Sitting of 22 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  1368
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable there to, have been complied with, viz.:—Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords]; Staveley Coal and Iron Company Bill [Lords]; Society of Apothecaries of London Bill [Lords]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship Canal (Bridgewater Canal) Bill [Lords]; Borax Consolidated Bill [Lords]; Devonport Corporation Bill [Lords]; Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords]; Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be road a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Central London Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Medway Lower Navigation Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Royal Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Rawtenstall Corporation Bill.—At amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords] [not amended].—Considered; to be read the third time.
  Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Tyne Improvement Commissioners; and for amending certain of the Tyne Improvement Acts, 1850 to 1902; and for other purposes."[Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vest the existing tramways in the City of Oxford in the City of Oxford Electric Tramways, Limited, and to authorise that company to remove and reconstruct the same, and to construct additional tramways in and adjacent to the city; and for other purposes." [Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords]; Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BARMAIDS' RESTRICTION OF EMPLOYMENT.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Pontyberem, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCER'S LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Crail, Anstruther, and District, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Banff; Banffshire; Crail; Kilwinning; and Lieth, to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Aberfeldy; Alexandria; Alyth; Auchinlech (two); Auchterarder; Birsay and Harray; Bonar Bridge; Bo'ness (two); Burnbank; Cadezow Castle; Cambusbarron; Cambusnethan; Coatbridge; Denny; Dumbarton; Falkirk; Fordyce; Galston; Gamrie and Macduff; Girvan; Glasgow (six); Greenock; Hamilton; Kilsyth; Kirkintilloch; Kirkwynd; Leith (two); Muirkirk (two); Musselburgh; Port Glasgow (two); Riccarton; St. Margaret's Hope; St. Quivox; Saltcoats; Sandbank; and Uphall; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  Return [presented 19th April], to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 116.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Glamorgan, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of shops within the Aber, Town, and Ystrad Mynach Wards of the Caerphilly Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 117.]
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Account presented, of the Gross Public income and Expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1907, together with the balances in the Exchequer at the commencement and at the termination of the year, and the amounts received into or issued from the Exchequer in respect of Funded and Unfunded Debt created or redeemed in the said year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 118.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Reports of the Local Education Authority and of His Majesty's Inspector upon the educational fitness of Mr. Milnes for the position of head teacher of the Royston National School, in the West Riding of Yorkshire [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th April; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 119.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities; County of Wiltshire). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 120.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berkshire). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 121.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Devon). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]: to be printed. [No. 122.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Alleged Dissatisfaction amongst Irish National School Inspectors.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst inspectors of national schools in Ireland, because they are constantly harassed by letters from the Education Office, to which many of them had to write strongly in reply, while others had to travel long distances from the country to Dublin to remonstrate in person against such treatment, and some are afraid to give expression to their feelings on the matter for fear of penalties involved; whether these letters are the productions of clerks and others utterly ignorant of inspection work; whether any of the twenty Commissioners, except Dr. Starkie, can be sufficiently intimate with the working of the Education Office to know anything about the justice of any fine or censure imposed; and whether, seeing complaints or protests only load to further punishment which, owing to the ignorance of the inner working of the office on the part of nearly all the Commissioners, can be inflicted with impunity, he will appoint a small committee to inquire into the working of the National Education Office.
  [The following Answer to be substituted for that printed in the Debates for Friday, 19th April, cols. 1260–1.]
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education

  1373
  form me that they are not aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst their inspectors generally. Certain inspectors have been guilty of irregularities and have performed their duties in an unsatisfactory manner, and have consequently incurred official censure. This censure was not imposed until the cases had been very fully investigated by the chief or senior inspectors and the facts placed before the resident Commissioner or the Board. Two of the inspectors concerned were summoned before a special committee meeting of the Commissioners, and were afforded full opportunity of answering the charges brought against them. The Commissioners individually are kept fully informed of all the business of the office, and no serious punishment is inflicted on any officers without their authority. The maintenance of discipline among the staff is a matter which falls within the province of the Commissioners them selves, and no facts have been brought to my notice which would appear to call for the appointment of a committee to n quire into the matter.

  County.

  Net amount drawn in respect of

  Total.

  Arrears of Annuities.

  Insufficiency of Income.

  £

  £

  £

  Antrim

  13

  1,118

  1,131

  Armagh

  70

  1,293

  1,363

  Carlow

  138

  1,330

  1,468

  Cavan

  44

  154

  198

  Clare

  164

  435

  599

  Cork

  831

  4,050

  4,881

  Donegal

  44

  643

  687

  Down

  119

  2,114

  2,233

  Dublin

  325

  1,271

  1,596

  Condition of Irish Land Purchase Guarantee Fund.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the present condition of the Guarantee Fund under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, showing the amount drawn to make good defaults under the Act of 1903, the amounts withheld from several counties and from the whole of Ireland out of the normal Probate Duty and agricultural grants, which must now be added to local rates; is the Treasury aware that in this way people, not parties to the purchase transactions, are contributing to the payment of prices; and can he find in the practice of the Treasury any precedent or analogy for the present system of land purchase.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The following Statement shows the net amounts drawn under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 from the Guarantee Fund for each county and the whole of Ireland, for the period from the commencement at 1st November, 1903, to 31st January, 1907:—

  County.

  Net amount drawn in respect of.

  Total.

  Arrears of Annuities.

  Insufficiency of Income.

  £

  £

  £

  Fermanagh

  92

  1,328

  1,420

  Galway

  304

  3,321

  3,625

  Kerry

  130

  632

  762

  Kildare

  944

  7,714

  8,658

  Kilkenny

  701

  4,045

  4,746

  King's

  321

  1,077

  1,398

  Leitrim

  97

  252

  349

  Limerick

  1,168

  3,017

  4,185

  Londonderry

  66

  1,296

  1,362

  Longford

  145

  1,014

  1,159

  Louth

  60

  301

  361

  Mayo

  64

  2,024

  2,088

  Meath

  196

  3,733

  3,929

  Monaghan

  128

  419

  547

  Queen's

  164

  1,332

  1,496

  Roscommon

  702

  4,104

  4,806

  Sligo

  62

  1,271

  1,333

  Tipperary, North

  336

  768

  1,104

  ” South

  502

  2,097

  2,599

  Tyrone

  290

  1,925

  2,215

  Waterford

  280

  670

  950

  Westmeath

  262

  1,961

  2,223

  Wexford

  200

  2,262

  2,462

  Wicklow

  157

  2,906

  3,063

  9,119

  61,877

  70,996

  As regards the allocation of the sums so drawn between the Death Duty Grant and the Agricultural Grant, the hon. Member is referred to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on the 16th instant;† but I should point out that the figures given by him include sums drawn under previous Land Acts as well as under the Act of 1903. In the last part of the Question the hon. Member is criticising the policy of the Act of 1903 which the Treasury has no power to alter.

  Liverpool Post Office Medical Officer.
  MR. VIVIAN: To ask the Postmaster - General whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that the telegraph staff residing in the Birkenhead area of Liverpool are dissatisfied with their treatment by the local medical officer, and that in consequence a number have recourse to other medica officers; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No suggestion of the kind has reached me; but I will make inquiry.

  Non-Delivery of Letters on Early Closing Days.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will inform the House of the number and names of towns where the delivery of letters in the afternoon of the early closing days of the respective districts does not take place; and whether he will consider the desirability of extending the system of non-delivery in the afternoon of the early closing days.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). The information asked for by the hon. Member is not readily available; but I may say that it is already usual, in all cases where the circumstances admit and the local authorities are in favour of such a course, to make some arrangement of the kind described on early closing days.

  Appointment of Volunteer Adjutants.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the better standard of efficiency that has been attained by the Yeomanry and Volunteers
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 749–52,
  1378
  is due to the circumstance that the adjutants since the War in South Africa have been more carefully selected, better qualified, and more up to date than previously, he will consider the desirability of not making any alteration in the system.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of the appointment of adjutants to the Territorial Force is one of considerable importance, and many representations on the subject have been forwarded for my consideration. The whole matter is under close consideration by the general staff, and I am not in a position at the present moment to make any definite statement as to what course ought to be adopted.

  Strength of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers—War Service.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the strength of the Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry at the date they were called upon for special service in South Africa; and what percentage from each of these branches of the Auxiliary Forces actually served in the War.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Haldane). The enrolled strengths were as follows:—

  Militia, on 1st October, 1899

  98,050

  Yeomanry, at date of inspection, July or August, 1899

  9,947

  Volunteers, on 1st November, 1899

  222,584

  The following numbers actually went to South Africa:—

  Militia

  45,566

  Yeomanry

  2,789

  Volunteers (includes those who joined the C.I.V., Volunteer Service Companies, and Imperial Yeomanry)

  26,065

  5,922 Militia also went to Malta, Egypt, and St. Helena during the war.

  Meat Inspection in Scotland.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that where local authorities in Scotland carry out the Public Health Act of 1897 dealing with meat inspection, consignors of live pigs and pig carcases, rather than run the risk

  1379
  of condemnation by these local authorities, forward their live stock to the surrounding districts, where the authorities are less stringent, whence they find their way in the form of cured hams into the proscribed localities; whether he is aware that this is a disadvantage to those who seek to carry out the law; and whether he will insist on equality of standard of meat inspection for all local authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The attention of the Board has been called to this practice, and they have instructed inquiry to be made into it.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the inquiry into the methods of meat inspection by the officers of local authorities in Scotland has now been completed; and if he will report the results of that inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) As I have already informed my hon. friend, the inquiry will shortly be completed. The question of communicating the result of the inquiry will receive my careful consideration.

  Infants and Children in Public Houses.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet obtained any reports on the subject of women taking their infants and young children to the public houses in London and other large towns; and, if so, whether he can lay them upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have received some reports on this subject and I am asking for further information in connection with them. When I have received it I will communicate with my hon. friend.

  Financial Deficiencies in Working of Irish Land Act.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if his attention has been called to the stoppages which have been made out of certain grants payable to County Councils in Ireland to meet alleged financial deficiencies in the working of the Irish Land Act of 1903; can he state how these
  1380
  deficiencies have arisen; if he is aware that, if the Treasury persist in their present action, it will have the effect of dislocating local government all over Ireland and also have a most injurious effect on the progress of land purchase in Ireland; and will he publish the rules under which the Treasury have acted in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Under Section 29 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1903,the Guarantee Fund is liable to make good any deficiency on the Income Account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund. So far as these deficiencies are caused by the issue of guaranteed stock at a discount, the Ireland Development Grant, as one of the constituent parts of the Guarantee Fund, is the first to be charged under Section 38; so that no charge for deficiencies arising from that cause can fall on the Local Taxation Grants so long as the Ireland Development Grant is able to meet them. But there are other deficiencies on the Income Account with which the Local Taxation Grants, as constituents of the Guarantee Fund, are directly chargeable, and I fear there is no possibility of avoiding the occurrence of such deficiencies when advances at 2¾ per cent. interest are provided for by the public issue of stock bearing the same rate of interest, and no margin is allowed between the rate of interest payable and the rate of interest receivable to cover incidental losses. These losses arise from the following causes:—

  (1) Arrears of payment of the purchase annuities;

  (2) The system of issuing stock entitled to a half-year's dividend on the first following dividend day, although the subscribers to the stock are allowed to pay up their subscription by instalments which may extend up to, or even beyond, that dividend day. It is clear that, when the National Debt Commissioners have to pay a half-year's dividend on a certain day, and have not had the use of the money for a full six months before that day, a deficiency must result;

  (3) The gale day on which the purchase annuities are payable is in each case one month earlier than the

  1381
  dividend day. This interval is necessary to enable the annuities to be collected and paid over to the National Debt Commissioners before the dividend day. But the result is that the payment received from a tenant on his first gale day includes interest for one month less than the period in respect of which dividend is payable on the stock;

  (4) The capital of the Land Purchase Fund, so far as not required for advances, is temporarily invested by the National Debt Commissioners in securities. The interest on these securities is received on varying dates, and at the date when the balance of the Income Account must be struck there is always a temporary deficiency due to the fact that a certain amount of interest which has accrued has not yet been received into the account;

  (5) On large transactions, such as those of the Land Purchase Fund, it is impossible to have the whole of the capital moneys invested and earning interest on every day of the year. There must always, therefore, be a loss of income from unproductive balances.

  A careful analysis of the charge of £70,996 which has been made upon the Local Taxation Grants shows it to be attributable to these five causes in the following proportions—

  £

  (1) Arrears of annuities

  9,119

  (2) Unearned dividend on issues of stock

  23,750

  (3) Advance dividend

  13,650

  (4) Interest due but not received

  15,500

  (5) Unproductive balances

  8,977

  £70,996

  The arrears of purchase annuities are for the most part temporary. I understand that since the account was made up on 31st January last a sum of £4,046 has been recovered on account of the £9,119 then in arrear. The chief item of charge is the unearned dividend of £23,750 arising out of the mode of issue of the stock, which is required by custom and the convenience of the City. It is open to question whether this charge could not
  1382
  properly be treated as a capital charge to be paid for by annuity out of the Development Grant. But an amendment of the Act would be necessary to enable this to be done, as the Act at present requires (Section 29) (1), that the dividends on the stock shall be paid out of the income of the fund. The advance dividend charge will not be made good until the purchase annuities are completed, many years hence. A further charge of the same kind must arise on every issue of the stock. The deficiency of income which arises from unproductive balances is an inevitable and a permanent loss. The only charges which are of a temporary nature are those relating to arrears and to interest accrued but not received. After analysing and reviewing all the charges, I have come to the conclusion that it should be possible to avoid charging the Local Taxation Grants in full for those items by making use of the working balance which was rendered available by the Labourers Act of last Session, and I propose to have the Treasury Rules amended to enable this to be done. I may add that the Treasury Rules were published in House of Commons Paper, No. 151, of 1905.

  Weight of Metal in Ships.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any method exists by which the total weight of metal on a ship can be arrived at; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to find out such weight before any of His Majesty's ships are sold to be broken up.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The only way of arriving at the total weight of metal on a ship would be to refer to the records of the weighing-in of the ship of her class selected for weighing at the time of the building, due allowance being made for non-metallic materials and for weights with-drawn or added in her subsequent history. The calculation would be rather elaborate and the result approximate only and not commensurate with the labour involved. It is, therefore, not proposed to adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord.

  House of Commons Newspaper Reading Room.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can see his way to provide a new newspaper reading room, so that Members may not be forced to read the daily papers in a thoroughfare.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I have not, at present been able to discover any other suitable room, but I should welcome suggestions from Members.

