30. I give that as an example of the crass ignorance of the Committee that has been set up. The result of their findings gives a new lease
  486
  of life to the petrol profiteer and penalises the transport of the country. No man can say what the horse-power of a motor is if it is calculated only on the bore and stroke of an engine, which has no relation to the horse-power at all, as anyone interested in engineering will know. The horse-power depends also on the number of revolutions per minute, the design of the engine, and other things which are not borne in mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down and says he is obliged to tax motors on the horse-power, and if all his other advice is as wrong as this, I am not surprised to hear on all sides that this is an amateur Budget, and that there is hardly anything in it which is not calculated seriously to injure trade.
  I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to the few remarks which I have to make. Every Member has his own ideas as to what taxation should be. It is based to a certain extent generally or the form of taxation which would least injure the business or undertaking in which he is engaged. But I do suggest that the Budget would be infinitely better if these Debates took place before the Budget was fixed rather than after the Budget was fixed, because what is the use of hon. Members making suggestions as to the incidence of taxation when they know quite well that the Chancellor's mind is made up, and that we have got to take his Budget whether we like it or not, and that all this criticism is useless except in so far as it produces the feeling that so far as we are concerned we have done the best we can. There has been a great deal of criticism with regard to the Excess Profits Tax, but no hon. Member seems to see why it has been imposed. So far as I can see, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed it to save his Treasury Bonds. He seems to think that by increasing greatly the Excess Profits Tax he will stop people investing in companies, and that in this way there would be more money to draw for Treasury requirements. He is now in competition with all forms of commercial undertakings from the point of view of the rate of interest which he is offering. As he puts it up so the bank rate goes up, and this tax is not put on with the hope of getting much by the Excess Profits Tax, because it is obvious that you can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I was speaking yesterday to a gentleman on the question of the Budget. He said:

  487
  "So far as I am concerned, I have made all that I am allowed to make this year, so I will not trouble to go to the office any further. I am not going to the office every morning to work 12 hours every day purely and simply to increase my profits so as to increase the yield of taxation."
  That may be moral or immoral, but it is a fact which exists in the minds of business men. In those circumstances I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he has taken the advice of business men, should have done what he has done. Of course, it is a popular thing with Labour Members, though I think they are much too wise to be caught by so exceedingly obvious a bait, to add 6s. a bottle on champagne, and say, "See what we have done to the profiteer. That in his drink," and to add 50 per cent. on cigars. What is it going to bring the right hon. Gentleman? Why tax the champagne on the bottle? Why not tax it on the vintage or on the price, if he wishes to tax it at all? Personally I am in favour of taxing it, because it puts a tax on the floating population. But he could provide for other taxes on the floating population. Let him tax the hotel bills. Let him put 1d. in the 1s. on the restaurant bills. It has been suggested that there should be a taxation on posters, which would be an admirable thing, and a taxation even on advertisement. These present the human element, because they tax a man at the very moment when he is going out to get his profit rather than when he has got his profit.
  If you were to tax the amount of money which a man lays on a horse by a small amount, if you put a tax of say 10 per cent. on the bets he made, he might stand for it. But if you tax him 50 per cent. on his winnings he would not stand for it. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and the idea is that his winnings would be so great that he can pay the tax on the bets. But if he is told that he is going to lose half his winnings in taxation, that seems to be a terribly heavy burden. The Chancellor would get a greater revenue from 10 per cent. on what a man puts on horses than from a tax of 50 per cent. on what he wins. It is the same in business if you tax at the time. You could tax advertisements in this country. The business firm would put another 10 per cent. on its advertisements, and would say, "That does not matter, we will get it back," and he would
  488
  still go on working, and still put fresh energy into his business to make larger profits. He would pay direct taxation at the birth of his enterprise. They do not like the certainty of having to give up 60 per cent. or more of all they make when they have made it.
  We never expect any consideration for human feeling from this Government, but I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to confer with the Minister of Transport and with other Departments on the question of this fresh taxation of transport. We know that it is absolutely necessary to raise certain money, and the Chancellor has told us that it is not his business to come here and apologise for the way the Government spend it. The fact that he asks for the money is sufficient proof that the Government want it. When all is said and done, no one appreciates more than I do the dignity and responsibility of a Member of His Majesty's Government, but, despite his majority, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not run away with the idea that he is the master of the people rather than the servant of the people. The people expect to have an account submitted to them. I am convinced that the spending habit has reached such a stage with the Government that the mere question of a few millions here and there is not given any consideration. I appreciate the Chancellor's point of view in regard to the paying off of the indebtedness of the country. We must not forget the extraordinary sales which the Government have made, by which they have been able to realise hundreds of millions of pounds for goods which have been voted for on a War Budget. The magnitude of the Government's transactions overwhelms anything of any firm in the world, and the money so realised should have gone to liquidate debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we are paying off £234,000,000 this year. Were he dealing honestly with the country, he would have paid off last year the money received from the sale of ships or munitions, and this year he would have come to us and told us he had paid off that sum. The Government by their sales have not only got the capital back, but also huge profits, and the whole has been put into a general pool, which the Government have been squandering in keeping up a vast bureaucratic organisation. Had he come to the House and said

  489
  that he had paid off debt with this money, even if the incidence of taxation had been greater, the public would have had greater faith in the Government than it has to-day. In spite of the money which the Government have realised by the sale of War materials, we are now faced with an immense increase of taxation. I ask the Committee to believe me when I say it is the opinion of a vast number of people that the country is quite as much interested in what the Government propose to do with the money as in the way in which they propose to get it. The country is as much interested in the amount of the money the Government propose to save as in the amount the taxpayers are asked to contribute. Before the Debate closes I hope we shall have something more than platitudes from the Government as to what their policy of spending is to be, as distinct from their policy of budgeting.
  Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I offer my very humble congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very able speech, but with the Budget as a whole I confess I was very bitterly disappointed. From start to finish of the Chancellor's speech there were no words whatsoever about economy. In reply to the charges of extravagance in expenditure in the Government Departments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day said that in a speech on the Budget there was no need for any words on the question of economy. Surely a speech relating to the coming financial year should contain some reference to guarantees that expenditure will be cut down. The right hon. Gentleman said he had seen all the Estimates and approved of them. I should have thought he would have said something about departmental waste and would have assured the House that there was to be a great reduction of expenditure in the coming year. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed a most courageous method for raising money by taxation, but he never thought of or never mentioned an alternative way, which is to reduce expenditure, thereby obtaining a surplus for taking something off the National Debt. I think the Budget is weak where it should be strong and strong where it should be weak. It is very strong on taxation and very weak in the cutting down of expenditure. A right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer a Member of the Government, said he knew that in the Government there
  490
  was a great deal of room for the cutting down of expenditure. Taxes are mainly aimed at the City or seem to be so aimed. There are the Corporations Tax, the increased duty on the transfer of stock, increased postal rates, and above all, the 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty.
  It is clear to most people that the swift recovery which Britain has made since the War, or is in the act of making, is due mainly to the development of businesses. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nursed new businesses and would have done everything he could to increase their prosperity, instead of trying to stifle them at their birth. He proposes that the Excess Profits Duty should be increased 20 per cent. He seems to forget that last year he made some extraordinarily pungent remarks about the Excess Profits Duty, and condemned it very much more skilfully than anyone has done since. Surely his change of position or change of mind must have a great effect in lowering the credit of the Government in the eyes of business men? What guarantee is there that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech next year, will not raise the Excess Profits Duty another 20 per cent.? Last year one would have thought that the duty would be wiped out altogether, but now it is increased, and next year it may be increased another 20 per cent. It will be impossible for business men who are making a very much larger profit than they made before the War to continue to extend new trade during the coming year and perhaps for years afterwards. We are told that it is no good criticising this Duty unless some alternative is suggested. I will suggest something to put in its place. I will suggest first the cutting down of expenditure. There is no reason why he should not do away with the subsidies. They are an artificial and mischievous form of government, and they mislead the people as to the actual position of the country. Secondly, he should do away with the Labour Exchanges. They are not only enormously costly, but the work they are doing is practically useless. Those two items alone will reduce the expenditure to a very large extent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer still insists on raising more money by taxation, the new Corporations Tax which he has invented is a far fairer way of taxing companies