  Bombay Municipal Elections.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, with reference to the recent Bombay municipal elections and the public meeting of protest held in Bombay regarding them on 7th April, he will consider the advisability of suggesting to the Indian Government that in future officers of Government should not be allowed to offer themselves as candidates for election on municipalities and district boards, especially as the Government has the right of, nominating an adequate number, of members to represent them on such bodies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) As at present advised, I am not prepared to lay down a general rule such may hon. friend suggests.

  The Colonial Conference and Treatment of British Indians in the Colonies.
  MR. LYNCH: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has instructed the representative of India at the Colonial Conference to raise the question of the treatment of His Majesty's Indian subjects in self-governing British Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The question will certainly be discussed with the representatives of the Colonies, but whether in full conference, or in what other form, I cannot at present say.

  Deaths from Plague in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India how many deaths have
  1384
  occurred in India from plague since the outbreak in 1896; how many deaths from plague have been reported for each week during this year, 1907; and which provinces are the most affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The recorded deaths from plague in India, including Native States, from September, 1896, to end of March, 1907, are approximately 5,012,000. The monthly Returns which I receive from India show 58,438 deaths in January, 98,397 deaths in February, 171,522 deaths in March of the present year. I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied with monthly totals. The provinces most affected are the United Provinces, the Punjab, Bengal, and Bombay.

  Indian Medical Service.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the number of officers of the Indian medical service now on duty in India, exclusive of those attached to regiments; and what is the number of medical officers especially deported for plague work, exclusive of civil surgeons and officers in other medical work.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of India will be asked for the Return. I will lay it when received upon the Table.

  English Medical Men Engaged on Indian Plague Work.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India how many medical men from England from time to time have been engaged by the Secretary of State for plague work in India; and how many of those medical men are now on special plague duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I will ask the Government of India to have the Return prepared, and will lay it upon the Table when I receive it.

  Plague Precautions in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the recommendations to the Indian Government by Professor Simpson, late medical officer of health to Calcutta, to introduce

  1385
  a special sanitary service composed of Indian medical men and women supervised by European experts, and repeated in his work on plague, have been carried out to stay and prevent the ravages of plague.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer my hon. friend to the published Resolution of the Government of India, dated 8th September, 1904, creating the office of Sanitary Commissioner, in which is described the action taken by them in various schemes for the constitution of a separate sanitary service, and the difficulties, financial and administrative, in the way of an effective and speedy reorganisation. Much has been done to strengthen and improve the existing sanitary agency at the disposal of local governments, especially in districts where plague is liable to occur. The subject is still engaging the anxious consideration of the Government.

  Arrears of Tenant Purchasers' Annuities Chargeable to County Kildare.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount (if any) chargeable to the county of Kildare in respect of net advances made by the Guarantee Fund after deducting repayments out of current instalments of annuities in the years ended the 12th day of February, 1906 and 1907, respectively; what is the amount certified for chargeable to the same county and drawn from the Guarantee Fund respect of purchasers' half-yearly payments in arrear, and the amount of repayments to Guarantee Fund of such arrears recovered for the year ending the 31st January, 1907, the amount certified for in respect of insufficiency of income chargeable to the same county and drawn from the Guarantee Fund under Section 29 of the Irish Land Act, 1903; will he state the terms of the rule under which a county, not in arrear in its payments, may be made liable for dividends in respect of sales of land, in other counties, and how the grants in aid of local taxation in counties not in arrear are made applicable to the purposes of the Guarantee Fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The net amount chargeable to county Kildare in respect of arrears of tenant purchasers' annuities was £1,695 18s. 3d. in 1905–6, but in 1906–7 the repayments exceeded the arrears by £928 7s. 9d., viz., arrears drawn from Guarantee Fund £1,780 5s. 4d. and arrears recovered £2,708 13s. 1d. The net amount charged to the same county under section 29 (2) of the Act of 1903 in respect of deficiency of income has been £7,714 12s. 8d. The certificates of the amounts chargeable to the several counties are prepared under Rule 10 (2) of Treasury Rules and Regulations, dated 14th April, 1905, published in House of Commons, Paper No. 151, of 1905.

  The Ballingeary Disturbances—Action of Mr. O'Hara, Resident Magistrate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, when issuing warrants for the arrest of some parties charged with offences arising out of the Ballingeary disturbances, Mr. O'Hara, resident magistrate for the Macroom district, framed the warrants in such a fashion that the persons against whom they were issued should, when arrested, be brought before himself and no other; will he say if it is the usual practice for resident magistrates to exercise a power of this kind; and will he offer any explanation of the course adopted by Mr. O'Hara, which reflected on the character and impartiality of the ordinary justices of the peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The warrants were issued on 6th October last. The resident magistrate acted within his powers as a justice of the peace in directing, in the warrants, that the persons against whom they were issued should be brought before himself. The adoption of such a course by Mr. O'Hara or any other justice of the peace does not reflect upon the impartiality of other magistrates.

  Extra Police in County Clare.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any extra force of police has recently been drafted into the district around Confin and Kilnaboy

  1387
  county Clare; and, if so, can he state the strength of the force and the reason they were sent to that part of the county; and whether he is aware that threatening notices were recently posted up in this neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) An extra force of twelve policemen has recently been drafted into the district referred to in order to provide for the preservation of the peace. The police have reported that threatening notices have recently been posted up in the locality.

  Division of Untenanted Land on the Colonel Westropp, Doonas, Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners got 170 acres of untenanted land on the Colonel Westropp, Doonas, estate to divide among the tenants of that estate having small holdings, and how long is it since they got the division of this land; whether, whilst they intended to make seventeen divisions, they will consider the desirability of increasing the number of divisions so that a greater number of the poorer tenants would get a division; and will he say when is the division to take place, as there is a question of getting additional untenanted land in the neighbourhood which would be already obtained but for the delay in the division of this land.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that in this case 175 acres of untenanted land are being sold to them. The Commissioners specially expedited the inspection, and have since had the land divided into seventeen parcels for distribution. Steps are at present being taken to obtain the signatures to purchase agreements of the seventeen persons selected as purchasers, and as soon as this has been done the purchasers will be put into possession. The Commissioners consider that the division of the lands which they have made is the most suitable in the circumstances, and cannot now re-open the matter.

  Increase of Salary for Staff of Dublin Botanical Gardens.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuten-
  1388
  ant of Ireland when the labourers, gardeners, and general staff of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin, may expect to get the small increase of salary which they recently applied for; and when they may expect to get off on Saturdays at one o'clock, the same as at the Royal Gardens, Kew, and other places.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The scale of remuneration of the general staff of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, has recently been revised, and increases of pay have been sanctioned in certain cases. The new arrangements will take effect as from the first instant, but increments on the new scales will not be allowable until the expiration of one year from that date. It has also been arranged to grant a Saturday half-holiday to such of the staff as can be spared without inconvenience.

  Irish Poor Rates—Disfranchisemsnt for Non-Payment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Parliamentary and Local Government Board electors are annually disfranchised by reason of the non-payment of poor rates within the statutory period for payment; whether he is aware that the poor rate is now annually struck by the county council about the month of May in each year, and that such rate, in order to qualify for the franchise, must be paid on or before the 1st July of the following year, and that the collectors of poor rate under the Orders made by the Local Government Board must now lodge the full amounts of the rates within fixed periods; whether the disfranchisement referred to arises from the fact that the rate collectors in numerous cases fail to require payment from the occupiers until after the time has lapsed, in other words, until after the 1st July of the following year; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of the Order of the Local Government Board requiring that the rate collectors should finally close their accounts and proceed for all recoverable rates before the next rate is made, in order that the ratepayers concerned should not be disqualified by the action of the rate collector.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have no information as to the first part of the Question. The poor rate is now usually struck in the months of April and May, and the latest date for paying the rate, in order to be qualified for the franchise, is the 1st July of the following year. The ratepayer has, therefore, over a year in which to pay his rates before he can be disfranchised. One poor rate is made for the whole of the year, but this may be collected in two moieties. Under the Public Bodies Order the poor rate collectors are required to close their collections at the end of each half-year, namely, on 30th September and 31st March. It is the practice of county councils to insist that the poor rate collectors shall close the year's collection on 31st March in each year, and in order to be able to lodge the full amount of their warrants at that date it is necessary that every effort should be made by the collectors by means of summons and distress to collect the rate from the occupiers. Provision is made under the Public Bodies Order for refunding to collectors under prescribed conditions the amount of rates which they have failed to recover for sufficient reason. The latter recoverable rates are carried forward to the next year's collection for recovery as arrears with the first moiety of the current year. It therefore follows that if the county and urban district councils comply with the prescribed requirements the rate collectors should have no difficulty in sending out the demands in the month of May, in which case persons in arrears have ample time to pay the rates in time to prevent disfranchisement. As a matter of fact less than one per cent, of the rate is carried forward in each year. In the circumstances a new Order, such as is suggested in the Question, appears to be unnecessary.

  Deduction from Grant to County Sligo in Respect of Land Purchase.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £1,506 19s. 7d. has been deducted, in respect of land purchase, from grants payable to the county council of Sligo in the month of March, 1907; and can he state what loss, if any, will be sustained by the urban district
  1390
  council of Sligo in consequence of this deduction.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amount deducted in the case of county Sligo is correctly stated in the Question. A sum of £66 17s. 5d. has been deducted directly from the share of the Sligo urban district. In addition the ratepayers in the urban district will have to make good about £79, as part of the deduction made from the share of the guardians of the Sligo Union.

  Building of New Schoolhouse at Gortnacart.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that upwards of seven years ago, at the instance of the late Reverend Peter Kelly, P. P., the manager of the national school, Gortnacart, county Donegal, a grant was sanctioned for the building of a new schoolhouse, but that the Commissioners, owing to want of money, induced Father Kelly to await the settlement of the question of the plans and estimates for schoolhouses, now that the Treasury has consented to make a grant of £40,000 for three years for the purpose of repairing and building schools, steps will be taken to secure that the building of a new schoolhouse at Gortnacart, owing to the priority and urgency of the claim, and the report of every inspector of the unsatisfactory and insanitary condition of the present temporary schoolhouse, be forthwith undertaken and speedily brought to completion.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education are desirous that steps should at once be taken to provide new premises for the Gortnacart national school; and, as the new standard plans and specifications for national school buildings, though agreed upon in principle, will not be ready for some time, the Commissioners propose to invite the manager to submit special plans in this case.

  Arrests at Athenry—Legal Aid for Accused.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what time elapsed between arrest

  1391
  and sentence of men arrested at Athenry, county Galway, upon the 5th inst.; were they afforded an opportunity of being legally represented at the trial; where did it take place; and were the public admitted to same.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The persons referred to were separately arrested on 5th instant at times varying from 10.45 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. Three of the arrests were made in Athenry Fair. The men were taken before the resident magistrate at 12.45 p.m. at the Athenry police station, where the hearing took place. I am informed that the accused persons did not express any desire to be legally represented and that the public did not seek to be admitted to the hearing of the case.

  Kerry County Council and Sir C Cameron, Public Analyst.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Kerry County Council have notified Sir C. Cameron that they do not require his services further as public analyst; that they did so only after they had been put to considerable inconvenience and expense by inaccurate analyses made by him; whether similar complaints have been made in Waterford and Wexford; and whether, under those circumstances, the Local Government Board will refuse the request of the council; and, if so, will they (the Local Government Board) pay the cost of all prosecutions which fail because of incorrect analysis.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The complaint made by the county council against Sir Charles Cameron had reference to an unsuccessful prosecution for depriving milk of its fats. It appears that Sir Charles Cameron's certificate differed from those of Somerset House and of the Cork analyst. Sir Charles Cameron states that the milk was analysed twice with great care, that it was partially decomposed when he received it, and that as there was an excess of fat in the sample sent to Somerset House there may have been separation of the milk constituents when the sample was taken. A somewhat similar case arose last year in county Wexford. The Local Government Board have no record
  1392
  of a similar case in county Waterford. A public analyst cannot be removed without the approval of the Local Government Board; and the Board have informed the county council that no sufficient grounds have been advanced to warrant the dismissal of Sir Charles Cameron from his position as public analyst for the county. The reply to the concluding portion of the Question is in the negative.

  Sale of the Morrogh Bernard Estate.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the sale of the Morrogh Bernard Estate, county Kerry, will be sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners until all the evicted tenants on it are reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Before sanctioning advances for the purchase of the estate mentioned, the Estates Commissioners will fully investigate the cases of all evicted tenants who seek reinstatement upon it, and will endeavour to arrange for the restoration of such as are qualified.

  Conversion of 15-Pounder Field Guns.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the conversion of the 15-pounder field gun with which it is proposed to arm the Territorial Army has in any way affected the ballistics of the gun.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative.

  Militia Officers and the New Reserve of Officers.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Militia officers will be able to join the new reserve of officers recommended by Sir E. Ward's Committee; and, if so, what their training and remuneration will be, and whether they will retain their existing rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The recommendations of Sir E. Ward's Committee are still under consideration, and at present it is impossible to say what terms will be offered to the new Reserve officers, or what amount of training they will receive. When the new Reserve is formed, Militia officers wishing to join

  1393
  it will be able to do so in their present rank, provided they are within the limit of age laid down for Reserve officers.

  Duke of York's School—Accommodation at Chelsea and Dover—Disposal of Site.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many boys are now accommodated at the Duke of York's School, Chelsea, and how many will be provided for at the new school at Dover; when it is expected that the transference will take place; is it proposed to develop the land for building purposes, and has any scheme been prepared; and, if so, does it include any open space or garden which will be available for public use; and, should there be a balance of profit on the sale of the buildings and land after erecting the new school, to what object will the proceeds be devoted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 550 boys are now accommodated at the school at Chelsea, and 480 boys will be provided for in the new school. The Queen Victoria Memorial School in Scotland will provide additional accommodation for 275 sons of sailors and soldiers. It is hoped that the buildings will be ready before the end of 1908. As regards the other points raised in the Question no decision has yet been reached in regard to the disposal of the site of the present school.

  Young Men's Christian Association and the Wilts and Gloucester Volunteer Infantry Brigade Camp.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Brigadier-General commanding the Wilts and Gloucester Volunteer Infantry Brigade has refused permission to the Young Men's Christian Association to erect a recreation tent in the camp this year at Lulworth, although permission has always been given in the past; and, if so, whether he is prepared to ask the Brigadier-General to reconsider his decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nothing is known of this matter at the War Office, and the question has been referred to the local military authorities.

  Deaths due to Violence in Macedonia
  MR. LYNCH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can
  1394
  state the number of violent deaths which occurred in the three vilayets of Macedonia for the periods from the 1st October, 1905, to the end of Febuary, 1906, and from the 1st October, 1906, till the end of Febuary, 1907; and whether he will obtain statistics showing the number of deaths due to violence in these vilayets for each month for the years 1905, 1906, and for the expired portion of 1907.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Government have no complete records of the numbers of violent deaths in Macedonia previous to December 1905. The following are the figures for the months from and including December 1905 up to the end of February last:—

  1905.

  December

  53

  1906.

  January

  73

  February

  56

  March

  116

  April

  223

  May

  243

  June

  151

  July

  170

  August

  76

  September

  120

  October

  99

  November

  73

  December

  56

  1907.

  January

  54

  February

  56

  For the causes of these I must refer the hon. Member to my previous Answer to him on the 16th.†

  Southampton Trunk Line Telephone Facilities.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the trunk line telephonic facilities at Southampton are in need of improvement; and what steps, if any, are being taken to place the service on a more efficient footing.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Two additional trunk lines between Southampton and London will be brought into use in the next few months. Their completion has been seriously delayed by way leave difficulties. Additional lines to Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Salisbury, and the Isle of Wight from Southampton are also being provided for the improvement of the trunk service.
  †See (4) Debates clxxii., 762–3.

  Pauper Relief at Leicester, Poplar, West Ham and Woolwich.
  MR. C. NICHOLSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number, ratio per thousand, and cost of in-maintenance and out-relief of paupers in the unions of Leicester, Poplar, West

  Poor Law Union.

  Year ended Lady Day.

  Total number of paupers (except lunatics in county and borough asylums, &c., but including persons in receipt of medical relief only) on the 1st January in the year.

  Rate per 1,000 of paupers or estimated population

  Expenditure on maintenance of indoor paupers (year ended Lady Day).

  Expenditure on outdoor relief (year ended Lady Day).

  £

  £

  Leicester

  1904

  5,546

  25·2

  17,927

  24,088

  1905

  7,431

  33·21

  19,599

  30,039

  1906

  7,948

  34·28

  24,327

  35,666

  1907

  {

  7,326

  31·6

  }

  10,400†

  16,207†

  6,244‡

  26·9

  Poplar

  1904

  7,760

  45·8

  60,142

  24,399

  1905

  11,738

  69·1

  68,279

  34,456

  1906

  11,332

  66·5

  71,513

  45,667

  1907

  {

  8,512

  49·9

  }

  29,234†

  17,469†

  8,352‡

  48·9

  West Ham

  1904

  14,532

  23·1

  65,681

  63,796

  1905

  25,931

  39·8

  68,213

  77,335

  1906

  20,726

  30·7

  71,540

  82,702

  1907

  {

  17,437

  25·0

  }

  31,302†

  39,422†

  16,854‡

  24·2

  Woolwich

  1904

  2,241

  16·4

  21,550

  4,922

  1905

  2,132

  15·3

  21,303

  4,627

  1906

  2,445

  17·3

  22,698

  4,832

  1907

  {

  2,563

  17·8

  }

  10,3471†

  2,252†

  2,348‡

  16·3

  †For the half-year ended Michaelmas, 1906.

  ‡Number of paupers relieved on 13th April, 1907.

  Ham, and Woolwich for the last four years.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The particulars desired, so far as they can be given at the present time, are shown in the following table. The figures as to the expenditure in the half-year ended at Lady Day last are not yet available.

  Agricultural Labourers on the Continent.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of agricultural labourers and of other people employed in agriculture in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria-Hungary for the years 1881, 1891, and 1901.

  Statement showing the total number of persons engaged in agriculture and of agricultural labourers in the under-mentioned countries and years:—

  (Note.—The occupations included under the term agriculture vary in the Census reports for the different countries.)

  Country.

  Occupations included.

  Date of Census.

  Persons engaged in Agriculture.

  Agricultural labourers.

  Germany

  Tillage of soil, stock raising, vegetable, fruit, vine, and tobacco cultivation, dairying

  }

  1895

  8,045,441

  5,445,924

  1882

  8,063,966

  5,763,970

  France

  Tillage of soil, threshing, market gardening, mushroom growing, dairying

  }

  1901

  8,100,000

  3,565,600

  1896

  8,430,000

  4,022,000

  Austria

  Tillage of soil, raising of farm stock, gardening

  }

  l900

  8,113,758

  5,941,275

  1890

  8,394,638

  6,379,085

  Hungary

  Tillage of soil, stock raising, poultry farming, dairying, market gardening, horticulture

  }

  1900

  4,916,008

  3,368,996

  1890

  4,459,712

  2,836,43

  Italy

  Tillage of soil, cultivation of fruits, tobacco growing, stock raising, poultry and bee keeping, mushroom growing, forestry and woodcutting

  }

  1901

  9,611,003

  4,156,753

  1882

  8,566,467

  cannot be stated.

  Spain

  No information available.

  *Forestry workers and woodcutters, which are included in the Italian figures, but not in the totals for other countries, numbered 44,663 in 1901; the corresponding figure for 1882 cannot be stated.

  Cost of Visit to India of the Amir of Afghanistan.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the total amount of expenses entailed upon the Indian Government by the visit of the Amir of Afghanistan.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The information asked for by the hon. Member can only be given for years in which a census of occupations was taken in the countries covered by the Question. The attached statement embodies all the information available for each country since 1880:—
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.).— The total expenditure entailed on the Government of India by the Amir's visit was £205,900, made up as follows:— Expenditure directly connected with tour, £124,500; Military concentration at Agra, £36,700; Viceregal visit and Chapter of

  1399
  the Order of the Bath and the Indian Orders at Agra, £44,700.

  Condition and Hours of Labour in Bombay Textile Factories.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for India when he expects to receive the Report from the Government of India as to the conditions and hours of labour in the textile factories of Bombay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I expect to receive the Report of the Committee in the course of next month.

  Meetings of the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how often did the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland meet during the twelve months preceding 23rd November, 1906, to consider appear Section 2 of 30 and 31 Vic, cap. 54, and business incidental thereto; how many of such meetings were attended by each of the Commissioners; and whether the Commissioners are entitled to decline to state to an applicant any ground for their refusal to give an opinion or advice.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have referred this Question to the Secretaries to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, who inform me that they will submit it to the Commissioners at their meeting on 24th instant. If the hon. Member will renew the Question after that date, I will furnish him with the Commissioners' answer.

  Assaults on Postal Officials in Ireland.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has taken steps to protect His Majesty's Post Office employees, in view of the assaults and robberies of mails which have recently taken place at Inchigeela, Ballinaglevagh, Ballinagree, and at other places.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities have issued the necessary instructions, to the local police in the
  1400
  matter. Protection will be afforded in all cases in which it may be necessary.

  Irish Boys and the Dublin Telegraph Messenger Service.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the incitement to Dublin parents to keep their children out of the Dublin telegraph messenger service on the grounds that it has for some years past worked as a means of forcing boys into the British Army; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have no information that parents have been interfered with in this matter. The supply of candidates for appointment in the Dublin telegraph messenger service largely exceeds the demand. No action in the matter appears to be called for.

  Disturbances at Athenry.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware, that, after a meeting held at Athenry on Sunday, the 7th instant, addressed by several Members of Parliament, a man named Ryan, a bailiff and gamekeeper on the Rooney property, was attacked by a mob returning from the meeting, and stabbed, so that his life has been endangered; whether any arrests have been made by the police; and whether he intends to take any special measures to restore order and protect life and property in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In this case four men have been arrested, and remanded on bail to petty sessions on 26th instant. It would be contrary to practice and undesirable to enter into details while the case is sub judice. An extra force is stationed in the district in order to provide for the preservation of the peace.

  Irish Education Bates.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the 6s. 7¼d. annually expended per head of the Irish population

  1401
  on public education is raised from Irish sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures quoted in the Question are taken from the Answer which I gave to the Question of the hon. Member for South Down on the 7th instant.† If the noble Lord will refer to that Answer he will find it specifically stated that all the expenditure there indicated is borne on the Votes of Parliament or the Consolidated Fund.

  Inspection of Farm of the Ormaithwaite Estate.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the farm on the Ormaithwaite estate, from which Thomas Walsh, Coolaclarig, North Kerry, was evicted, has been inspected; and, if so, with what result; and whether he can state why he has not been reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application from Thomas Walsh and have had the case inquired into. Tiny have informed the owner of the amount which they are prepared to advance Walsh for the purchase of his former holding, and their offer is at present under the owner's consideration.

  Sittings of the New Grand Committees.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Prime Minister on how many days each week he proposes that the Grand Committees should sit.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman): No change is proposed in the existing arrangement.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of officers of captain's rank and above who are now serving in sea-going fleets with brevet rank, that is to say, captains serving as commodores, rear-admirals as vice-admirals, and vice-admirals as admirals; and what was the corresponding figure for April, 1902.
†See (4) Debates, clxii., 939–40.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The numbers in the sea-going fleets at the present time are as follows: Two captains serving as commodores, one rear-admiral as vice-admiral, one vice-admiral as admiral. On the 1st November, 1902, two captains were serving as commodores.
MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1902 the Mediterranean Squadron consisted of fourteen battleships with a vice-admiral in command, where now it consists of six battleships with a vice-admiral given admiral's rank with admiral's pay, and a rear-admiral with vice-admiral's rank and pay?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I believe that is so.

Coastguard and Life Saving.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the further reduction or abolition of the coastguard stations is in contemplation; if so, will he say what steps will be taken to secure that the work of life-saving from wrecks will not be seriously hampered, in view of the fact that the coastguard stations afford a means of rapidly communicating tidings of a wreck to the lifeboat stations, one-third of the number of launches made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution's boats being made in response to communications from coastguard stations, and also in view of the fact that the coastguard rocket apparatus affords in many cases, as in that of the steamship "Jebba," the only means of saving life from wrecks whore deep water comes close up to cliffs.
Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No further reduction of coastguard stations is contemplated pending the consideration of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee which has just been received.

Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men have been discharged from Woolwich Arsenal since the 1st January, 1907.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Since the 1st January, 1907, the number of 382 men have been discharged from the Ordnance Factories, thirty-nine from the Inspection Department, Woolwich, and one from the Army Ordnance Department, Woolwich.

Territorial Forces Bill.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow the Territorial Forces Bill to be considered by one of the new Standing Committees.
MR. HALDANE: An intimation will be made on this subject in due course.

British Workmen's Report on German Labour Conditions.
MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that the six workmen lately returned from studying the conditions of the working classes in Germany have all reported that employers of labour in Germany are clamouring on all sides for skilled labour, he could see his way to applying to the German Government for a list of German employers willing to engage the workmen discharged or about to be discharged from Woolwich and other places.
MR. HALDANE: I fully appreciate the profound impression made on the mind of the hon. Member by the conclusion arrived at by six British workmen after a few weeks study of the economic and social conditions of the working classes of the entire German Empire. The Question is, however, one not of the depth of the hon. Member's impression, but of the reliability of the Report on which it rests. I, too, like the six British workmen have interested myself in the condition of the working classes in Germany. But my impressions are not identical with those of the deputation. I am, unfortunately, not in a state of mind to join in the enthusiasm of the hon. Member or in his joy over his discovery of his remedy for social difficulties.
MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Report is inaccurate or untrue?
MR. HALDANE: No, Sir. I never employ such abusive epithets. What I do say is that six British workmen going for a few weeks to survey the whole conditions of the German Empire are not possibly able to give information on which a reliable opinion could be based.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the six workmen went to Germany for the purpose of surveying the social and industrial conditions there?
MR. HALDANE: I have no doubt it was a very pious intention, but you could hardly expect them to arrive at a reliable conclusion in six weeks, any more than you could expect them in the same period to arrive at a conclusive verdict on the subject of preference.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: But did they go to Germany to take a survey of the industrial and labour conditions of the Empire?
MR. HALDANE: I do not know whether they did or not. I presume they did. I am quite sure my hon. friend has gone to other countries, as I have done, in order to obtain as much information as possible, but I doubt if he would claim to be able to present a Report on which a reliable opinion could be based as a result of such a visit.
MR. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five of the six who went out were known believers in free trade?
MR. HALDANE: I was not aware of that.

War Office Pensions.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, by the terms of his engagement, the ex-officer employed as a clerk in the War Office is eligible for a pension after ten years service, whereas the ex-soldier in similar employment can only obtain a gratuity after fifteen years service; what is the reason for this differential treatment; and whether he will consider the propriety of placing the latter on the same footing as the former with regard to pensions.
MR. HALDANE: When the employment of retired officers and ex-soldier clerks in the War Office was approved, the pay of the latter was deliberately fixed on a scale sufficiently liberal to exclude all claims to pension, while the pay of the former was based on the admission of a grant of pension. Under the conditions of the Superannuation Act the ex-soldier may be granted a gratuity on cessation of employment. The whole question was thoroughly reconsidered by a Committee two years ago, and it was decided that civil pensions should not be granted to ex-soldier clerks.
MR. LEAasked if it were not the fact that an officer employed on clerical duties got forty-eight days leave while a warrant officer similarly employed was only allowed fourteen or fifteen days?
MR. HALDANEreplied that he could not go into details, but he believed that the facts referred to in the Question were all taken into consideration in fixing the pension.

Volunteer Corps Liabilities.
SIR J. BRUNNEK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what would be the position of the officer commanding a Volunteer corps on the disbandment of the unit as regards current liabilities, if, as is laid down in Army Order 76 of 1896, the capitation grants are paid in advance; and what will be his position as regards current liabilities if the corps is transferred to the Territorial Forces.
MR. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the Question, provision is made in Paragraph 602, Volunteer Regulations, for the issue of a grant on the disbandment of a unit should the Army Council think fit. As regards the second part of the Question, it is the intention that a Volunteer unit shall be transferred to the Territorial Forces as a going concern, and consequently all reasonable liabilities will be recognised.

Officers' Commissions.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers were given commissions in the cavalry and infantry of the Regular Army during the years ending 31st December, 1898, 1899,
1406
1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, respectively.
I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers were given combatant commissions as lieutenants or second lieutenants in the cavalry and infantry of the Regular Army who had previously served in the ranks (exclusive of riding-masters, quartermasters, band-masters, or other positions carrying honorary rank with them) during the years ending 31st December, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, respectively.
MR. HALDANE: In reply to these Questions, if my hon. friend will kindly refer to the Return of Army Commissions granted during the years 1885 to 1906, which was recently presented to Parliament, he will find all the information he requires.
MR. LEA: Is it not the fact that in that Return there is no differentiation made between the commissions given to officers of the Coast Brigade Royal Artillery and to quarter-masters, bandmasters, and riding-masters, and therefore, so far as showing the number given for the ranks, the Return is practically useless?
MR. HALDANE: I do not think that is so, but if my hon. friend will put down another Question I will inquire.