  491
  than is the Excess Profits Duty. I am sure that businesses now doing a great deal more than they did before the War recognise that it is a much fairer way. If it became necessary, the Corporations Tax could be put up another shilling or two shillings.
  8.0 P.M.
  It has been stated that £234,000,000 is to be used to pay off the Floating Debt and National Debt at the end of the year. I see no guarantee of that. In the first place, I regard expenditure as very greatly under-estimated. There is no saying what further adventures we may undertake in the East or elsewhere. There is no saying how costly may be the upkeep of the garrisons in Mesopotamia and Palestine. It is obvious that the War Office Estimates were too low. The United States were very wise when they refused responsibility in the East. That part of the world is going to cost this country a very great deal more than anyone has calculated in this House or outside of it. The Chancellor told us that with twenty more Budgets such as this we should pay off the whole debt. I submit that that statement is quite obviously ridiculous. There are items of special revenue in this Budget which amount to about £302,000,000. The Chancellor quite fairly wants to take off as against those special items of expenditure. If we do so, that will leave about £280,000,000 of special revenue which we shall not get in future years, and in that case that will leave a balance of £50,000,000 per year, and I do not see how in 20 years Budgets with such a balance are going to wipe off the whole debt. Evidently the Chancellor thinks that the expenditure of the Government will be as great 10 years hence as it is to-day. That special revenue, it has been suggested, should be used as capital instead as of income. If it is used as revenue, it should have been stated more clearly, because from the speech it was rather clear that these items were being used to mislead than anything else. I am still of opinion that the only possible way to reduce taxation in the future is to cut down extravagance and the expenditure of Government Departments which has been going on ever since the War. By cutting down expenditure, you will also decrease prices, while by increasing taxation you
  492
  immediately increase prices. I am quite sure that great taxation will make world prices and the vicious circle even worse than they have been in the past.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not intend to occupy the time of the House more than a few minutes, but I think it would be very undesirable if a great financial measure, of this character were to pass through this House without even a voice being heard from Ireland on a matter which so vitally affects the national interests of that country. In the first place, I desire once again to renew my protest against either the power or the authority of this Parliament to tax Ireland. We have no more to say in the government of our own country than we have in the affairs of China or Japan. To-day we are going to give our votes upon a Budget which proposes to add additional taxation on a country already overburdened, and without the slightest representative power or capacity to determine how the nation's affairs are to be carried on. I listened with very great pleasure to the excellent speech which my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth) has just made, and in which he recited the series of escapades in which the present Government are engaged, and which, if they ceased to operate, might tend towards not only efficiency, but economy, but I was surprised there was one name left unmentioned, and that was Ireland. To-day in Ireland you are maintaining the most costly and most extravagant and most inefficient system of government to be found in the whole world. Last year, in the Budget, there was an addition of £10,000,000 to the taxation of Ireland. Twelve months have come and gone since the Chancellor stood at that table, and I invited him then, as I invite him now, to tell me how he can justify not only the continued taxation of Ireland, but this fresh burden added to her taxation with a system of government which, at the end of the twelve months, is infinitely more unsatisfactory to Ireland and infinitely more dangerous and disgraceful to you than it was when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget last year. The Government of Ireland is a bye-word all over Europe. It is a shame and a disgrace to this Empire. It has aroused the hostility of America. There is no civilised people or race speaking the English language, who, when you mention Ireland's name, are

  493
  not shocked and astonished at the things which occur there in the name of England
  Mr. PALMER: Sinn Fein.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon Member says "Sinn Fein." Sinn Fein is of recent growth, as recent in its growth as the political importance of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. PALMER: Mine will be longer lived.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out that before Sinn Fein ever came into existence there was an Irish question? There was the fundamental question which stands among all civilised and freedom-loving peoples, and that was the fundamental right of the nation to govern itself, to safeguard its own interests, and work out its own destiny. Sinn Fein is of your creation. There were 85 Nationalist Members here speaking constitutionally the voice of the nation. They were not listened to, but you listened to Sinn Fein. For 40 years we have been pleading in this House, and there has been no response to our appeals. Every evil that has sprung up in Ireland, and every danger that faces you, is precisely in direct ratio either to your ignorance or con tempt for the sentiments expressed by the Irish people through their representatives in this House. And now in Parliament where Ireland has no representative at all, or practically no representation at all—
  Mr. PALMER: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DEVLIN: And when that representation is almost as small as the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, you propose now to put on an additional burden, which I estimate to be £5,000,000, on Ireland. You add to the taxation of beer and of whisky, the only two industries left in three provinces of Ireland. The duty on whisky when I came here first was 10s. 6d. per gallon, and to-day it is £3 12s. 6d. I can see nothing but the destruction of this industry in Ireland, or, if your tax succeeds, it means adding a tremendous additional fiscal burden to the country.
  What are we getting for it? The hon. Gentleman below me suggested that you can economise in Ireland. Your army of occupation is costing £10,000,000 a year. You have the machinery of law, with which you are supposed to administer
  494
  justice, but there is neither freedom nor justice in the country. New tribunals are set up every day, new sets of officials, new organisations, new methods to suppress the people. You can do everything in Ireland but the thing you purpose to do, and you spend vast sums of money upon this object and then fling at the country proposals to solve the Irish problem which are an insult to Ireland, and are recognised to be an insult to Ireland in every part of the world where the Irish race have found a home. So far as I am concerned, I protest against this fresh imposition on Ireland, because Ireland is not entitled to pay anything for the government of that country, and there are a great many Englishmen who think that Ireland is a burden on this Empire. Would it be believed that the entire expenditure, even on the sort of government Ireland is getting, is £13,000,000, and that your revenue was £33,000,000 last year, and this Budget will probably give another £5,000,000, so that you are actually making a profit of something like £25,000,000 out of Ireland, and yet you are always talking about the burden Ireland is to you, the trouble she gives you, and the difficulties you have to contend with in dealing with her. I do not rise for the purpose of doing more than enter my protest as one of the few representatives from Ireland. The country is not considered in any fiscal adjustment between this nation and Ireland. You consider only how far you can bleed her. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council whom I heard say, standing at that bench, that for fifty years the policy of this country was deliberately to destroy Irish industries, and he gave historical proofs for his assertion. There is only practically the distilling and the brewing industry left in three provinces, and you come now and plant upon this industry heavy and almost impossible imposts. You will destroy it along with the rest, and then you talk about a discontented and disloyal Ireland. No country could be other than disloyal and discontented that gets nothing from you but fresh additional burdens and a system of government that no honest man can defend in any country in the world.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I appeal now to hon. Members to allow us to come to a decision, as there will be many other opportunities for Debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  INCIDENCE OF TAXATION (WORKMEN).
  The following Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir Park Goff:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, when commodities have increased from 100 to 300 per cent. in price, and in view of the greatly diminished purchasing power of money and the unprecedented need for increased production, the time is opportune for revising the present system of Income Tax as regards workmen and piece workmen to encourage them to put forth their best efforts and not penalise their energy."
  Sir P. GOFF: I do not propose to move the Motion standing in my name, as I am informed that I can raise the points I have in mind more effectively by way of Amendment to the Finance Bill which will shortly be before the House.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a temporary measure which the Government are introducing to deal with the rating of tithe rent-charge attached to ecclesiastical benefices and also tithe-rent charge which is in the possession of ecclesiastical chapters. In the year 1918 an Act was passed by this House which limited the rise of tithe. As everybody knows, the tithe rent-charge is based upon a septennial average, and owing to the greatly increased prices of cereals the tithe-rent charge was rising very rapidly. It had stood some years before the War somewhere below 70. It rose rapidly, owing to the high prices of cereals during the War, to 109 in 1918, and if an Act had not been passed it would have risen a great deal further; in fact, it would have approximated something like 140 in the present year. Since that happened there has been a very great
  496
  increase in the rates that are paid, as we know, all over the country, and whereas that is very hard upon ratepayers generally, it is particularly hard upon those who pay rates and whose income is derived from tithe, because the idea of the tithe-rent-charge being based upon a septennial average of prices was that as costs of living went up, so incomes should go up, but when once we fixed the income and prevented the further rise of tithe, it left clergy in the position that their incomes were fixed, the natural rise was stopped, but at the same time there occurred an enormous rise in the rates they had to pay. We propose, as a matter of justice, following on the Act of 1918, that as we have stopped for a period of seven years the rise in the value of tithe, so for the same period we should stereotype the rates at the poundage at which they stood in 1918. That is to say, that in the case of tithe rent-charge which is attached to a benefice, or which is in the hands of a cathedral chapter or other ecclesiastical corporation, the poundage at which the rate shall be charged and levied on the tithe rent-charge shall be the same poundage as it was in the year 1918.
  As I say, this is a temporary Bill. It deals, I think, in a very logical way with the difficulty which has been created by limiting tithe rent-charge in 1918, and it does not touch the much bigger question, which is, whether tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice, and which is only enjoyed because certain services are rendered, ought to be chargeable to rates or not at all? I agree that that is a very open question, and I have always myself held the view that in this matter the clergy have been very unfairly treated. They have to pay upon the whole amount of what is really a professional income, because no clergyman can enjoy the use of an income derived from tithe rent-charge without at the same time rendering some important service, and, therefore, he is in this position: Whereas the ordinary professional man pays Income Tax on his professional income at the professional income rate, and pays rates on his residence or any land he may happen to occupy, a clergyman is also paying rates in addition to Income Tax on the whole of his professional income. I quite agree a very strong case can be made out for the total exemption of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice from rating, and that is a question which certainly will