Cost of the Army.
MR. GUY BARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cost of the men on the Regular peace establishment of the Army, exclusive of India, serving with the colours or in Section A and B of the Army Reserve, has been or will be reduced under the new scheme; and, if so, by what amounts in each arm, and how is the reduction accounted for.
MR. HALDANE: Eliminating the Special Contingent, the cost of Regular soldiers serving with the colours and in the Reserve is unaffected by the new scheme. If it should be ultimately decided to obtain a larger Reserve by a shorter colour service of a portion of the Horse and Field Artillery, this will reduce the coat of the Regulars of that

1407
arm on mobilisation from £74 17s. 4d. to £63 17s.6d.
Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Am I right in understanding that the Return recently issued does not include any reduction whatever on the cost of the men now serving?
MR. HALDANE: No, it does not include any reduction on the cost of the men now serving, but the Special Contingent are taken into account in estimating the cost.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Then the Special Contingent has not been included as a separate item?
MR. HALDANE: No, it is taken into account.

Army Financial Administration.
*MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state to the House the grounds upon which, in the Army Order of 1st February last, the chief accountant of a military command in the United Kingdom has been placed upon the staff of the general in charge of administration; whether, in compliance with the terms of that Order, the general in charge of administration now deals directly with the chief, accountant in matters of proposed military expenditure within his command; whether that Order in effect places the chief accountant under the control and orders of the general; and, if so, whether the personal liability of the chief accountant to make good every unauthorised expenditure in the command still subsists.
MR. HALDANE: The Army Order (No. 28 of February, 1907) alluded to by the hon. Member was, on the point referred to, altered in the text by a mere slip, and has been since corrected by the errata, at the end of the Army Orders for March which remove the chief accountant from the staff of the general in charge of administration.
*MR. BOWLES: May I ask whether the making of this tremendous change in February last and its withdrawal before the end of March is part of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman
1408
has described as that of "clear thinking"?
MR. HALDANE: The MSS. is somewhat ambiguous and might have been interpreted in the sense suggested, but there was no intention of making any change without full consideration.

Reserve of Officers.
LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the training of officers of the Reserve of Officers is suspended for the current year; and, if so, is any economy involved.
MR. HALDANE: The training of officers of the Reserve which for some years past has been non-existent will be formally suspended for the current year. As officers of the Reserve pay their own expenses when called out for training there is no question of economy involved.

Army Financiers in the Field.
SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the new Territorial and Reserve Forces scheme, full provision was made on the war establishment for a financial adviser and his staff to accompany at once an expeditionary force on taking the field; and, if so, will he issue a Return to Parliament giving all necessary details.
MR. HALDANE: Provision has been made in the war establishments, recently promulgated, for a financial adviser and his staff to accompany an expeditionary force.

Nairobi Prison.
MR. GUY BARING: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what sum is provided in the current Estimates for the new prison at Nairobi; and if the building will be completed during 1907–8.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): £5,000 is provided in the Estimates of the current year for the construction of a new prison at Nairobi. It will not be completed during the year.

Native Police in East Africa.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what complaints have been received from residents in the East African Protectorate with reference to the Native police force; and have such complaints been the subject of specific inquiry by the Colonial Office.
MR. CHURCHILL: As I informed the noble Lord in reply to his Question of Tuesday last, no specific complaints of misconduct by the police have reached the Secretary of State and accordingly no inquiry has been made. The Secretary of State has not, however, lost sight of the possibility of improving the force, and an Ordinance has recently been passed making better provision for its organisation and discipline.

Woolwich Artisans and Emigration.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a subordinate Department of the Colonial Office has been distributing leaflets about emigration amongst artisans recently dismissed from Government Departments at Woolwich.
MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but the Emigrants Information Office which is under the supervision of the Colonial Office distributes information to inquirers and its circulars have been supplied to the Woolwich Distress Committee and public libraries; from these sources they have probably passed into the hands of artisans.
In reply to a further Question by CAPTAIN CRAIG,
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could place at his disposal any information tending to lead him to believe the Answer was not in substance correct he would be glad to inquire into it.

West Indian Postal Arrangements.
MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the total sum paid by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for the conveyance of local correspondence between the various West Indian islands amounts to £22,250 a year; to what Vote is that sum charged; and
1410
whether the taxpayers of the West Indian islands make any contribution towards the cost of conveying local correspondence between different parts of the United Kingdom.
MR. CHURCHILL: The amount mentioned by the hon. Member, which is made up as stated in the Answer I gave him to his Question of the 17th instant† and which is charged to the Colonial Office Vote, is paid for the conveyance within the West Indies, not of local correspondence only, but also of correspondence sent between the Colonies served and the United Kingdom, Canada, and other places. The subsidy to the Canadian contract is not for postal purposes only or mainly.

New Hebrides.
MR. BARRIE: On behalf of the junior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who will represent the interests of Australia and New Zealand at the Joint Commission with France which will consider the details arising out of the New Hebrides Convention.
MR. CHURCHILL: It is hoped that Australia and. New Zealand will be represented by a gentleman nominated by the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand, with whom I have been in communication on the subject.

Europeans in the Chinese Customs Service
MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether four European members of the Chinese Customs service have recently been replaced by Chinese; and, if so, whether these appointments were made with the concurrence of Sir Robert Hart, and fall within the purview of the arrangement to which it is understood the British Government last year consented.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASUEY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): The hon. Member is probably referring to the recent appointment of four Chinese
†See (4) Debates, clxxii., 955–6.

1411
clerks to the rank of assistant in the Customs service. Three of these are in the Shui-wu Chu, or Revenue Council, at Peking, and the fourth remains at Tsingtan in the German leased territory, where he has been for some time. None of these officials have replaced Europeans, and in any case there is no reason to suppose that the position of Sir Robert Hart with regard to appointments in the Customs is altered.

Assault on British Subjects in China.
MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the assault committed at Wuchan upon the representative of Messrs. Jardine and Matheson; and whether he can give the House any information as to the conduct of the Chinese officials on the occasion.
MR. RUNCIMAN: No information on the subject has reached my right hon. friend, but inquiry will be made of His Majesty's Minister in China.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will inquiry be made by cable as this is not the first assault on British subjects in China?
MR. RUNCIMAN: I will convey the hon. Member's wish to my right hon. friend.

New Hebrides Convention.
MR. BARRIE: On behalf of the junior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is probable that the Anglo-French Commission, to consider the New Hebrides Convention, will meet.
MR. RUNCIMAN: As my right hon. friend has already stated, the date has not yet been fixed, but the meeting of the Committee will not be long delayed. This Committee, however, is one for the purpose of settling the points described in Subsection 4 of Article 10 of the Convention.

The Carnegie Celebrations at Pittsburgh
CAPTAIN CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to explain Why the British Empire was not officially represented at the celebrations connected
1412
with the opening of the Carnegie Institute, at Pittsburg, whereas other Powers, notably Germany, sent influential delegations and high Government officials to attend the ceremony.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Invitations were issued to the heads of foreign missions only, but had no official character. His Majesty's Ambassador had only just returned from an official visit to Canada, and had important business to transact in Washington, which made it impossible for him to absent himself again so soon, especially as during the following week he was due to attend the National Arbitration and Peace Congress Conference at New York, and a Conference at Philadelphia. Neither the German, Austro-Hungarian, French, nor Russian Embassies were represented at Pittsburg. It is understood that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were represented at the celebrations at Pittsburg, and on such an occasion the presence of members of the greatest educational institutions of the country would appear to be the form of representation most suitable and convenient.
MR. LEAasked if any communication or protest had been received by the British Ambassador on the subject.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any.
MR. FLAVIN: Was there any Ambassador present from East Down?

British Representatives at the Hague Conference.
MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can he now inform the House who will be the delegates representing Great Britain at the Hague Conference.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The British Plenipotentiaries to the Conference will be:—The right hon. Sir Edward Fry; the right hon. Sir Ernest Satow; the right hon. Lord Reay, late President of the Institute of International Law; Sir Henry Howard, His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague. In addition naval and military expert delegates will be appointed, whose names will be announced in due course.

Teddington Bate Collector.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although the general district rate and poor rate for the parish of Teddington, Middlesex, are claimed in the same demand note and by the same collector, it is the practice when such rates are not paid to issue two separate summonses, with 3s. costs on each summons; and will he state why in such cases the entire amount due is not claimed under one summons.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): On making inquiry in the matter I am informed that the Teddington justices now include both rates in one summons and have done so for some weeks past.

Taximeter Cab Fares.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the minimum fare for the hiring of hackney carriages in London is fixed by law; whether, having regard to the provisions of 30 and 31 Vic, c. 134, s. 26, and 32 and 33 Vic, c. 115, s. 9 (3), the recent order issued by the Home Office fixing fares for the hiring of hackney carriages furnished with taximeters at a sum less than the statutory minimum is within such provisions; and, if not, will the regulation to these fares be withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONE: The only fares fixed by my recent Order for taximeter cabs are the fares set out in Schedule K for motor-cabs fitted with taximeters, to which—so I am advised by the Attorney-General—the provisions as to fares in Hackney Carriage Acts before 1869 do not apply. Horsed taximeter cabs are dealt with by Regulation 32, which merely lays down that the fares shall not exceed the fares payable by hirers of ordinary cabs. Any lower scale indicated by the taximeter as payable by the hirer would be a contract scale as recognised by Section 45 of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1831.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether the minimum fare fixed by law was one shilling; whether motor-cabs, whether with or without taximeters, were hackney
1414
carriages; and how could the right hon. Gentleman within the provisions of the law fix a less fare than one shilling?
MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that the Attorney-General had advised that this could be done, there being a distinction between a carriage driven by power and a carriage drawn by horses.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether he was to understand that a motor-car, with or without taximeter, was not a hackney carriage, although it plied for hire.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I am advised as I have stated.

Alexandra Park Races.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the public nuisance caused to the neigh-boorhood by the races which take place from time to time at Alexandra Park; whether he is aware that the residents of Wood Green, Hornsey, and Harringay are continually protesting against it, on account of the number of scoundrels who attend these races from all parts of London; whether he is aware that, on the days that these races take place, police protection is totally inadequate in the neighbourhoods above mentioned and to the ordinary travelling public on the Great Northern Railway between King's Cross and Wood Green stations; and what steps does he propose taking to cause a cessation of the nuisance, or to provide increased police protection to the general public.
MR. GLADSTONE: No representations have been made to me to the effect of the first part of the Question. This racecourse is licensed annually by the county council, and persons who object to the crowds attending the races have an opportunity every year of opposing the grant of a licence. On the days when races take place special measures are taken by the police for preserving order on the roads and public places in the neighbourhood; but their action does not extend to the promises of the railway company, as these are the property of the company.
MR. LEAasked Whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiries to be made as to the facts dealt with in the Question.
MR. GLADSTONEassumed that, if a nuisance was created, representations would be made to him by those concerned, such as they were entitled to make if there was any deficiency of police protection. The main question was primarily one for the Middlesex County Council.
MR. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the. right, hon. Gentleman whether any case has been brought to his notice of any outrage against either person or property on the part of any person attending Alexandra Park races for many years past?
MR. GLADSTONE: As far as I am aware no representations of the kind have been made to my Department.

Cost of Scottish Post Office Services.
MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what was the cost of the Post Office services in Scotland for the Exchequer years 1894–5, 1899–1900, and 1904–5; and what Was the revenue from these services during the same years.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The figures desired are as follows:—

Year.

Expenditure.

Revenue.

£.

£.

1894–5

1,020,000

1,314,00

1899–1900

1,345,000

1,622,000

1904–5

1,479,000

1,912,000

Telegraphists' Duties.
MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in certain districts the duties of the telegraph staff are very irregular and consequently arduous; and if he will cause inquiry to be made with the view of ameliorating the conditions of service.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As my hon. friend is aware, the conditions of service of the telegraph staff and other postal servants are under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House. The
1416
Committee has hot yet reported, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any specific cases of which he has knowledge, in which he believes the duties of the telegraphists are unduly severe, I will have inquiry made respecting them.

Free Education.
MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether large grants of public money are now being made to schools attended almost exclusively by the children of well-to-do parents; and, if so, whether it is the policy of the present Government to relieve well-to-do persons of their parental duties at the expense of the taxpayer.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The principle to which, if I understand aright, the hon. Member's Question refers in regard to the kind of secondary schools in respect of which Exchequer Grants can properly be paid, is one to which I have been giving special attention during the short time that I have been responsible for the Board of Education, and I am now considering certain changes in the forthcoming regulations for secondary schools which have a bearing upon it. I do not think the matter is one which can be satisfactorily dealt with within the limits proper to an Answer to a Question.

School Age Regulations.
MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of county councils to the fact that they have power to pass a by-law exempting children under seven years of age from being compelled to attend school if the school nearest to their home is more than one mile.
MR. MCKENNA: My experience of county councils is fortunate enough to lead me to suppose that they do not require to be reminded of their powers, and I do not think there is any occasion to issue a circular such as the hon. Member suggests.

Irish Provident Assurance Company.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the

1417
Board of Trade whether he has yet completed his inquiries as to the solvency of the Irish Provident Assurance Company; whether, during the past two years, a number of policy holders ceased paying their premiums owing to fears of the insolvency of the company, and these premiums are now withheld without any compensation whatever being given to the policy holders; and whether he will have this whole matter inquired into, and some reparation made to the people who have been thus defrauded of their money.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. friend on the 2lst March last year to the hon. Member for Mid Tipperary† Since then no information has reached the Board of Trade that the Irish Provident Assurance Company are themselves carrying on life assurance business. Consequently the Board of Trade have no special powers with regard to the company. The only power vested in the Board of Trade for companies registered under the Companies Acts is that under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act of 1862 of appointing an inspector upon the application of members holding not less than one-fifth part of the whole of the shares of the company for the time being issued.

Public Companies and Political Funds.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing the difficulty of getting evidence on the subject, if he will issue a circular to all public companies within and contiguous to the area of the administrative county of London carrying on their trade or business in virtue of powers conferred by various Acts of Parliament, public or private, asking them to make a Return showing what sums of money they have given during the last three years to societies, political or otherwise, the names of the recipients in each case, and the dates on which the donations were given.
MR. KEARLEY: I do not think that the Board of Trade could with advantage take the course suggested, but the whole
†See (4) Debates, cliv.,349.
1418
question referred to is receiving very earnest consideration.

Coal Statistics.
MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total quantity of coal produced in the United Kingdom in the year 1906; and what percentage the amount exported bore to the total produced.
MR. KEARLEY: The quantity of coal produced in the United Kingdom in 1906 was about 251,000,000 tons. The exports, including bunker coal and also the coal equivalent of the exports of coke and patent fuel amounted to 76,750,000 tons or about 30·6 per cent. of the production. If bunker coal be excluded the proportion would be reduced to about 23·2 per cent.

Customs Duties.
MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the approximate amount of Customs duties levied in 1906 (or 1905), and the estimated average rate of duty upon dutiable imports, in respect to goods coming from Natal, Ceylon, British West Indies, and British Guiana.
MR. KEARLEY: I regret that I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me to the hon. Member for the Govan Division on the 28th February† No record is kept at the Customs of the country of origin of dutiable goods which are cleared for consumption.

British Museum Reading Boom.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether the gold-leaf used fifty years ago for the redecoration of the British Museum reading room was guaranteed as British made; and whether he can give an assurance that the firm who have the contract to redecorate the Museum will use only British made gold-leaf for regilding purposes in connection therewith.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): It is believed that the
†See (4) Debates, clxx, 253.

1419
gold-leaf used in 1857 was of British manufacture: there is no record of any guarantee. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative: it has been specified that British made gold-leaf only is to be used.
MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the fact that the decoration of the reading room in the British Museum has been placed in the hands of Messrs. Waring and Gillow; if it is proposed that they shall use twenty-five tons of white lead in the process; if he is aware that in France the use of white lead is prohibited in Government contracts; and if he will consider the desirability of taking some steps in the present instance, and of prohibiting the use of white lead in the interior of Government buildings in future contracts.
MR. HARCOURT: The contract has been placed with the firm named. No white lead will be used, as the paint has been specified to have a zinc oxide base. This specification is adopted in all contracts for Government buildings.

Women Typists.
MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the petition recently presented to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury by women typists in the Government service asking for an increased maximum salary; and whether, in view of the present low maximum and the entire absence of promotion in this class, he will say if a favourable reply may be expected at an early date.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The memorial has been received and is still under consideration.
MR. THORNTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when an answer may be expected?
MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot at present.

Norwegian Trawlers and Scottish Fishermen.
MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary
1420
of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the damage done to fishermen's nets off Wick by the Norwegian trawler "Campania," and whether, in view of the fact that the owners of the said vessel have declined to pay any compensation, he will bring the matter before the Norwegian representative in this country.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The matter referred to by my hon. friend has been brought to my notice. Where damage has been done to fishermen's nets by foreign fishing vessels the form of procedure is for the aggrieved fishermen to submit their statement combined with an undertaking to go, if required, as witnesses to the country to which the accused boat belongs This, I am informed, they are unwilling to do in this case.

Beauly and Ness Fisheries.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state the names of the landlords who claim fishery rights to the estuary of the Ness and Beauly rivers; and to what extent those rights extend seawards from the mouth of the Beauly and Ness rivers, respectively.
MR. SINCLAIR: I am making local inquiries into the matter referred to by my hon. friend and regret that they are not yet sufficiently complete to enable me to give an Answer. Perhaps he will kindly repeat the Question.

Paisley Licensing Case.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the remarks made by Sheriff Darling Lyell in regard to the case at Paisley, where two of the local magistrates, one a joiner named M'Naughton and the other a plumber named Kilpatrick, reported on structural alterations necessary at a licensed house, and where the joiner who undertook the reconstruction of the premises was the very Mr. M'Naughton who, in his capacity as magistrate, had ordered the work to be done to his own satisfaction and that of his brother magistrates; and where not only was this so, but the plumber who contracted to do the plumbing work to the orders of Mr. M'Naughton was the brother magistrate who also inspected,

1421
reported, and concurred in requiring this work to be done; and, having in view the foregoing facts, will he indicate what action he proposes to take in order to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.
MR. SINCLAIR: As legal questions are involved I have submitted the Papers in this case to the law officers for their opinion.

Scottish Deer Forests.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Coates, the proprietor of the Glenbana estate, Aboyne, in turning tenants out of paying farms in order to extend the area of deer forests, and of Mr. Heaven, a neighbouring landlord, who is extending the area of grass on his estate and destroying houses, in order to preserve game and give opportunity for rabbit shooting; and whether the Government propose to take such action as will immediately prevent rural depopulation by such policies as those pursued by Mr. Coates and Mr. Heaven.
MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information as to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the intention of the Government on matters relating to rural depopulation I may refer him to the Small Landholders Bill now before the House.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to get any information as to what is going on in this district?
[No Answer was returned.]

Footpath Rights in Aberdeenshire.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the parish council of Birss, Aberdeenshire, to vindicate the public right to use a footpath which has been used for over fifty years; and whether, in view of the difficulties experienced in working the existing law and of the rapid disappearance of these public rights, he can see his way to introduce remedial legislation.
MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information on the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and I can only repeat that the desire to preserve to the public all existing rights of way has the hearty sympathy of His Majesty's Government. I cannot give any undertaking now as to future legislation.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that litigation has arisen, and that the failure of the parish councils to put the law into operation is causing a great deal of scandal?
MR. SINCLAIR: I will give close attention to the matter.

Grassmarket, Edinburgh.
MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Edinburgh Town Council has resolved to hold the market for sheep, and possibly also for cattle, in the street of the Grassmarket; and if he will consult the Local Government Board for Scotland as to whether this use of a public thoroughfare lined by dwelling houses and shops is in accordance with the sanitary regulations of the Board.
MR. SINCLAIR: I have consulted the Local Government Board for Scotland who have no information on the point referred to by my hon. friend. It is not in the power of the Board to interfere unless a nuisance within the meaning of the Public Health Act should arise hereafter in consequence of the action of the Town Council.

Scottish Education Acts.
MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill, he will introduce a Bill consolidating all the statutes with regard to education in Scotland, and so satisfy the demand of those administering these statutes.
MR. SINCLAIR: While there would be advantages in passing such a consolidating measure, its preparation may more profitably be undertaken when the present legislative proposals of the Government as to education in Scotland have been given effect to. In any case it is quite impossible for the Government

1423
to undertake further legislation on the subject this session.

Port William Church Dispute.
MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why the Churches (Scotland) Act Commission, notwithstanding the terms of their memorandum of 19th October, 1906, that it is only in very extraordinary circumstances that the Commissioners could hold that the Church which is entitled to the property by statistics should not possess the buildings, has allocated to the Free Church the church at Port William, although the Free Church there has no minister, no office bearers, and no Sunday services; whether there was any local investigation at Port William; and whether he can, hold put any hope that the Commission will reconsider this case and allocate the church to the United Free Church, which is entitled to it by statistics.
MR. SINCLAIR: This is a very peculiar case, as those who are acquainted with the circumstances are aware; and after very careful consideration the Commission have come to the decision which has been announced. I have no option but to regard it as final; as this is a matter which the Act leaves entirely to the discretion of the Commission.
MR. GULLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1906 the Free Church congregation presented a memorial to the Commissioners informing them of their intention of joining the United Free Church, and asking to have the property allocated? Why was not that carried out?
MR. SINCLAIR: I can only say that the whole of the facts were before the Royal Commission when they came to their decision.

Dangerous Lunatics.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether a dangerous patient in a district lunatic asylum may be discharged and handed over to relatives relieved, but not cured; and, in that case, whether the lunacy authorities have no further charge or responsibility.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): A patient who, when admitted, was dangerous, may on the sheriff being satisfied and on medical certificates, be discharged when this can be done without risk of injury to the public or the patient. As to the latter part of the Question, it does not appear to me that there is any such charge or responsibility if the procedure is correctly followed.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will, consider, the advisability of taking the necessary steps to ensure that all cases of dangerous lunatics who have committed assault resulting in lose of life should be dealt with in a criminal lunatic asylum, instead of relegating them to a district asylum.
I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, seeing that the presence of criminal lunatics who have committed murder is detrimental to the general freedom from severe discipline in district asylums, the beneficial effect of what is termed the open-door system being acknowledged, he will take the necessary steps to keep the district asylums as far as possible free from criminal lunatics who have committed murder or attempted murder.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I may be allowed to answer these two Questions together. The sending of these cases to a district asylum is no doubt warranted if the procedure under the 15th Section of the Lunacy Act of 1862 is adopted. I may say, however, that the other course, which is also correct in law, appears to me to be more advisable in practice, viz., that when crime has been committed by a lunatic the criminal authorities should deal with it in accordance with their regular powers under Sections 87 and 88 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857. There may no doubt be exceptional cases, but my desire is that the practice which I think to be preferable should be adopted.

Irish Board of Works—Promotion of Clerks.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if seniority in the service and not in the department was held by

1425
the Board of Works to justify recent promotion, especially that of Mr. Sidwell in the Accountant's Branch of their office; if so, can he say why this principle was not applied by them in the case of a promotion in the Buildings Division of the Secretary's Branch made in the beginning of 1905, when a Second Division clerk of six years' service was promoted to a staff post, passing over a Second Division clerk in the same division of over twelve years' service; and whether the Board were aware when making this promotion that the promoted clerk was a Scottish Presbyterian while the clerk who was passed, over was an Irish Catholic.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The promotions in both cases were made on grounds of merit and not of seniority as, in the case of Mr. Sidwell, I have already stated. I regret that the hon. Member should have thought fit, in view of my previous Answers, to put the last part of the Question.

Irish Land Act Finance.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the stoppages which have been made out of certain grants payable to county councils in Ireland to meet alleged financial deficiencies in the working of the Irish Land Act of 1903; can he state how these deficiencies have arisen; if he is aware that, if the Treasury persist in their present action, it will have the effect of dislocating local government all over Ireland, and also have a most injurious effect on the progress of land purchase in Ireland; and will he publish the rules under which the Treasury have acted, in this matter.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Under Section 29 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Guarantee Fund is liable to make good any deficiency on the Income Account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund. So far as these deficiencies are caused by the issue of Guaranteed Stock at a discount, the Ireland Development Grant, as one of the constituent parts of the Guarantee Fund, is the first to be charged under Section 38; so that no charge for deficiencies arising from that cause can fall on the Local Taxation Grants so long as the Ireland
1426
Development Grant is able to meet them. But there are other deficiencies on the income account with which the Local Taxation Grants, as constituents of the Guarantee Fund, are directly chargeable, and I fear there is no possibility of avoiding the occurrence of such deficiencies when advances at 2¾ per cent, interest are provided for by the public, issue of stock bearing the same rate of interest, and no margin is allowed between the rate of interest payable and the rate of interest receivable to cover incidental losses. These losses arise from, the, following capses:—(1) Arrears of payment of the purchase annuities. (2) The system of issuing stock entitled to a half year's dividend on the first following dividend day, although the subscriber to, the stock are allowed to pay up their subscription by instalments which may extend up to, or even beyond, that dividend day. It is clear that, when the National Debt Commissioners have to pay a half-year's dividend on a certain day, and have not had the use of the money for a full six months before that day, a deficiency must result. (3) The gale day on which the purchase annuities are payable is in each case one month earlier than the dividend day. This interval is necessary to enable the annuities to be collected and paid over to the National Debt Commissioners before the dividend day. But the result is that the payment received from a tenant on his first gale day includes interest for one month less than the period in respect of which dividend is payable on the stock. (4) The capital of the Land Purchase Fund, so far as riot required for advances, is temporarily invested by the National Debt Commissioners in securities. The interest on these securities is received on varying dates, and at the date When the balance of the income account must be struck there is always a temporary deficiency, due to the fact that a certain amount of interest which has accrued has not yet been received into the account. (5) On large transactions such as those of the Land Purchase Fund it is impossible to have the whole of the capital moneys invested and earning interest on every day of the year. There must always, therefore, be a loss of income from unproductive balances. A careful analysis of the charge of£70,996 which has been made upon the Local Taxation Grunts shows it to be attributable to these five causes in