  497
  have to be considered before long. But I do not think it would be wise to raise that question as a separate or individual question to-day. The whole question of rating, the whole question of whether rating is to be paid upon real as distinct from personal property, the grievances and injustice felt by other ratepayers, as, for example, tenant farmers and others, will have to be considered, and I think it would be most inadvisable to deal here and now with the question of clergymen's grievances and difficulties apart from the general question of rating as a whole. Nor, again, do I think we can deal with the question of assessment, but inasmuch as the position of the ecclesiastical tithe-owner was made infinitely worse by checking the rise in his tithe in 1918, I think there is very good reason for adopting the proposals made by this Bill, which would stereotype the poundage of the rates as from the same date as the value of the tithe was stereotyped.
  I am quite aware that this Bill does not go nearly so far as some of my ecclesiastical friends would wish. I am quite aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has a Bill which would go very much further, but I would urge the House, at all events, to accept the Bill, which is, I say, a temporary measure, and does not in any way prejudice the full reconsideration of the whole question on broader lines. It does not prejudice it at all, but it does remove at once a very pressing grievance. I venture to point out to some hon Members who do not think we are going far enough that there is very considerable relief contained in this Bill. I find that the poor rate alone paid by the owners of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge amounted, in 1918, to £229,000; in 1919, to £320,000, and in this year it will probably be £370,000 or thereabouts, but it is only an estimate. The result will be that the relief given in the present year is probably in the neighbourhood of £150,000, and, as rates are rising, as unfortunately we are all very well aware, the relief in future years will probably be considerably larger than the figure I have already given. I venture to think, therefore, that there is a considerable amount of relief contained in this Bill, and the figures I have given only relate to the poor rate. You have got to add other rates, and to remember that for the
  498
  first time we are bringing into the purview of this Bill, and into its benefits, tithes which are attached to ecclesiastical corporations, who, although they do not, perhaps, quite so directly, in virtue of the holding of tithes, individually perform certain services, yet the whole of their stipends is devoted to certain public service, without the performance of which the tithe would not be paid. As the House knows, half the rates payable in respect of ecclesiastical tithes were remitted by the Act of 1899, but that Act did not apply to tithe attached to ecclesiastical corporations, but only to the tithe attached to individual incumbents and benefices. We do not propose to extend the benefits of the Act of 1899 to ecclesiastical corporations, but we do in their case also propose to limit the poundage to the figure at which it stood in 1918, and for the first time, therefore, bring them some relief.
  The Bill may be objected to from another point of view, namely, that the extra burden falls upon other ratepayers, and is not made up in any way by an Exchequer grant. In these days of rigid economy, I should find it very difficult to extract, I am sure, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a special grant to make up this deficiency, and if we were to follow the precedent of the Act of 1899, the money would be taken out of the Local Taxation Account. The whole of that goes, as hon. Members know, to the relief of local taxation for various purposes already, and local authorities and ratepayers would be no better off if we imposed this extra charge on the Local Taxation Account. There would only be so much loss to go round for other purposes. But I would appeal to landowners and occupiers of land that this really is a very small burden passed on to them, especially having regard to the fact that if we had not limited the tithe to 109 in 1918, they would now be paying something like 140, and probably in the next year or two in the neighbourhood of 150 for every £100 worth of tithe. Having regard to the fact that they obtain this very large benefit from the point of view of the limitation of tithe, it is not asking them too much to bear this very small additional burden. I have said that in the present year, probably, the relief to the clergy will be in the neighbourhood of £150,000. Last year, in

  499
  rural parishes, no less than £16,000,000 was collected for poor rate, and I venture to say that an extra sum of £150,000 is the merest bagatelle, and, from the point of view of what is paid in local rates, it will be represented in some parishes by a mere fraction of a penny. I cannot conceive, therefore, especially having regard to the advantages which the owners and occupiers of land obtain by the Act of 1918, that they will be unwilling to shoulder this very small burden.
  I earnestly wish that it were possible for me in this matter to go a little bit further. I realise that the case of many of the poorer clergy is an exceedingly hard one. I realise that, owing to the rise in rates, and the increased cost of living, their case is very hard, and I have never myself failed to see the injustice of paying what is really a second Income Tax upon their professional incomes. But, as I have said before, I do not think we can deal with the general question of the incidence of local taxation in a fragmentary manner, and we are really proposing now a temporary remedy until the whole matter is thoroughly investigated. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, who has brought in a far more drastic Bill, has indicated to me that he would like to move certain amendments which would give a rather more full measure of relief in certain cases. He has specially mentioned a particular Sub-section of this Bill which deals with the cost of redemption. We propose in this Bill that, though we give this extra relief to the ecclesiastical tithe-owner, we should not vary the terms of redemption, which are: We take tithe at its par value, and deduct from it the amount spent in the cost of collection and rates, then we multiply the net amount by 21; thus we secure to the clergyman something like the same income as he is getting at the present time. But, of course, if you reduce the amount paid in rates, you thereby increase the net annual value, and you make it more costly to redeem. If we did that, the result would be, first of all, that the landowner may be less willing to redeem—and that, I think, would be a disaster—and, secondly, it must be remembered that it is not altogether fair to make it more expensive for the landowner to redeem when he is called upon to bear
  500
  extra burdens such as are caused by this Bill. However, I have quite an open mind upon this question, and if it is made quite clear in the Committee stage of the Bill, especially having regard to the fact that redemption is compulsory, that the terms of redemption, unless some alteration is made in the Bill, will be onerous on the clergy, I shall be quite willing to reconsider the matter.
  It has also been indicated to me privately by my hon. Friend that he might wish to move Amendments giving further relief to the very poorest class of the clergy, I mean those who have very small incomes, so small as to entitle them to total or partial exemption of Income Tax, just as persons who have such incomes and are entitled to exemption from Income Tax can now get relief in respect of Land Tax. He has indicated to me that it might be a fair proposition that similarly the clergy might be exempted entirely or partially from the payment of rates on their tithes in these cases. I am considering these proposals. The House will realise that I am acting for the Government, and that I have to take advice from other people. I can assure my hon. Friend and those associated with him that any proposals of that kind to improve the Bill and, generally, to relieve the poorest class of the clergy, who are the people most in need, will receive sympathetic consideration. In the circumstances, I do earnestly hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, which, even if it does not go so far as hon. Members desire, will give substantial relief to a most hard-working and deserving class, a relief which will grow larger and larger as rates increase, and this, I am afraid, they are bound to do in the near future.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. H0ARE: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has introduced this Bill. He always, if I may say so, states his case with great clearness, and we are particularly grateful to him this evening, because the case with which he has been dealing is a very complicated one. It is all the more agreeable, therefore, to the House that he has put with such clearness the points of the Bill. I should also like to thank him for the sympathetic reference he has made to certain Amendments that I intend to propose when the Bill gets into Committee. Speaking for myself, I can quite frankly