1427
the following proportions:—(1) Arrears of annuities, £9,119; (2) Unearned dividend on issues of stock, £23,750; (3) Advance dividend, £13,650; (4) Interest due but not received, £15,500; (5) Unproductive balances, £8,977; total, £70,996. The arrears of purchase annuities are for the most part temporary. I understand that, since the account was made up on 31st January last, a sum of £4,046 has been recovered on account of the £9,119 then in arrear. The chief item of charge is the unearned dividend of £23,750 arising out of the mode of issue of the stock which is required by custom and the convenience of the City. It is open to question whether this charge could not properly be treated as a capital charge to be paid for by annuity out of the Development Grant. But an amendment of the Act would be necessary to enable this to be done, as the Act at present requires (Section 29 (1)) that the dividends on the stock shall be paid out of the income of the fund. The advance dividend charge will not be made good until the purchase annuities are completed, many years hence. A further charge of the same kind must arise on every issue of the stock. The deficiency of income which arises from unproductive balances is an inevitable and a permanent loss. The only charges which are of a temporary nature are those relating to arrears and to interest accrued but not received. After analysing and reviewing all the charges, I have come to the conclusion that it should be possible to avoid charging the Local Taxation Grants in full for those items by making use of the working balance which was rendered available by the Labourers Act of last Session, and I propose to have the Treasury Rules amended to enable this to be done. I may add that the Treasury Rules were published in House of Commons Paper No. 151 of 1905.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Answer which the hon. Gentleman has given is of so long and complicated a character that it will be necessary for us to see it in print before we can thoroughly grasp its significance. But may I ask him if I am right in what I gather as to the meaning, so far as I have been able to gather it, that the charge put down against these counties is not a genuine charge; that is to say, nothing of the nature of a real or permanent
1428
charge, but more or less in the nature of a book-keeping charge, and will be wiped out in the ordinary course? Then I gather further that—the hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right—the real permanent charge is this charge in connection with the unearned dividend of £23,000. If I am right in that, I wish to ask him this Question—Is it a fact that the Treasury have issued regulations to the effect that when land stock is issued to any person in, say, March or April, on the 21st June six months interest is to be paid to the owner of that stock, although not earned; and if so, whether that is not in violation of the 28th section of the Land Act, which specifically provides that interest on land stock is only to be paid at the rate of 2¾ per cent., and if that is so, are not the owners of this stock receiving for these two or three months more than interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent.? A further question—Out of the Development Grant £50,000 for four years was to be set aside to meet the charges on the working of the Land Act. What has become of the £200,000? Is it earning interest, and if so, why is not the interest devoted to meeting these charges? I will put further questions when I have opportunity.
MR. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the last supplementary Question, I should like the hon. Gentleman to defer it. With regard to the first, as to the arrears of annuities, I cannot say how far they will be temporary or permanent. I have already said that about half of the arrears outstanding when the accounts were made out have since been paid. With regard to the second Question, as to the dividends paid for the short period, I quite admit that on the face of it the view which has been put forward by the hon. Member appears to have a good deal of reason behind it. He will be aware that we cannot always arrange for the issue of stock on the 31st December or 30th June. That is obvious, and in the flotation of a large loan like the last—£7,000,000—it is impossible to have the whole sum paid up upon one fixed date; so we are advised by those who want to place the stock to the best advantage. The third point has been already considered by the legal advisers of the Government, and I am afraid that they have decided against him.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I ask, does the new rule, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, have a retrospective effect, so as to apply to the sums now charged to the various counties in Ireland?
MR. RUNCIMAN: So far as the amount of interest is concerned, I am afraid that the new rule will not apply. The rules referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, were rules drawn by the Treasury.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the sum of £50,000 per annum out of the Irish Development Grant has been duly carried to the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund for the last four years, in accordance with Section 38 of the Irish Land Act of 1903; if so, is the sum of £200,000 still available for the payment of dividends on Irish land stock in accordance with Section 29 of the said Act; is the whole or any part of the said sum of £200,000 still unexpended; if so, is interest accruing thereupon, and what is the amount of such interest, if any; is there from time to time a balance of funds arising from the sale of land stock on hand awaiting distribution amongst vendors of Irish lands; if so, is the same lying at interest at any bank or elsewhere, and what is the amount of such interest, if any; and is such interest as the above available for payment of the aforesaid dividends.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The sum of £200,000 has been paid from the Ireland Development Grant to the Income Account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, and has to the extent of £02,000 been used in meeting deficiencies of income, there being originally no power to use it otherwise. Section 15 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, however, directs that as from the 31st March, 1906, the unexpended portion of the £200,000 shall be used as a working balance, and shall not be reckoned as part of the Income Account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund in determining whether that income is insufficient under Section 29 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The working balance so obtained amounts to £98,000, and forms part of the general fund which is invested as closely as possible. All funds arising from issues of guaranteed
1430
2¾ per cent, stock, so far as they are not required for the purpose of immediate advances, are invested in securities of a temporary nature. The income derived from such investments is applied towards payment of the dividends on the stock.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what is done with the money raised for the purposes of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903, during the interval between the issue of the stock and the payment of the money over to the landlords; whether the money is invested in any way; if so, what amount of interest is paid upon it; is it lodged in bank; if so, in what banks in England or Ireland, and do these banks pay any interest on the amount in hand; what is the amount already received under the various issues; how much of it is unallotted; how is it in vested; and what interest is received upon it.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The money raised for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903, is carried to the credit of the Irish Land Purchase Fund under Section 28 (4). This fund is under the control of the National Debt Commissioners, who invest the cash placed to its credit, so far as not required for immediate advances, in securities of a temporary nature. The uninvested portion of the fund is lodged at the Bank of England, but no interest is allowed. The total amount of cash received in respect of issues of stock is £18,823,839, of which £18,371,826 has been advanced under the Act, and the balance of £452,013 is invested in £160,000 Treasury bills at an average rate of interest of 3¼ per cent., and£290,000 Exchequer Bonds at 3 per cent.
MR. HAYDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount of this money at one period was lying in the bank bearing no interest, and whether during any portion of that time any of the money was lying at the Bank of Ireland bearing no interest?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say, in view of the serious state of affairs which has arisen in connection with the finance of the Land Act, which seems to be completely broken down, that he can hold

1431
out any hope of the revision of the whole matter?
MR. RUNCIMAN: It is not for me to make any announcement on the subject. With regard to the balances lying at the Bank of England, I cannot give the figures without notice.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from time to time enormous sums have been lying in these banks without bearing interest?
MR. RUNCIMAN: The Bank of England is the only bank used, and it is not usual for them to pay interest on balances lying there.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: This subject is of enormous importance, and I must put a Question to the Prime Minister. Apparently the whole finance of the Act of 1903 has broken down. Will he take this Minute into consideration, and see whether it is possible to have an early opportunity for discussing it, as both he and the House will see how impossible and inconvenient it is for us to attempt to discuss it by Question and Answer?
CAPTAIN CRAIG: Arising out of the first part of the Answer referring to the £450,000, may I ask whether it is not a fact that several millions of land is so far forward in the matter of sale that there is no necessity for a balance of this kind?
MR. LONSDALE: May I ask when it is proposed to make a further issue of land stock, and what will be the amount?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): We entirely recognise the great importance of this Minute, and if any special negotiation is required to secure a special opportunity of discussing it, we will be ready to enter into that negotiation, but I should think one of the Votes of the Estimates would afford an opportunity.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will try and arrange that one of the first days possible should be allotted to Irish Estimates, so that we may raise the question soon.
MR. MORTON: Is it not a fact that interest can be got from the Bank of England, on balances?
[No Answer was returned.]

Irish Post Office and Guaranteed Land Stock Transactions.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any regulations have been made to enable persons desirous of taking advantage of Section 2 of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, to do so by purchase and transfer of Guaranteed Land Stock through the Post Office; if not, will he give the matter his early attention, and will he see that the regulations are duly published at post offices, such as Boyle and Castlerea, county Roscommon, and others, where there are many persons who could usefully avail themselves of the advantages of Section 2.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No regulations have been made by the Treasury under the Section mentioned by the hon. Member, but I understand that they are communicating with the various Departments concerned in order to ascertain whether, having regard to the manner in which the stock is held and to the fact that it is not freely purchasable any regulations for transfer could be usefully made.

The Committee of Defence.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what was the actual expenditure incurred in connection with the visit to the Mediterranean stations by the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for War, in conjunction with the Admiralty, for that purpose; and upon what Estimates presented to Parliament has such expenditure been charged.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the journey of this Committee was not confined to the Mediterranean it would be difficult to ascertain the exact proportion of the cost incurred in connection with their visit to the Mediterranean. The expenditure for the whole inquiry amounted to £907 9s. 11d. Of this sum the payments for services of members of the Committee were charged

1433
to Army Vote 12, Item H; the Admiralty's messing bill to Vote 6 F.3, and the travelling expenses to Vote 6 E.2. No additional expenditure for coal or stores was involved.

Scottish Supply.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to allow at least two full sittings for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Owing to the time which will have to be given to the Scottish Land Bill, I doubt if it will be possible to give two days to the Estimates.

Trawling in the Moray Firth.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the illegal trawling going on in the Moray Firth which has led to the prosecution and punishment of British fishermen; whether the boats thus engaged are British-owned boats that have been placed under a foreign flag solely for the purpose of being better able to prosecute trawling that has been held in the British courts to be illegal, and that the owners of these trawlers are engaging crews to break the law by serying on these trawlers, and in the knowledge that these men are liable to fine and imprisonment in consequence of fulfilling their labour contracts; and whether, in view of these things, he proposes to introduce legislation which will enable the courts to punish the Hull and Grimsby capitalists who are the real offenders, and who pocket the profits derived from the illegal employment of these crews, and also to forfeit those British-owned trawlers which have been placed under a foreign flag in order that they may, be protected whilst breaking the British law.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My attention has been called to the matter referred to by my hon. friend. The facts as stated may be taken as generally correct. I am, however, unable to undertake to introduce legislation on the lines proposed in the Question.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that the boats mentioned in the Question are
1434
properly registered in Norway, and are entirely amenable to the Norwegian law?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware, but my impression is that the facts are as stated in the Question.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have full inquiry made as to whether there is any truth at all in the suggestions contained in this Question?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that any inquiry is necessary. I imagine that the facts are not disputed.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of English men being allowed the same privileges as foreigners?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am in favour of all Englishmen who break the laws of their country—which in this case is Scotland (laughter)—or rather a Scottish law being held liable for it, and I should be glad to see those who provoke them to do it also made liable.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to make the law applicable to foreigners as well?
[No Answer1 was returned.]

Colonial Conference.
MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, except in matters of defence, the Press may be furnished every day with a report of the proceedings and debates of the present Conference, in order that the people of the Empire may know what is going on from day to day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is entirely for the Conference itself to decide how far it will give publicity to its proceedings; and the existing arrangement of issuing oh each day of meeting a brief statement of what has passed was settled by it at the outset. The question as to complete publication of proceedings will be considered later.
MR. HUNT: May I ask if the Colonial Premiers abject to the debates on

1435
Preferential Imperial Trade being reported fully, and, if not, what did Lord Elgin mean by saying—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given of that Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that the remaining portion of the debate on the Army Bill would finish by Tuesday night, that the Government would proceed with the Budget resolutions on Wednesday, and he supposed they would take Supply on Thursday. He would be glad to know what Supply it was proposed to take.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Navy Estimates would be taken first; then, if occasion admitted, the Board of Agriculture.

A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that a few days ago he was allowed as a matter of personal explanation to call attention to a speech delivered in his constitutency by the hon. and junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil.† In view of what happened on that occasion and what had since happened it was, he thought, proper that he should read a communication which he received on Saturday from the hon. and junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil. It was as follows:—
"Dear Edwards,
"Now that the Wrexham incident stands out in its true perspective, I feel that, I have neither been just to you nor to myself in my handling of it. When your letter cams charging me with abusing my position in having gone into your constituency and wilfully lied about yon—lor that is how I read it—my first impulse was to toss the thing into the fire and take no notice. You see, I was thinking of myself and my innocence of the charge, and did not at the moment realise your point of view. What I had in my mind at Wrexham when your name was mentioned, and what I still continue to believe I said, was that your expenses were paid by your Party. Be this, however, as it may, my object in now writing is to express my regret that any words of mine should have given you offence; and to apologise for any looseness of speech which may have been capable of being interpreted to mean that you in any way accepted money for services
†See (4) Debate, clxxii., 385–390.
1436
rendered to your Party. This is hurriedly written under difficulties, and you are at full liberty to use it in any way you think fit.
"Yours faithfully,
"J. KEIR HAKDIE."
He quite frankly accepted this withdrawal, and so far as he was concerned, the incident was now at an end.

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 123.]
Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 123.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That, they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures: Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Timothy Davies, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Munro- Ferguson, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Haddock, Mr. Harrison-Broadley, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Idris, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Bonar Law, Colonel Long, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Lupton, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Murray, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Partington, Dr. Pollard, Major Renton, Mr. Thomas Richards, Sir George Robertson, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Rogers, Sir Robert Ropner, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Soames, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Talbot, Mr.Austin Taylor, Mr.Theodore

1437
Taylor, Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr. Verney, Mr. Walrond, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. George White, Mr. Osmond Williams, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Young.
Report to lie upon the Table.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

INCOME TAX.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was agreed on Thursday last when we closed the debate that we should have an opportunity to-day on this the first of the Resolutions proposed at this sitting to continue the general examination of the Budget proposals with the advantage of the reflection allowed in the interval. I confess that the results of that reflection are not altogether comforting. I said, as a first impression after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very interesting speech, that it seemed to me that this Budget was in some respects a disquieting Budget. Further reflection only confirms me in that view; I think it is not merely a disquieting Budget, it is an ominous Budget. What is the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's financial statement has disclosed? He congratulates the House and the country upon a year of exceptional trade prosperity, and it follows upon a year of the same character. Yet we find there is not that expansion in the yield of our taxes which everyone would have wished to find, and which, I think, most people would have expected to find, given the premisses described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, with a very considerable surplus in his hands this year, and an anticipation —I think a justifiable anticipation—of a considerably larger surplus next year, is unable to give any remission of taxation in the current year. Further, having regard
1438
to the state of the finances, the limits he himself has placed on his activity as Finance Minister, and the demands which are made as to social reform, he cannot hold out any hope of a reduction of taxation next year. Am I not right in saying that is an ominous statement? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot deal with the surplus in such a way as to involve any permanent diminution of revenue on a considerable scale. Accordingly now, for the first time, in piping times of peace, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces that he looks forward to a permanent income tax of 1s. in the pound.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH,): I never said anything of the kind. I said we must regard the income-tax, in my opinion, as a permanent part of our fiscal machinery.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am referring to one portion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech and he is answering me out of another portion, and I think he may find it hard to reconcile the two. In justifying his income-tax proposals the right hon. Gentleman said we must now regard the income-tax as a permanent part of our taxation. I will comment on that later. But I am now dealing with the statement that, having regard to the demands upon us, he cannot deal with the surplus, large as it appears to be, in such a way as to involve any permanent diminution of revenue. What is that but saying he cannot reduce the taxes from the level at which they stand; that if he has a surplus it is mortgaged, that a larger surplus would still be mortgaged, and that no surplus he can contemplate on the present taxation is sufficient to meet the demands he foresees within the near future? He took credit to himself for not promising old age pensions. I am not aware that anybody ever promised them. Who did? [An HON. MEMBER: "Joe," and cheers.] I suppose hon. Members who cheer mean to say that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham did. I challenge them to produce the passage containing that promise; they cannot do it. What my right hon. friend did was to expound to the country a scheme elaborated by a non-Party committee, on a more moderate

1439
economical, and prudent basis than any which has been put before the country from any other source, and he said that that was a scheme which was simple and which anyone could understand. He for one was prepared to support a scheme on that basis, and I for another am prepared to support a scheme on that basis now. I see no reason for going back from it in any degree. It is more prudent and wiser finance, more calculated to encourage thrift and promote good conduct among the masses of the people than the non-contributory scheme, to which alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lend any countenance. The right hon. Gentleman takes credit to himself for not having promised a scheme. He has gone very near to promising a scheme next year, and all his friends so understand it. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the interpretation placed on his utterance, and if he does not mean to pledge himself to old age pensions next year—
MR. ASQUITH: My words were perfectly free from ambiguity.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman's words amount to as good a Parliamentary pledge as I ever heard. It is patent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no money to give away, and we have now to contemplate a permanent income-tax of 1s. in the pound. That is a deplorable thing, and I contrast it with the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer twelve months ago. The right hon. Gentleman said he associated himself with the declarations of his predecessors, that an income-tax of a uniform rate of 1s. in the pound—
MR. ASQUITH: A uniform rate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That such a tax in a time of peace was impassible to justify and difficult to defend. Let me read on. He said—
"It is a burden on the trade of the country which in the long run affects not only profits, but wages."
A normal 1s. tax even with an abatement to 9d. on incomes of less than £2,000 a year still is a burden on the trade of the country, which in the long run affects not only profits, but wages.
1440
And I go on to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"And from the point of view of the nation it is open to the same objection as a continuance at an abnormal figure of the floating debt— namely, that it tends to destroy or at any rate to contract a most readily available reserve on which the State can draw in times of unforeseen emergency."
It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in that carefully chosen qualification about a "uniform" rate of 1s., but these objections are wider and are not affected by the qualification. They apply to any income-tax the normal rate of which is as high as 1s. I venture to express a personal opinion that of all the taxes which affect the wages fund, which affect the amount of capital available for investment, and therefore react directly upon the amount of employment for the people of this country, there are none which bear with such serious weight as the income-tax. By indirect taxation you may raise what a man pays on wine, cigars, or other luxuries, and if he has not a sufficient margin of income he will reduce his expenditure proportionately, and he will continue to lay by as before; but when you come to the income-tax and tax his savings, then I think you directly deter him from increasing those savings, and he is apt to regard that as something beyond his control, and accordingly, instead of spending less, he spends what he did before; he pays the additional income-tax, and the amount he has available for investment, for the extension indirectly of employment, and for the promotion of wage-earning industries is thereby lessened. An even more serious objection is the objection taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year that the income-tax is our great reserve for any emergency. Why is that so? It is because as a financial engine it is the one which you can work faster or slower, of which you can alter the speed or intensity with less disturbance to trade than any other tax—not only than any direct tax, but any indirect. The income-tax stands almost alone among our direct taxes as the great engine which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can employ to meet a temporary emergency; and I say the trifling abatement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given on incomes of less than £2,000 a year is altogether insufficient to relieve the strain which the income-tax payer suffers under, or to

1441
restore to the tax that elasticity for, purposes of emergency which every financier desires to see. And that is not the whole matter. It is not only the income-tax payer for whom the Chancellor's statement is full of meaning, and, as our neighbours across the Channel say, gives furiously to think. The working classes as well as the direct taxpayer must be content to pay as before. 1s the last general election already so far behind us that Members have forgotten the piteous cry put up on behalf of the consumer from a hundred Liberal platforms? Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Radical Government, with a surplus of £3,500,000, and looking forward to a further surplus next year, telling the consumer that he must continue to "pay, pay, pay." Whilst I share to the full the desire expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and felt in every quarter, to make some provision for the old age of the deserving poor, I think he is placing an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer, and an unnecessary difficulty in his own way, by the determination he has expressed not to look at any form of contributory scheme. For my part, I think he would be wise not to exclude the possibility of contributory schemes, difficult perhaps to start, but becoming, as I think they would, more popular as their provisions become known, and as the benefit earned under them began to be reaped; and I am certain that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would proceed upon those lines, in the first instance at any rate, he would need to make a smaller draft upon the Exchequer, and would find himself less handicapped than he is by his own declaration. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech shows that we have come very near to the end of our tether on the present basis of taxation. And now comes in the cloven hoof. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the Party opposite is a free trade Government and a free trade Party. Of course he uses the term free trade in the very restricted and imperfect sense in which we habitually apply it in this country, as meaning a Government which does not hesitate to tax your trade provided it can prove that no British subject derives any benefit from the tax, but which refuses to adopt any fiscal expedient if it could be shown that a British subject might
1442
conceivably be benefited thereby. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that that indeed narrows his field, but only in the sense in which a wise builder narrows his field of operations to firm ground and avoids the unfathomable morass. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] I wonder whether the hon. Gentlemen who cheer that statement really believe that the fiscal system of every country except Turkey and Great Britain is based upon an unfathomable morass—whether they really believe that every one of the great self-governing Colonies, the kindred nations across the seas, whose representatives are now present in our capital, have based their whole system of government on an insecure foundation, and that we, and we alone, with the single exception of His Majesty the Sultan of Turkey, have found the true way?
MR. LYNCH: I heard protection described by a speaker at a mass meeting of electors during the last Presidential campaign in the United States as a "grand larceny upon the American people."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suppose the hon. Member was one of those who contributed cheers to that statement. I was not referring particularly to the hon. Member, but I am delighted to hear him. That really is characteristic of the sort of stuff that did duty on a hundred Liberal platforms. I am not going to turn aside to argue the question fully at the present moment, but I am going to make two observations which are sufficient for my purpose and will show that I do not fear to meet the hon. Gentleman on the issue he has raised. The hon. Member quotes his opinion as if he would have us believe that the American people are willing to abandon their system. Does he suppose that they are?
MR. LYNCH: They would like to abandon it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If they wished to abandon it they can do so. ["No, no."] But every man who knows anything about America knows two things about it. First, that the tariff there is protectionist in a sense and with an exaggeration that no living man in this country has over suggested,

1443
and which we who call ourselves tariff eformers, and I among them, never suggested. Secondly, while the American people may desire to modify that tariff in some respects, there is not a sane man in the House or out of it who supposes that either he or I will live to see them abandon the system by which their prosperity has been attained and by which it is maintained. It is really absurd of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest that a system which is practically universal outside this country is based on foundations so insecure that no British Minister would be safe in trusting to build upon them. The right hon. Gentleman said that tariff reform was strangled at the last election by the necessity which followed from it of the taxation of raw material, and it was that necessity which had proved, fatal to the movement at the last election.
MR. ASQUITH: What I said was, and what I now repeat is, that the movement was entangled with and strangled by its avowed intention to tax the first necessaries of life, such as meat and corn, and what we demonstrated as its necessary consequence was that if justice was to be done to all parts of the Empire in any fair system of preference the taxation of raw material could not be avoided.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was, it is true, skipping a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, and on it I must make a few observations. The observation as to taxation of food needs no demonstration, but only a reminder that the Party opposite will have to continue to be food-taxers unless they are false to every promise and pledge of social reform they have given—not only food-taxers on the present basis, but some of them are beginning to ask whether they will not have to increase that basis in order to provide a satisfactory system of old age pensions. Then as to raw material, I am amazed that a man of the general capability, can dour, and fairness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with such a clear perception of the question, should repeat in the House, after plenty of time for reflection, the fable which he industriously circulated on public platforms, that we were, now or at any other time, to place a tax on raw materials.
MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman made no such proposal. What he has proposed was not the question we had to consider the question was what would inevitably follow.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We deny either that we proposed or that we would be obliged to put a tax on raw material. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever studied any foreign tariff? What is the object of the modern German tariff? The object is, not to exclude all goods from the outside, but to make the imports consist as far as possible of those classes of goods which are of the most benefit to the whole community. Germany wishes to do a big foreign trade as well as ourselves, and they desire, as far as the action of the Government can guide and control it, that they should be protected so as to secure that their imports should consist of raw material or of goods on which very little work has been done, and in order that for the masses of their own people they may secure the maximum of employment and industry in their own country. Not only is it not true to say that we shall be forced to tax raw material by any principles we have enunciated, but it would be the very reverse of the principles by which we are guided to do anything of the kind Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman thinks we should be driven to it? He says that you cannot give a fair system of preference among the Colonies unless you do. That shows the total and unpardonable ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman, after we have discussed the question for two or three years, as to the nature of the preferential arrangements which are now being carried out among the great self-governing Colonies, and in which we are invited to take a mutual part. No one has attempted to show exactly how to adjust their system so that every part of the British Empire to which they accorded preference shall receive exactly the same benefit. That is not the way in which Canada has proceeded. Canada has found certain concessions it can make, and it grants, them to any self-governing Colony which will make reasonable concessions to her. She has also introduced a special Empire free list in which certain goods shall be admitted free provided they come from any portion of the British Empire. They

1445
offer such preference as they can give to any who come within the scope of it; and so shall we when the time comes. [Cries of "When?"] The man is shortsighted who thinks, because the opinion of the present House of Commons is averse from it, that the opinion of the electors on issues of which this was only one has been recorded in favour of the Government, the question is settled, and who fails to see at this moment that both at home and in the Colonies attention is concentrated upon it as it never was concentrated before, and that the question is likely to be an abiding question until we are able to settle it in this country in harmony with the general feeling of our race throughout the world. When that time comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day will be free from many difficulties which beset the right hon. Gentleman owing to the restrictions by which he has needlessly bound his hands. He will then be able to raise some portion of his revenue from the foreigners who use and take advantage of our markets, and instead of imposing taxation on articles of general consumption he will be able to raise a portion of it from articles of luxury, such as motor-cars, which may well contribute to our revenue. When those days come I cannot say what the demands of the public purse will be, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time will be better equipped to meet them than is the right hon. Gentleman with all the abounding prosperity on which he congratulates us, and with the surplus of which he boasts. The right hon. Gentleman said that the income-tax may now be regarded as a permanent part of our fiscal system. I agree. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that we must deal with the anomalies in that tax which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have justified themselves for, disregarding on the ground that the tax was temporary. I am not aware, since Mr. Gladstone proposed in 1874 to abolish the income-tax, that any Chancellor of the Exchequer or any responsible politician ever thought it to be possible to abolish it altogether. It has been permanent since the decision of the country in 1874. The objection is not that the tax is permanent, but that it is permanent at a high rate, and all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Lowe, Lord Goschen, Sir
1446
M. Hicks Beach, and Sir Stafford North-cote, were of opinion that the real way to remove the intolerable hardship from the tax and to reduce its anomalies was not by attempting differentiation or graduation, but by restoring the income-tax to; a low level. I deeply regret, after all the sacrifices which the income-taxpayers have been called upon to beat-—including the sacrifice which I myself as Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to impose upon them—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell them, although he has a surplus, that there can be no kind of general relief. That is not bad news for the income-tax-payer only. It may be bad news for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you announce to the income-tax-payer, and especially to the largo income-tax-payer, that you are going to keep the income-tax permanently at a 1s. in the pound—
MR. ASQUITH: I have not done so.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Well, if you draw such a picture of your financial future, the demands you have to meet, and the limitations which you have placed upon your power of raising revenue, the income-tax-payer need not be very clever to draw that inference, and I am afraid the result of your announcement will be the withdrawal of income from the area of taxation. Bear in mind, also, that if you induce people to withdraw part of their income or capital from the scope of the tax, it is not the poor man that will profit, but the rich man. I find that in the year 1904–5 the income derived in this country from foreign sources amounted to no less than £66,000,000. It would be no exaggeration to say that probably half of that amount could be withdrawn from the purview of the income-tax if the owners thought it worth while to do so. Undoubtedly there will be a tendency under a permanent high tax, first to divert capital abroad, and, secondly, to keep the interest on that capital abroad instead of bringing it home. Indeed, I do not think it is at all unlikely that before many years have passed the revenue will suffer to the extent of £1,000,000, £1,500,000, or even more per annum, from a movement of this kind. There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman, under cover of

1447
giving relief to a single class of income-tax-payer, is going to make the tax more inquisitorial all round. He is going to require from all employers a return of their employees with their rates of salary or wages.
MR. ASQUITH: Lord Ritchie's recommendations.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Very possibly it is right. Hitherto small incomes a little above the limit of exemption, paid in the form of weekly wages, have practically been exempt, not by law, but because the revenue authorities were unable to trace them. Now, at the moment that you are boasting of relieving the burden on small payers of income-tax, you are going to tax a vast body of workmen and clerks earning small salaries weekly, who have hitherto escaped.
MR. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that they ought to escape?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not complain in the least of the interruption, but I say you are going to tax thousands who were not taxed before. Who are these people? They are people in fluctuating or uncertain employment. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that I think in applying to these people the income-tax in its full force, as it is applied to others, you are dealing out very hard measure to them, because of the very uncertain tenure of their employment and of the wages which they earn. It has been the practice till now to confine the income-tax to people whose appointment is by the year, and who, therefore, had a certain prospect before them. Now you are going to collect the tax from persons whose employment may be terminated at a week's or a day's notice. The precariousness of the employment is a good reason for the distinction; and I think the right hon. Gentleman is ill-advised, in the interest of the tax, in endeavouring to drag this class into his net. In fact, there is no remission of taxation; there is only a shifting of the burden. Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that it is any fairer? In regard to differentiation, he has shifted his ground from permanent and precarious to earned and unearned income. How does he justify
1448
his differentiation between earned and unearned? The right hon. Gentleman says that it is anomalous that A, who has £1,000 a year from Consols, and B, who earns £1,000 a year in a profession, should be taxed alike, because while A can spend the whole of his income, knowing that, should he die, his widow and children will still have £1,000 a year, B must put aside something to make a provision in the event of his death for his widow and children. That, surely, is based on the difference, not between earned and unearned, but between permanent and precarious. The moment the right hon. Gentleman puts his proposal on that ground he is bound to treat the income, not from the point of view whether it is due to personal exertion or not, but from the point of view whether the temporary possessor of it has the permanent disposal of it. Take the case of pensions. Is there anything more decidedly earned income than a pension, whether you look upon it as deferred pay or as an enforced provision for old age? A civil servant serves you during thirty or forty of the best years of his life, and you pay him a salary which may be more than adequate if he is a third-rate man, but below his value if ha is a first-rate man; and, though I know from personal experience these men receive constantly the most tempting offers from the City or elsewhere, they prefer, quite apart from the honour of serving the State and the Crown, to remain in the service of the State because of the pension, which is part of the condition of their service. How can any Chancellor of the Exchequer for one moment say, differentiating between earned and unearned incomes, that a pension earned by forty years of service is unearned income? How can any Chancellor of the Exchequer for one moment say that it is right to differentiate between earned and unearned incomes and say that a pension earned by forty years' service is unearned income? There is no answer to that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer was that he had an open mind. I think he said that after the discussion the other evening, and after observations such as I am now making, but I think in matters, of this importance so intimately associated with the merit of the change, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have an answer of his own, at any rate a