  501
  say that if he can accept Amendments on the lines he has just suggested, it will remove from my mind any hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a question which seems to me to have three salient points.
  In the first place, unlike any other class, the clergy, under the Act of 1918, have had their incomes stereotyped by the Government and for the convenience of other sections of the community. This House agreed to that Act. It agreed to apply to the clergy a policy that applied to no other class, inasmuch as the 1918 Act actually prevents their salaries rising with the increase in the cost of living. That was a responsibility undertaken by this House, as it believed, for the good of the community generally. I would point out that by passing an Act of that kind this House is put under a direct obligation to meet, so far as we can, the other grievances that the clergy have at the present time.
  Secondly, clerical incomes are, as the right hon. Gentleman has just shown, in a very peculiarly hard position. The clergyman, whose income is mainly dependent upon tithe rent-charge, is paying a rate of tax upon what is really his earned income at a figure far higher than any other class in the community—so high indeed that there are many of the clergy to-day with incomes of only£200 or £300 a year—an income that would be scoffed at by many skilled workmen—who with the Income Tax at 2s. 5d. and the rates of 5s. in the £ are actually paying upon what is a few hundreds a year of tax of 40 per cent., which apart from the case of the clergy, is only paid by persons enjoying incomes of £5,000 a year. That shows a very special grievance which by force of circumstances the clergy, one of the most deserving of the professional classes, are suffering at the present moment.
  Thirdly, there is the other aspect of this question, the aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded—that tithe rent-charge is really not a fit subject for rating at all. If hon. Members will enquire into the history of this question, they will find that the rating of tithe rent-charge has grown up in a very haphazard fashion as the result of a great deal of confused case-made law, and only in the early years of the 19th century did the greater part of the tithe become subject to rating at all This would not be a
  502
  suitable moment to go into a historical disquisition upon this subject, but I must say that I am quite confident that if an unbiassed inquiry were held into the subject of the rating of tithe, it would be found that there was little, if any, historical basis for continuing it at all. Those are the three grievances from which the clergy are suffering at the present time. The Bill we are considering only deals with one of them.
  The effect of the 1918 Act under which tithe is stereotyped at £109 per cent. for a period of seven years. In that connection, I should like to make one remark. Under the 1918 Act this House decided, for reasons that seemed good at the time, that tithe should be stereotyped at £109 per cent. If tithe had been allowed to take its normal course in relation to the price of cereals during those seven years, it would have risen to £6,000,000 over and above the limit placed upon it in 1918. That means that the action of Parliament during those seven years deprived the clergy of a sum to which they would otherwise have been entitled of £6,638,000. The Government Bill is an attempt to make some redress, but in my view it is very inadequate. The redress it will make this year will amount to about £150,000, and taking the period of the seven years, I think, roughly speaking, it would be correct to say that the Government Bill will remit rates to the amount of between £750,000 and £1,000,000. That means that even if the Government Bill passes, the clergy at the end of this period of seven years will be about £5,500,000 worse off than they would have been if no action had been taken in 1918.
  I am strongly of opinion that the proper course for the Government to have taken would have been to have boldly introduced a Bill for the total exemption of tithe rentcharge from rates altogether. I very much regret that they have not taken that course. I myself have introduced a Bill which would have that effect, and which would totally exempt tithe rentcharge altogether, and that measure comes up for a Second Reading on the 7th May. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading, As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the two Bills do not hang together, and the fact that we give a Second Reading to this measure in no way prejudices the passage of my Bill. Although I feel very strongly that the Government should have exempted tithe

  503
  rentcharge altogether, I am not prepared in any way to oppose this measure this evening. I accept it as a necessary Amendment to the 1918 Act, and a Bill that in no way prejudices the consideration of the whole question of the exemption of tithe rentcharge on some future occasion.
  I say that with a greater readiness this evening after the very sympathetic speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. He has suggested that he would be prepared to consider with an open mind an Amendment that would make the terms of the redemption fairer to the parochial clergy than I believe they are under the Bill as it stands. I shall put down an Amendment to that effect, and I hope it will be carried. More important still, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that, so far as he and his Department are concerned, he will consider favourably an Amendment that would make the remission the Bill is giving to the clergy more extensive as far as it affects the very poor clergy. I shall certainly put down an Amendment to that effect, and if he will give it his favourable consideration, and if the Committee will consider it with an unbiassed mind, I do not think for a moment that they would refuse to give further relief to these very poor men with incomes of £200 and £300 a year, who are finding it almost impossible to live, with the cost of living going up as it is. In conclusion, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having gone as far as he has done this evening. I wish to make it quite clear that while I do not regard this Bill as a remedy of the full grievance, at the same time I thank him for his promise to meet me in the very important direction he has just suggested.
  Mr. TURTON: I hope what I am going to say with regard to this Bill will not be construed in any way as being antagonistic to the principle that anyone can have the smallest doubt that there is no more deserving class to be exempted from the rates than the clergy at the present time. I regret extremely that even this temporary measure should have been brought in because it is only tinkering with the subject. It will give a totally inadequate relief, and produce a feeling in the rural districts of indignation amongst the ratepayers. I should infinitely have preferred, although I do
  504
  not propose to discuss it, the Bill that we are promised on the 7th May. I think my hon. Friend would have been far better advised if he had followed the advice given in the "Times," and also the precedent of 1899, when half the rates were supposed to be paid by a Treasury grant, and going from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. As I took the opportunity of pointing out in a letter to the "Times" on that very point, we ought even at the present time to have a bonâ fide Treasury grant in respect of that moiety of the tithe, although it at the present time is to reduce the amount of the Exchequer contribution grant that is given to the county in relief of rates. But that is no good at all. What we have a right to expect when we get a Treasury grant promised in a Bill is that we should, in fact, actually receive the amount that has been deducted for tithe. I think it is a very unfortunate circumstance that the poundage is to be as in 1918, and any excess over 1918 is to be written off by the overseers as irrecoverable. I cannot think it can be considered otherwise than as a great stigma on the clergy that they should have a certain amount of rates written off in the overseer's book, as when the overseers bring the books to the guardians the whole question will be discussed amongst them of the rates written off as irrecoverable. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should find some better machinery than putting the amount down simply as irrecoverable. I am sorry the Government have not seen their way to tackle this admitted injustice in a bold and frank manner. They might have brought in a Bill which would have given greater relief to people who thoroughly deserve it, and though I will not utter one single word to prevent this Bill passing, I must say that on the whole I think it is unfortunate that it was not framed in a much bolder spirit.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I find myself in very much the same position as the hon. Member who last spoke. I think with him that the object of this Bill is one which hardly anybody would challenge, because we all recognise that it is an attempt to discharge a debt that is immediately due as a result of the 1918 Act. I agree with my hon. Friend that from the point of view of those who represent agricultural constituencies the method adopted to discharge this debt is open to some challenge.

  505
  It has been a common plea on behalf of all agricultural members for years past that they were entitled, and more than entitled, to claim redress of old grievances in regard to local taxation; yet, in spite of the fact that the redress of those grievances is more than overdue, this measure is one which, if only to a small extent, does add further to the burden of rates borne by those to whom I refer. But speaking for a great majority of agricultural Members, I think I may say that, strongly as we feel that this relief should be granted out of the national exchequer rather than out of the pockets of the surviving ratepayers, on the ground of general principles we feel even more strongly the grievances of the poorer clergy, and are not prepared, on account of our own grievances, to adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy and to block this Bill. I wish to make that point clear.
  I want also to make one or two observations on what fell from the hon. Member who spoke second in this Debate (Sir S. Hoare) in regard to a Bill on this subject with which I have the honour to be associated. I think it should be made quite clear to everyone, that while those of us interested in this measure are not prepared to take the responsibility of in any way making difficult the passage of the Government Bill, we do not regard it as more than a partial remedy for the immediate grievance. In no sense at all can it be thought even to approach treatment of the whole general principle which is involved in this matter. Therefore I hope very much if the. House takes that view, as I believe it will, when my hon. and gallant Friend's Bill comes up hon. Members will be prepared to give it a Second Reading, and will without prejudice consider the claim in its broadest aspect. But that need not deter us from passing the Bill of the Government, and I would only add my emphasis to what my hon. Friend said, that while we regard it as inadequate yet we cannot help being grateful for the further concessions which have been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and I would most earnestly beg him to use all his influence with his other colleagues to make these concessions as substantial as I believe the justice of the case demands.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I rise to support the Bill which has been introduced this evening by the right hon. Gentleman,
  506
  and I do so with many of the qualifications and reservations that have been mentioned by previous speakers. I support it, however, also from the point of view of another section of the Christian Church, and that is, I suggest, the highest and most necessary support for it to have. We who belong to the great Nonconformist bodies of the Church feel that much injustice has been done to the Anglican section of the Church in respect of the question of the rating on tithe rent, and many of us feel that it is an injustice which cannot be remedied except by a complete elimination of this rating, for we feel that it is a second Income Tax upon that which is an essential necessity if the clergy are to perform their duties and to take their part also in the semi-national work which is peculiarly concerned with the clergy of the Anglican Church. We feel that whilst this Bill is doing something to remedy what is wrong, it is by no means clearing off the evil which is attendant on the present taxation. Many of us feel that at the present time what is necessary could have been better obtained had the whole of the tithe rent accruing to them been permitted to accrue, namely, £800,000 this year, instead of being given the mere sop of £147,000 or one-fifth. We also feel that that is neither equitable nor right. When one considers also the differentiation between the cathedral chapters—I mean as to further hardship even still—and when one considers how the incumbents are compelled to accept taxation on the high level of the double rating of their rectories, I suggest that there is neither sufficient equity nor right in what is proposed. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had taken his courage in both hands and brought forward a great scheme for the alteration of rating, with all its anomalies, all over the country. That would have been the best course, but I suggest that we can go even further than he has done in this temporary measure, and I welcome this Bill with the accompanying sympathetic suggestion that there shall be opportunity for Amendments which will make it wider and more sympathetic and more applicable to the subject with which it deals. I want to pay my tribute, also, to the splendid patriotism of the clergy in using their influence as they did, on the 1918 Bill, in voluntarily limiting

  507
  the increment that might have come to them. I have given careful consideration to this matter, and I find that they did use their influence to limit their own incomes, with the patriotic thought that money was required to support the country in the War and in the financial strain which was placed upon it. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will obtain all the support and sympathy from the great Nonconformist section of the Church in the meagre result which he has given us here to-night; but still I welcome his suggestion that he is prepared to accept certain Amendments.
  What really does this matter stand for, when we consider the incomes of like professional classes? Let us take the case of a doctor, earning, say, £1,000 a year, and, presumably, living in a similar type of house to that occupied by the rector. The rector, we will say, receives £300 a year from his tithe rents. Presuming that the ratio of rate is £8 to £23, we find, on the increase of rating which obtains to-day, that it will go from £24 to £69. It is most inequitable. When we examine the statistics of the rate of pay which the clergy are obtaining, we find that there are 8,000 incumbents of the Church of England who are on the poverty line at the present time. I appeal to my friends on the Labour Benches to support me when I call for "a right day's pay for a right day's work" on behalf of these clergymen, and I feel that it is the duty of every section of the community to see that a right and equitable procedure obtains in respect of these men, who serve so faithfully and well. We Nonconformists also have a pride in great cathedrals and Church houses of this land. Whilst we feel that they are specially the Church houses of one section of the Christian Church, we claim that they belong to the country and to the Empire, and we feel that, owing to the penury which exists in one-half of the great cathedral chapters of this country, these great sacred fabrics are in much danger of not being kept in that beautiful condition in which we desire to keep them. Therefore I want to urge the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill further to consider how and in what way he can assist us so that it may become possible to accept many, if not the major portion, of the Clauses which are proposed to be in-
  508
  troduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for his Bill, and I assure him that he will receive very great support from many sections of the Christian Church in the work he has undertaken. I hope he will give that permissibility of opportunity in regard to the sacred work that the Anglican section of the Christian Church deal with, as also in the great civic and national work in which they have a part, so that this section of the underpaid workers of the country may have that right and opportunity which all should and must have.
  Mr. MOUNT: I am sure the House will welcome the speech to which we have just listened, coming, as it does, from a member of a denomination that is not affected by this Bill. I think that, if my right hon. Friend who introduced this Bill realised the strength of the opinion on this subject, he would, as my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sugden) has said, have taken his courage in both hands and have gone in for a somewhat larger measure. I heard with great interest and pleasure the two statements which my right hon. Friend made in introducing this Bill. He said that the grievance of the clergy with regard to rating was a very serious grievance, and that it was one which brooked no delay; and I hope it may not be long before an opportunity is given of dealing with it. I welcome this Bill, although, like almost everyone else who has spoken, I do not think it goes nearly far enough. I welcome it as removing some, at any rate, of the ill effects which, no doubt without proper thought, were caused to the clergy by the Tithe Act of 1918. I am not going into that question now, because I think that, from all the speeches which we have heard from both sides of the House, it is clear that this Bill, on its Second Reading at any rate, is going to have a very smooth passage. I only rise to endorse one or two of the arguments used with regard to some of the Amendments which we think should be brought into this Bill. I particularly welcome that section of the Bill which deals with the capitular bodies. For the first time it places them, with regard to tithe, upon the same footing as clerical owners of tithe. The cathedral bodies in the past have been rather unfairly treated. Perhaps people thought that the incomes of cathedral bodies were entirely

  509
  spent upon canons and others who, perhaps, were supposed not to have too much to do. As my hon. Friend opposite has mentioned, however, they have to look after the upkeep of the cathedrals, and the choirs, organists, vergers, and a large body of workmen who are engaged upon work in these buildings, which are really national buildings.
  I should particularly like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) with regard to the poorer clergy. No one who has had any experience of life in our country districts can have helped being shocked at the awful stress under which many of our poorer rural clergy are living at the present time. This increased burden of rates, the growth of which has been phenomenal during the past three, years, is bringing them to a condition of which one shudders to think. If any Amendment which can be made to this Bill can do something to relieve the appalling condition of these men, who are doing most admirable work in the country districts, I think the House and the country will be extremely pleased. The right hon. Gentleman attempted, I thought in rather a halfhearted manner, to defend the Section with regard to the redemption of tithe, which perpetuates for all time the grievance which this Bill is endeavouring temporarily to remedy. It proposes to say that tithe shall be redeemed on the present basis, while in the earlier part of the Bill it says that that basis is unfair for the clerical incumbents who yearly take the tithe which is to be redeemed. He said that the landowners would object, and, consequently, that the redemption of tithe would be delayed. I would point out, however, that the landowners have benefited at the expense of the clergy by the Tithe Act, 1918, and it is only right, if there be any loss, that they should pay something back for the benefit that they have received. It would be extremely unfair that you should prevent the tithe owner, in the redemption of tithe, from getting the benefit of the increased value which he would have had if the Tithe Act, 1918, had never been passed, and that you should at the same time, while depriving him of that benefit, impose upon him the handicap of having to pay the rates, which you say by the first part of this Bill it is not fair for
  510
  him to pay. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his present opinion with regard to the redemption of tithe, and, when we get upstairs, that he will look with more consideration upon any Amendments which may be moved. While I willingly and gladly accept this Bill as some palliation of a grievance which has been inflicted by Parliament upon a most deserving class of people, I do not look upon it, and I do not think the clergy will look upon it, in any way as a final settlement of a grievance which they feel they have with regard to the rating of tithe.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I welcome this Bill, and the Amendments which I hope will be introduced, chiefly because of the relief which it will give to those poorer clergy of whom we have heard so much in the Debate to-night. It is almost inconceivable, in view of the Debate which has taken place in this House— every single speaker has condemned this system of rating of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, and the spokesman for the Government has spoken of the clergy as being very unfairly treated—that this century-old grievance should have gone on year after year and should never have been remedied by any Government. I believe it is the case that in Scotland it was pronounced illegal long ago. At any rate, it is not the Scottish system; it is only the English system. The relief which the Government are making, and for which I thank my right hon. Friend, is a relief, as far as I can make out, amounting to nearly 40 per cent. If I am right, the contribution of the clergy under the rating of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge is about £380,000—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong —and the Government are giving £150,000, but in view of the sympathetic way in which my right hon. Friend spoke of the Amendments which belong to the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir S. Hoare), I hope that a still greater contribution will be made; in fact, I would like to see the whole of the grievance swept away.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I add one word to the general chorus of approval with which this Bill has met. It is a Bill introduced to remedy a grave injustice caused by the Tithe Act, 1918. I had the privilege of speaking against that Act on the ground that it was a

  511
  great injustice, but I was told by Lord Ernie that it was an agreed Bill. It was a Bill to which insufficient consideration was given by both sides, and I welcome very heartily the effort which this Bill makes to remedy the injustice done in 1918. I sincerely trust that the good action of the Government will not stop at the Bill in its present form. I hope from the speeches made to-night that we shall be able before the end of this Session to get a really substantial contribution towards remedying the admitted grievance under which the clergy have suffered for so many years. If I had any doubt about that, I should only need to refer to those eloquent speeches, which the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill made in 1899 and about that time and to which I used to listen and which I used to read with great contentment. I know that the Bill is in good hands, and I hope, not only that this Bill, but a Bill going further in the same direction, will be carried.
  Major COURTHOPE: I should like to add one word in welcome of this Bill, because, although it is true that it goes some little way to meet an admitted grievance, it is nothing more than the rectification of a very serious omission from the Act of 1918. I cannot think that it was due to a deliberate act on the part of the promoters of that Act that this state of things should have been allowed to arise, but, having found out their mistake, they are bringing in this Bill to rectify it. Several references have been made to the possible attitude of rural landowners. I should like to say at once that the rural landowners will not only refrain from opposing the Bill, but they would actually welcome a very much more drastic attempt to remedy the grievance of the clergy. A great deal has been said about the very poor clergy, and too much cannot be said about them, because their lot at the present time is pitiable. I would not limit it to the very poor clergy. The thing is inequitable and anomalous in more ways than one, and it is time it was swept away. I believe that the support of all the rural landowners, and of the rural classes generally, would be given to a proposal to relieve the tithe rent-charge from assessment for rating altogether. I need not repeat what has been
  512
  said about it being the only form of income of this kind which is rated. I would like to suggest, in order to avoid this and other anomalies which are inevitably mixed up with and attached to the present system of tithe, that we should consider whether a scheme for the compulsory redemption of tithe, which many of us recommended in 1918, should not be brought in to sweep away all these differences once and for all. I do not believe that the rural community will object in the least to the additional burden of rates which they will have to bear owing to the removal of this grievance.
  Major BARNES: It requires some little courage to get up and say anything which introduces the slightest element of discord into so generally harmonious a feeling, but I think there is something to be said against this Bill, and I propose to put such points as I think are to be made against it. I am somewhat helped in doing that by the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) had the courage, when the Bill of 1918 was brought in, to stand up alone and oppose it. This Bill is brought in to remedy certain hardships under which the parish clergy at present labour, and I daresay it will be said of me that I have no sympathy with their position and do not realise their hardships, or, if I do, that I am unmoved by them. That is not the case. I have some knowledge of the conditions under which the clergy work. I spend as much time as I can get away from this House and other occupations in a little village, where I see the work that is carried on there by the parish priest, and I realise that in very many parts of this country a great many of the clergy are carrying on very arduous duties in a very excellent spirit, and with remuneration that is not at all adequate to the position which they fill. If this matter could be dissociated from the action of the House last year in passing the Tithe Rent Act, and if it was brought forward as part of a larger scheme for dealing with the anomalies of rating, I should approach it with a great deal of sympathy; but the position in which the clergy find themselves has been very largely aggravated by the action of those to whom they might have looked as their natural protectors.

  513
  The income of the clergy is drawn from tithe, which has been commuted into tithe rentcharge, which forms part of the rent paid to the landowners and which by recent legislation must now be paid by the landowner to the titheowner. The effect of the 1918 Act was to stereotype tithe fixed at a certain point when it was rising. A good deal can be said as to the unfortunate position, from my point of view, in which the parish clergy are, in that their incomes should depend upon a rise in the price of some of the most necessary commodities of life, but on the other hand it may be said that such a fact helps them to meet themselves the hardships which they must suffer when those commodities rise. When prices go up tithe goes up; when prices go down tithe goes down. Tithe has a long history. I was looking at some fluctuations which have taken place, and within the last half century tithe went down as low as 66, and when it went down the brunt of that decline was borne by the clergy, and they must have experienced a very great deal of hardship, indeed, when tithe fell so low. But I do not remember in the history of this country or of this House that any action was taken by the party to which so many hon. Members belong who have spoken in favour of a Bill to stereotype the rate of tithe when it was falling. In 1918 tithe had reached the point of 109 and was still on the increase. I believe next year it will be 136. When tithe was on the upward move a Bill was brought in which fixed it at 109, and I understand the result has been that the clergy have lost something like £400,000 during the last year. Where has that money gone? It has passed from the pocket of the tithe-owner to the pocket of the tithe-payer. It has passed from the pocket of the priest to the pocket of the landowner. The parson has lost it and the squire has got it. That is not disputed. It is set forth in the circulars which have been issued by the Central Finance Board of the Church of England. We are told this Bill is brought in to remedy the injustice inflicted upon the clergy of the country by the Tithe Act of 1918, but a much simpler and more appropriate way of meeting that injustice would have been to bring in a Bill to repeal the Tithe Act of 1918.
  Sir S. HOARE: Bring it in. We would all vote for it.
  Major BARNES: I do not know whether that is a good debating point, but it does not appear to me to be a point of any substance. Any Bill brought in on that subject from this side of the House would not have the slightest chance of being passed, but if there was any real desire to remedy the injustice created by the Tithe Act of 1918 it would be a quite easy matter for the Government, or for hon. Members who support this Bill, to bring in such a Bill as that and get it passed. We are entitled to ask, in the interests of the public generally and of the ratepayers, why that step is not being taken. The effect of this Bill is certainly to relieve the clergy, and in so far as it is a relief to the clergy I am glad they should get it, but it is at the expense of the ratepayer. The effect of the Bill will be that the deficiency in the rates of the parish caused by the passing of the Bill will have to be made up by the general ratepayer. I do not know whether it is submitted that it is an act of justice that a deficiency which has been caused by the action of one class of ratepayers in the community should be made up by exposing another class of ratepayers to hardship. What has taken place has been this, that the landowner, under some pressure or other, has taken a portion of what was due to the clergy. A hardship has been experienced, and instead of saying to the clergyman, "Let me restore what I have taken from you. Let me undo, as far as I can, the harm I have done." He says, "Let us together do harm to another set of persons." The squire has robbed the church, and now that the church complains, the squire says, "Let us rob the village to make it up." That is the position. The incumbent of the parish is suffering in his pocket because the squire of the parish has enriched himself at his expense, and now he is asked to accept a remedy the cost of which is going to fall upon the shoulders of the remaining ratepayers in the village. That is not fair. However harmoniously this Bill may be received in this House, and however much it may commend itself to the judgment of the hon. Members who have supported it, the Bill will not commend itself to the judgment of people outside the House. I was present the other day at a meeting of an assessment committee, and the vicar of the parish came to ask for a reduction in his rating. He spoke on the rating of his tithe, and so far as the case of hardship

  515
  was concerned hi case was made out, but the feeling of the assessment committee was that no relief could be given to him at the expense of the rest of the ratepayers, and that if he had a hardship or a grievance it was against the State. They said to him, "You are a State servant." I do not think that view would be accepted by hon. Members opposite. They do not regard the clergyman as a State servant, and they do not regard the emoluments which he receives as coming from. State sources; but that was the view expressed by the committee. The proposal that a hardship which has been brought upon the clergy by the passage of the Tithe Rent Act, 1918, should be relieved at the expense of the general ratepayers, is not a proposal that will meet with any acceptance from the general ratepayers of the country.
  Is there no alternative to this Bill? I ask hon. Members who support this Bill to consider whether there is an alternative. Probably my position will be regarded as the position of a bigoted Nonconformist. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) looks upon that as being a correct expression.
  Lord R. CECIL: That would not be fair to Nonconformists.
  Major BARNES: Whatever the view of the Noble Lord may be, he is at the moment a great authority in this House, and has a considerable amount of support behind him. The fact remains that this Bill is to endow the Church at the expense of the Nonconformists of this country. It is practically, in substance, to re-enact the church rate. The deficiency of rates caused in any parish by the passage of this Bill will have to be made up by the ratepayers in the parish, whatever may he their faith, whether they are Nonconformists or not. They will have to put their hands in their pockets and pay out a large sum in rates in order to make up the deficiency. That is to re-enact the church rate, and it is a proposal which, in the present state of feeling on this matter, is unfair. The effect of the Bill is to give relief to the extent of £150,000 to about 7,000 people in this country. Hon. Members opposite do not regard tithe as being a payment by the State. They do not regard the tithe fund as being a State fund. I understand that their position
  516
  is that tithes exist to-day because of the generosity of supporters of the Church in the past; that the Church to-day possesses these endowments not because they were State grants, but because there were rich, religious men who were supporters of the Church of England in the past, and who gave these moneys to the church for the purpose of maintaining the priest-hood. If that is the position, and if priests to-day are suffering, as many of them are, from inadequate remuneration, why is the same tradition of liberality and generosity not pursued? Why should the general community be called upon to add anything to the emoluments of the priests of this particular church?
  I had a letter the other day from a Wesleyan minister stating that owing to the present rise in prices he was not in a position to carry on his work. The position of the Church of England clergy is not peculiar. This is being felt by the clergy and ministers of all denominations. This Wesleyan minister who wrote to me suggested that it would be necessary for him to take up some other kind of occupation, as he could not carry on his work. There is no proposal, there could be no proposal, to enhance the income of a minister of any other denomination than the Church of England at the expense of the community. It would be impossible to bring forward such a proposal and impossible to carry it. The present proposal is a charge upon the rest of the community for the benefit of the clergy of this particular Church, and it would be impossible to make a similar charge for the benefit of the clergy or ministers of any other denomination. What is really taking place is this, that an injustice which has been inflicted upon the clergy of the Church of England by one very small section of the community is being remedied at the expense of another section, and a measure is being passed here which is peculiar in character, which is granting relief to clergy of one Church and thus opening up and recommencing a controversy which one would have thought was closed. On these grounds I record my opposition to the Bill.
  Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member has described himself as a bigoted Nonconformist. He is not that. He is merely an extreme reactionary. He is still unable to get out of the pre-War state of mind. He still believes that there

  517
  is bitter hostility between various sections of the Christian Church in this country, whereas, in my opinion, that hostility has very largely ceased, and is rapidly dying away, and that is why I venture to say that it is unfair to Nonconformists to describe himself as representing them in any respect. I was not here when the Act of 1918 was passed, but I have inquired, and I believe that his version of the origin of that Act is entirely inaccurate. Landowners had nothing whatever to do with it. I cannot speak for them. I am not a landowner, but I know a great many of them, and I venture to say that they would welcome a repeal of the Act of 1918. I do not know what the origin of the Act was, but I was under the impression that it had something to do with the obscure incident connected with the passing of the Welsh Church measure, though exactly what it had to do with it I do not know.
  It is said by the hon. Member that in this measure we are robbing the ratepayers of the country in order to give something to the clergy. Of course it is possible to put it in that way. To my mind this Bill is only a very small instalment of a debt which has long been overdue. The clergy do not think that the rate of tithe is defensible on any theory that prevails in the rating law. There are no cases that can possibly be pointed out where a section of the community is rated on their professional income. The hon. Member has said that the case of the Nonconformist clergy in the matter of suffering is the same as that of the Church of England clergy. I regret the grave hardship that has fallen on all ministers of religion owing to the rise of prices. They suffer in common with all people with fixed incomes, and any measure brought forward designed to improve their lot would have my hearty support. But that is not the only case which the clergy of the Church of England have to meet. They have to meet in addition the fact that rates, which have gone up by leaps and bounds all over the country, are charged on the professional income, so that it is not only by the rise in prices, but it is also by the rise in rates which are imposed on their professional income that they are at a great disadvantage as compared with the clergy of any other denomination. Therefore my complaint with regard to this measure is that it does not go
  518
  far enough. I appeal to the Government to consider whether they cannot go further in the matter. I understand that the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture did hold out some hope that something might be done to meet the case of the more poorly paid clergy. Their case is exceedingly hard, and I think that this House should do something to relieve them from the almost intolerable position in which they are placed. So far as this Bill goes, I trust it will be read a Second time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the management of the Imperial War Museum and for other purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Trustees of the Imperial War Museum in carrying the Act into effect, including any salaries or remuneration paid to the Director-General and the Curator of the Museum, and to any officers of the Trustees."
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): This Resolution, which arises out of the Imperial War Museums Bill, is really a formal Resolution, but I would like to clear up one point which does not seem to have been understood by all. The Imperial War Museum was established three years ago and a Committee has been managing its affairs. The Estimates for its upkeep and the payment of salaries, subject naturally to Treasury approval, have come before the House regularly year after year, and naturally will come before the House again in the proper time. What the Bill is intended to do, and what this Resolution is intended to carry out, is to substitute for the Committee which now exists a more formal Board of Trustees with more definitely regulated powers. Therefore we are not asking the Committee to authorise any new expenditure or any expenditure which has not

  519
  been incurred at the present time. In fact, we consider that when the Board of Trustees is established and when the Museum is in a more definite and concrete shape, the amount of money which will be required in order to maintain it will be considerably less than the Estimates that have been voted in times gone past when we have had to create it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe that I am right in saying that we ought to have some estimate of what is the sum of money which we are being asked to vote. If the right hon. Baronet had informed us that it was difficult to estimate it I would have accepted that, but if he can give us an estimate I think the Committee should have it. We are informed that the sum will be less in future than has been voted in the past. I daresay that it is very wrong of me; but in the multitude of estimates that are presented, sometimes in a very complicated and puzzling manner, I cannot remember how much we voted, probably in the small hours of the morning last year, for the War Museum Committee, and I would be very much obliged if the right hon. Baronet would tell us the amount now required. I am thoroughly opposed to this Bill and the financial resolution on which it depends, and I had the pleasure of dividing the House against the Bill on the Second Reading. I accepted the vote of the House, and I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the Bill now. I would point out that we may now be approving in theory a considerable sum, because I see that under the Bill the Board of Trustees have the power of purchasing land, they can exchange, sell or dispose of duplicate objects belonging to the museum, they can set up buildings, and altogether it is a larger proposal than the words of the right hon. Baronet might lead the Committee to suppose. I take exception to one expression of the First Commissioner. He said it is not new expenditure, because we are continuing the expenditure of last year and the year before. That is exactly the spirit in which the thousands of officials in the dozens and scores of Government Departments would strangle the country by their extravagance. They are trying to keep to War expenditure; they are trying to maintain War stocks and War buildings and even War hotels, because it was done last year. The whole
  520
  country has been staggered by the toll taken of the finances of the country in the crushing taxation which was disclosed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. I had the honour of being present to-day at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain, and I talked to a number of gentlemen representing great undertakings in this country.
  Mr. INSKIP: I hope they profited by the hon. and gallant Member's observations.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That might be. I certainly profited by theirs. As they invited me to dinner, I suppose I did not make myself altogether objectionable to them. I do not pretend at any time to be able to teach the leading lights of commerce in the leading commercial nation of the world anything at all. Perhaps the hon and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) is able to do so in his professional capacity. They are one and all extremely alarmed at the financial position of the country. We should look twice and thrice at any expenditure, and if we think it unnecessary expenditure or parasitical expenditure we should insist on more facts and more figures.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to know whether in future the First Commissioner of Works will answer for the expenditure of the money to be authorised under this Resolution. The various museums and galleries of London are under various Ministers and various Government representatives on the Treasury Bench. For instance, South Kensington Museum comes under the President of the Board of Education, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury looks after the British Museum and the National Gallery. The various museums and their Votes are accounted for all over the Estimates. It would be very much more satisfactory if they could all be transferred to the First Commissioner of Works, and if every year all the Estimates could appear together, so that we could know exactly how we are spending money on the various museums. That reform is very much needed. Some of the museums, particularly the National Gallery, have been practically starved in the past for want of someone to look after their interests and press their claims in this House.
  Sir A. MOND: I imagine that this Vote will be accounted for by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as in the past. I have been Chairman of the Imperial War Committee, but it is really not the function of the First Commissioner any longer. The First Commissioner is not a Trustee of the National Gallery or of the British Museum; he has no control over the staff or over purchases, and it would be quite impossible for him to reply to a vote which is under the control of the Treasury I agree that it might be more convenient, perhaps, if some Minister was made responsible for all the museums. South Kensington Museum, I understand, has always been looked upon as an educational institution. Hence it is answered for by the President of the Board of Education. In reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I would mention that I am not asking for any money. What the Financial Resolution does is to provide that, subject to Treasury sanction, the trustees may apply to this House for money. Unless this House votes the money they do not get it, and the money must be voted on the Estimate in the usual way. If my hon. and gallant Friend was industrious, he would find the Imperial War Museum Vote in Class 4, No. 7, of the Civil Services Votes, and he would find the amount which it is intended to ask the House to vote and the amount voted last year I can quite understand he would like some kind of estimate. I will say frankly that I have been going into this matter, but it is very difficult in the transition period to frame any kind of definite estimate for the future. The total Estimate last year was £64,000. The Estimates for this year are £50,000. That includes a large amount of money for the purchase of exhibits and the transport of exhibits—items which will disappear, and also the salaries and wages of the establishment will come down considerably, I am informed, when we have once got over the period of installation, the cataloguing of exhibits, and all that kind of work. I do not want to name any figure because I cannot name a reliable figure. It is reaily not quite fair for the hon. and gallant Member to state that I say this is not new money, as if I had said it with any sinister object. I am merely stating the fact. The House of Commons is pursuing a precedent, good or bad.
  10.0 P.M.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I think we should have information as to the cost of these matters, because very often the Votes do not come before the House for discussion, or, when they do, the House may be empty. I have not got the faintest idea as to where the permanent collection is going to be located. Is it to be at the Crystal Palace, or is there to be a special building for the purpose? That is the sort of information we ought to have if we are to keep our control over expenditure.
  Mr. INSKIP: I rather think that not only is the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) justified in asking for information, but I think the House might be justified in saying that there is no need for the expenditure of money on this war museum. It is very difficult to know where to curtail expenditure, and when the House is told that this is a small sum which is negligible, one is inclined to assent to the remark. But sooner or later we have to make a start, and I think some hon. Members are beginning to feel that they must oppose expenditure, be it great or small, as soon as they can discover expenditure which is not essential to the upkeep of the country. I never forget what the Leader of the House said on one occasion. He told us however many things we may desire to do we must remember that we cannot do everything, and that we have to do only these things which are essential. An Imperial War Museum should be made to pay by voluntary subscriptions or by the payments of persons who visit it. It will not be for education but for interest. If the museum cannot be supported in that way I am inclined to think it would be better for the country to do without it. I do not know whether the House is prepared to resist this Resolution or only one or two Members. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could see his way with the great power which he has to enlist sympathy in the right quarters, to make this Museum a voluntary institution and not place it on the money so urgently needed in connection with other enterprises.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some more information about the financial side? I have no interest in the Imperial War Museum and

  523
  I think most people are tired of the whole business. That is my feeling about it. Are the members of the Board to receive any fee of any kind? I do not know. Does the sum of £50,000 include moneys spent for the acquisition of objects for the Museum, or is it the running cost? What is going to be the annual charge for running it? As regards the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Estimates, I venture to think there is a great difference between an expenditure authorised by Statute and an expenditure which merely appears in the Votes. When this appears in the Votes the right hon. Gentleman will say "You cannot possibly object to this item, because Parliament has passed a special Act of Parliament in order that the item should exist." When the special Act comes forward, the right hon. Gentleman says: "You cannot object to it because it will come forward in the Estimates." This is the time when we should extract the information we desire, and I think the House would most willingly hear some more particulars from the right hon. Baronet.
  Sir A. MOND: I am pleased to give what information I can. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who asked me a very pertinent question, all I can say is that an arrangement has been made with the Crystal Palace for four years for the Museum to be housed there. Personally, I should very much regret if the country and the House did not in time think it fit that the one great memorial of the War, upon which so much labour has already been spent, should find that proper housing which it deserves, but that is not for me to say now. It would be for the Trustees to consider the policy as to the future housing of the Museum. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain W. Benn), who took a most distinguished part in the War, says he does not want to hear anything more about the War, but we are not dealing with the present time. We are dealing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's great-grandchildren, who will be intensely interested to see the aeroplane in which their distinguished ancestor flew in the Great War. That is the view which we have taken of the matter and which we must take. It is not an institution for now, it is not a show for the present day,
  524
  but a great record of a great Empire's greatest sacrifice. The historians of the future, when they want material for this period of the world's history, will go to the only institution of the kind which will have the equipment, the records, the photographs, and the history of the greatest event the world has ever seen. I have been asked what is the estimated expense. I do not like, as I say, to give an estimate, because I have asked for figures, and I have not been able to obtain any very reliable figures, but if hon. Members will forgive me should I not be very accurate, I can mention that the present estimate which I have is that the expenditure will be something like £20,000 a year.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Does that include the rent of the Crystal Palace?
  Sir A. MOND: No. The rent of the Crystal Palace is £25,000 a year. That is taken now for four years. We have taken over from the Ministry of Information a considerable staff for handling the photographs of the War. One of the great difficulties we have had to contend with has been the selection of materials. Hon. Members know the vast amount of materials of all kind there is connected with the War. The Committee and Sub-Committees who have gone into the matter have done most careful work, for which I desire to return my best thanks. The Air Force alone put up demands which would have filled a bigger building than the Crystal Palace itself, and many of the things they wished to exhibit have had to be illustrated by models. I ask hon. Members to have a little patience, and they will be able to see in a few weeks what the museum is, and I am convinced, once they have seen it, I will never hear any more opposition. It is really a great work, and would never have been accomplished without the willing aid of a very large number of people, and generous assistance given from many quarters. One of the greatest artists of this country presented us, not with one picture, but with a series of pictures, and other gifts have been made. Having embarked on this, I cannot believe hon. Members will stand in the way of the expenditure.
  Mr. PALMER: As one returned to this House somewhat recently as what may be called an "anti-waste" candidate, I

  525
  think the Committee has a right to examine somewhat closely the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond). After all, he gives what he says is merely a rough estimate. He mentioned that the figure would be £20,000. Before he had finished, however, I noticed he put on another £5,000 as the possible cost of the upkeep of this museum. If there is one vote the country might be willing to give it would be a vote for this wonderful museum, described so eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman; but if this museum is wanted by the nation, does it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be possible to keep it in existence by voluntary subscription—this permanent memorial to the heroism and mechanism which contributed to win the War? We are sent to the House of Commons at the present moment to do all we can to keep down public expenditure. I can quite sympathise with hon. Members who have taken exception to this museum, for we should examine with meticulous care every estimate which comes before us. To-day we have been discussing a huge Budget. It has been complained that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been putting forward new proposals for taxation, we have not heard a word from him in regard to saving or having a reduction of expenditure. Perhaps it is not the duty of the Chancellor at the moment to put forward anything more than proposals for new taxation to meet our expenditure. It is, however, the duty of the Government to take every opportunity to keep down the cost of the services of this country. After all, this war museum is a luxury. If we are maintaining this museum for posterity, let posterity bear some part in its cost. Let those of us who believe in this museum as a great permanent national memorial by our voluntary aid pay for it, and not put the cost upon the taxpayers of the country who are so heavily burdened.
  Mr. J. JONES: I was very pleased to listen to the speech just delivered. The hon. Member for the Wrekin Division is a past-master in the art of advocating economy. But may I suggest that, as far as this particular matter is concerned, we are now advocating the establishment of a war museum, and I can certainly imagine that those who were responsible for advocating war to the bitter end
  526
  would be the best advocates of a continuation of the war museum. The hon. Member who has just sat down is one of those who wants the Germans to pay. Then why not have the museum for the purpose of establishing the fact that the Germans must pay. Add the up-keep to the German bill! The hon. Member is a member of—
  Mr. PALMER: The Patriotic party!
  Mr. JONES: An absolutely patriotic party—a party so patriotic that it always believes in doing its best for itself. Having subscribed to that patriotic policy they necessarily believe that everybody else ought to do the same. What is this museum for? I hope the time will come when all those who have advocated war as a method of settling international difficulties will themselves find that they have got a Madame Tussauds of their own. I only supported the War because I believed it was the least of two evils. Now we discover that we have in this country a Prussianism going on just as bad as the Prussianism against which we fought. In so far as the First Commissioner of Works is responsible for this Vote, I want to congratulate him upon the fact that his principal opponents to-night are those who shouted most for the War.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member referring to me?
  Mr. JONES: I am not referring to the hon. Member, because I never know exactly what situation he occupies. This desire for economy reminds me of the story of the Scotchman who used the wart on the back of his neck for a collar stud, but unfortunately septic poisoning set in and he died as a result of his experiment. What is the object of this proposition? It is to record the victories won in the War. If hon. Members think that is a bad thing, why not say so? If you vote against this, then you should vote against the Vote for the United Services Museum. I believe the salaries for that institution are put in the Estimates.
  Commander BELLAIRS: There are no salaries put in the Estimates for that institution.
  Mr. JONES: As far as that museum is concerned, it is only a place for politi-

  527
  cians and statesmen who think they are going to be something in the future. As far as I am personally concerned, I am quite prepared to say that if they want the War to be remembered, let them pay; but the last people who ought to object are those who have been the most enthusiastic advocates of the War. We are going to have a record of what has happened during the War. I shall support the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his desire to have a museum, and I only hope that all those who advocate war will be preserved in glass cases.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

IRELAND.

  DISTURBANCES AT MILLTOWN MALBAY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At Question Time information was sought in regard to the shootings at Milltown Malbay last week. Hon. Members will be familiar with the case from the news papers. The unfortunate occurrence happened last Wednesday, at a celebration of the release of hunger strikers from Mountjoy Prison. There was a spontaneous outburst of joy at the change in Government policy, and it was celebrated at Milltown Malbay—
  Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted, and Forty Members not being present,
  The House was Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes after Ten of the Clock till To-morrow.