1449
suggestion, to make at a very early stage, and before we part with this Resolution I think we ought to be told what are his general intentions in regard to these different questions. Take every kind of money charge, life annuities, younger sons' portions or a widow's endowment charge upon an estate. How will the Chancellor of the Exchequer apply his principle in those cases? Say an individual has £1,000 a year for life from any of those sources. Is he in the same position as the man who has £1,000 a year in Consols? No, Sir. Can he, in the first place, spend as freely from that thousand as the owner of Consols, if he has to put aside part of that income every year in order to provide for those who come after him because his income ceases with his life? The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot draw the line which I understand he is trying to draw, without inflicting far greater hardship and creating far greater anomalies than any which exists under present arrangements. There is another class of income which has not been mentioned in our debates hitherto. How does he propose to treat incomes from patent rights? I make an invention, I patent it, and I am fortunate enough, we will assume, to have got hold of a really valuable commercial idea. I am offered £20,000 down for it, but I prefer to take royalties. When I take royalties, will the right hon. Gentleman treat my royalty as earned or unearned income? It is an annuity for fourteen years, during which period the patent will run. There is no fresh exertion on my part, there is one act of earning and one only, that of invention. How is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to treat it, how is he going to treat my remuneration? Will he treat it differently whether I take it in annual payments as royalties or in a lump sum down? The moment you try to find an answer to this question you see how complicated and difficult is the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to draw. If you treat it as earned during the fourteen years the patent has to run, will you give the same treatment to every wasting investment? You must give the same treatment to copyright, and to wasting assets in industrial concerns. If you treat the annual payment as earned you cannot logically deny the same treatment to the
1450
man who, instead of taking the annual payment, takes the lump sum and invests it. You can make a distinction between temporary and permanent income; but if you try to make a distinction between the two cases of earned and unearned income, you find you cannot do anything of the kind. Then again, what about leasehold? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to treat incomes from investments in leasehold properties? It is a very common form of investment with people of very moderate means. What is he going to do with incomes from that source? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies the distinction he has made, he must include all incomes from wasting securities like leasehold properties. I repeat my question, how is the right hon. Gentleman going to treat a landowner who manages his own estate, but does not farm it? Every morning my table is covered with letters from people who will have hard cases created by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They ask me to ventilate their grievances or they come to me for sympathy which I attempt to give them. I have two cases here, one is that of a gentleman who writes to say that two years ago he gave up a salaried position in order to devote himself to the management of the estate which he owns, with a gross rental of a little over £1,000 a year. Supposing that man was earning £1,000 a year on somebody else's estate the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take from him an income-tax of 9d.; how is he going to treat him when he earns £l,000 from his own estate? [Laughter.] I really do not follow the reason for that laughter, and perhaps the hon. Member opposite will tell me how my question is ridiculous.
SIR T. P. WHITAKER: The difference between the man who earns an income of £1,000 by rendering service, and the man who derives £1,000 from an estate which he manages is surely very evident. The one man is earning £1,000, the other is collecting income and the cost of doing it might be 2½ or 5 per cent.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have given more than one answer to the hon. Gentleman. I really want the Committee to take this case fairly into consideration. I put the case of a man

1451
who, being a land agent, earns his £1,000 a year in that capacity. He then inherits an estate, and having been trained as an estate agent, he proposes to manage his own estate and not to employ anybody to do it for him. In order to do that he has to give up a salaried position which he has occupied, and where he was taxed at 9d. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he is going to tax him when, instead of earning £1,000 for managing somebody else's estate, he earns £1,000 for managing his own? The hon. Member who interrupted implies that it would be equitable to tax him the full 1s. in the one case and 9d. in the other. The owner who manages his own estate fills the position of factor, agent, master of works, or estate manager, and if he, by managing his estate, earns £l,000 he does so by just as great personal exertion as many a shopkeeper or many a manufacturer, who makes a much greater income. How are you going to draw any distinction in equity between the two cases? Here is another case. A man writes to me and says that he is the owner of small property in town. He tells me that for his net income of nearly £2,000 a year he has to to collect rents of very nearly £4,000 a year gross. He has to go round to collect rents and interview tenants, giving up to the work five or six days a week in order to manage this small house property estate. How are you going to treat him? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply the other day said that in such a case it would be for the individual to prove that the income arose from personal exertion. The Committee I hope, will not allow the measure to pass in that form, it would be grossly unjust. It would mean that it would leave to any Income-tax Commissioners or Board of Inland Revenue a width of discretion that would enable them to enforce an entirely different law in one part of the country from that prevailing in another, and an entirely different law in one class of circumstances from that prevailing in another, and I think that the Committee must decide what is fair and equitable in these circumstances. I do not want to weary the Committee with more detailed cases. I will make one general observation. Of course the right hon. Gentleman's £2,000 limit is wholly illogical, it is a matter of convenience on general grounds, and he
1452
is entitled to say that any man who has £2,000 a year does not need consideration, but on every ground of equity and logic, if the distinction between earned and unearned income is to be maintained I must enter my most serious protest against a proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, while nominally making a concession, withdraws about one-half of it with the other hand. He says that where a man has an income of less than £700, he is entitled to abatement upon that, and that the abatement will be taken from the earned portion of his income. I will take the position of a person with a small income of £300 a year, one of the people whom the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite desire to help. Suppose, as one of my correspondents says, £150 is derived from investments and £150 is annual salary. He is entitled to an abatement of £160 because his whole income does not exceed £300. You take the abatement off his earned portion and accordingly you deprive him of any benefit whatever under the concession which the right hon. Gentleman nominally makes to people with small earned incomes. There are not many cases so neat as that which I have just described, but there are a vast number of people who will be affected in that way, and who, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer persists for reasons of administrative convenience in taking the abatement off the earned portion of the income, will be deprived of any benefit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's change, although they are the very class of people whom he wishes most to benefit. Then there is another question which is familiar to the House and which becomes of increasing importance as the Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies the incidence of the tax. Why are husband and wife to have their income lumped together for the purpose of income tax? In the case of a husband with a very large income and a wife with a small income it may teem rather absurd lo allow her an abatement when she enjoys the benefit of the husband's large income; but when you legislate to provide for that case you legislate for a bad case in such a way as to make bad law. For one case of that kind there are a thousand cases of the other kind, where you get a working man and working woman who up to the moment they marry are exempt from income-tax, and

1453
when they marry and are fulfilling the duties of good citizens, contributing, we may hope, to the strength and security of the State, you strike at them for the first time through the income-tax. The hardship became greater as abatement became a, more important and permanent part of the system, and now, when, in addition to the abatement, you undertake to make a differentiation, it is a gross injustice to lump two small incomes together and treat them as one for the purpose of income-tax. I have said enough to show how difficult is the task on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entered. I have heard his Budget described by a not unfriendly critic of his as a humdrum Budget. I have ventured to reply that no Budget is humdrum which attempts to differentiate between incomes derived from different sources. It is not what you would call a typical Radical Budget. It is a scheme intimately associated with the proposals of an hon. friend lately a Member of this side of the House, now temporarily excluded, Sir George Bartley, who year after year pressed them on successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, as Mr. Hubbard had done before him. It is not a Radical proposition; but it is a proposition which enormously complicates the tax. It not merely increases the complexity of your machinery, but it introduces a whole-series of complicated problems which it is evident the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not attempted to solve, has not yet solved, is not yet willing to tell us how he proposes to solve.
MR. ASQUITH: Why do you say that?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Because you said you were waiting till the close of this evening's debate before deciding.
MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say he had decided.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has got a decision in his mind. The Committee is entitled to have that decision announced to it at the earliest moment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows how he is going to treat these different classes of property, and has a reasoned
1454
policy in regard to these points, surely we are entitled to know what that policy is without any further delay. I apologise to the Committee and thank them for their indulgence. These are matters in which I naturally take a very great interest. I looked carefully into the question of differentiation with no unsympathetic eye when Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, like so many of my predecessors, I abandoned it, not because I thought it in theory unjust, but because I thought it impossible to arrive at a practical working decision which would be fair as between party and party, and do what it was its object to achieve. What I concluded and what I now hold is that the only true remedy for all the anomalies and grievances of the income-tax is to get it back to a low figure and keep it at that low figure.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The right hon. Gentleman has just made an interesting speech, and I do not think there will be any complaint on this side of the House as to the manner in which he has attempted to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not think the complaint he makes is quite justified. He complains that our income-tax proposal will involve very great difficulties. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that difficulties are inherent in the income-tax law and they exist to-day. The right hon. Gentleman's latest difficulty is that of husband and wife, but the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was in office had that difficulty pressed upon him with great force by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, and of course he must be fairly familiar with it. That difficulty is not now increased. On the contrary, to a certain extent that difficulty will in the future be reduced, because if the joint income of husband and wife is less than £2,000 a year it will only be taxed as earned income to the extent of 9d. in the pound instead of 1s. As the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit himself to remove the difficulty, he is no doubt familiar with the argument in defence of the present law on that point. He has asked about certain very minor matters. The right hon. Gentleman desires to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with the inventor who is receiving a royalty for his

1455
invention. The form in which the inventor receives payment is a deferred payment on sale. If he were paid so much money down for his invention he would naturally have to pay 1s. in the pound, because his invention would represent property and it would come under the property tax. For work done and paid for within the year a man with an income of less than £2,000 a year would have to pay 9d. in the pound. When income is derived from accumulated property, and not from something on which a man is working at the time, he pays on the property rate. The principle is perfectly clear. I do not think there will be much difficulty in dealing with royalties upon the same basis.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by the same basis? Does he mean 1s. or 9d.?
MR. MCKENNA: I mean 1s. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman asks a question about the landlord working his own estate. The landowner is now dealt with under two schedules. Under Schedule A he pays 1s. in the pound, and he will continue under our new proposal to pay that amount. As a farmer the landlord although working his own property would pay under Schedule B, and he will continue to pay under that schedule, and if his total income is less than £2,000 a year he will pay 9d. in the pound. There is really no inherent difficulty in these cases, and they have to be treated as a matter of principle, and when that is done the difficulties will in practice disappear. The principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman has proceeded is to apportion the burden of the income-tax according to the ability to pay. Of course the exact proportion cannot be discovered by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what he says is that the present method of calculating the income tax departs widely from that principle. It is said that income may be precarious whether derived from investment or from work. But under the present law precarious income in either case is treated alike, Although it may not be possible to; distinguish between certain income from investment and precarious income from investment, we can at any rate distinguish the precarious incomes from work;
1456
and why should we be precluded from making a reduction in favour of the form of precarious income that is derived from work simply because it is impossible to distinguish between the certain income derived from investment in the funds and the less certain income derived from investment in a railway? There is this great distinction between the two classes of income—the man who is deriving his income from investment has not got to work for it, and the energy of his mind and hands can be devoted to some other form of exertion. If a man is deriving his income from funds or from railway companies so long as he derives it in that way he has got to pay 1s. in the pound. The man engaged in industry whether he labours with his hands or his mind is absorbing all his powers in earning and his income is specially precarious and he must take special pains to provide for his own future and that of his family. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on to say that the true remedy is to reduce the amount of the tax. I could not help remembering when I listened to that statement that the last Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the income-tax was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire himself. I agree with him that all taxation is disagreeable, and if the business of the nation could be conducted without an income tax I am sure we should all be pleased to get rid of it. But the income-tax is necessary, and to argue that the best way to get rid of these anomalies is to reduce the tax when for the purposes of the year it is necessary to continue it, is asking the House to agree to a mere idle proposition and one which does not assist us in the discussion of this problem. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if you left the tax at a shilling there would be danger of evasion. What is the experience on that point? There might be danger if the income-tax payers-thought that they were being unjustly treated. I am certainly one of those who think that if you suddenly impose a very high rate of tax on a very limited class of persons that limited class would do the utmost in their power to evade the tax, but experience is altogether against the view that persons in this country would attempt to evade a tax of a shilling. The product of the tax is higher now than it has ever been before. The product of the tax was not reduced when the tax

1457
was increased to 1s. 3d. There is in this country no sense of unfairness with regard to the income-tax. Persons who have to pay it may grumble, but I have seen no criticism of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which suggests that it is unfair to reduce the rate of tax on those who have incomes of less than £2,000 a year which are obtained from work. He said that the amount of £2,000 might be increased. I have seen criticisms of that kind, but no criticism to the effect that rich persons would consider that they are treated unfairly by the reduction now made. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about capital, on account of an income-tax of a shilling, being transferred from this to other countries, I would ask him to name the other countries to which capital is to be transferred. If he looks across the Channel he will find that in France dividends are taxed not at 1s., but at 2s. in the £. If he turns to any country where there is a field for investment, he will find that the burden of taxation is at least as heavy as it is in this country, and so far as I can learn, instead of capital being removed from here and transferred abroad, the whole experience is exactly to the contrary. Foreigners invest money far more readily here than in their own countries. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the income-tax as a reserve for emergencies. I do not think he has fairly considered the present proposals as they affect the income-tax from that point of view. The income-tax, after all, is only at a shilling. In recent years it has been at 1s. 3d. in an emergency, and during wars previous to the last it has been at 2s. It cannot be held that a shilling represents the emergency limit. If it were increased to 2s., we should be able to derive an income of over £30,000,000—a provision for war far greater than any provision the country made during the course of the last war. How do the present proposals affect the income-tax as a reserve for emergency? What is the great resistance to an increase of the income-tax? The great resistance arises from those persons who are earning a difficult livelihood and who have to make provision for their wives and families and for their own old age. It is from the very persons who are now relieved by the reduction from 1s. to 9d. that the great resistance arises. The
1458
income-tax is now divided into two categories. There is the income-tax which may be described as a tax on property which is collected at the source. Then there is the portion which in the main falls under Schedule D—the income-tax which is difficult to collect and to increase. The division between the two categories renders the income-tax far more elastic than before, and when emergency requires the shilling could be increased to 1s. 3d., 1s. 6d., or 2s., as in our past history. There would be far less difficulty now than in the past when there was a uniform rate. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated no reduction in taxation generally. What are the facts as to the financial conduct of affairs during the last two years compared with the preceding two years when the right hon. Gentleman was himself a member of the Government in power? What has my right hon. friend done already? The coal tax has been abolished—a tax on industry. A reduction has been made in the tea tax. There has been a larger provision made for the repayment of Debt than ever before in the history of the country. More than that, he has taken on himself on the annual Estimates a charge which hitherto has been met out of loans, and he is now paying off, of the loans raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on the Estimates, no less than £2,000,000 a year, in addition to the Sinking Fund of the National Debt. My right hon. friend has now reduced the income-tax where it fell most heavily. He has really in fact from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view acted at once in the most conservative manner, in restoring the credit of the country, and in repaying the Debt for which the right hon. Gentleman and his Party were responsible. He has at the same time reduced taxation in the manner I have described, and he has made definite provision for a social reform which was promised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but which was always refused on the ground that there was no money to meet it. What more could the Chancellor of the Exchequer do in two years? Is it reasonable to complain that he does not make any further reduction in taxation which the country at this moment can very well afford to bear. You cannot have it both ways The right hon. Gentleman says that the

1459
Chancellor of the Exchequer has his remedy. He says: "Widen the basis of taxation, and then you will be able to reduce taxation and find room for your other reforms." I can only say that it is somewhat late in the day for the right hon. Gentleman to come forward with any such proposal. He charges my right hon. friend with total and unpardonable ignorance of scientific tariffs. I must confess that I share that ignorance. Some years ago there was started with great pomp and ceremony a Commission which was to instruct us in the nature of scientific taxation. That Commission has held innumerable meetings. It has had many distinguished and experienced persons on its body. It has issued various Reports on various subjects, but not one word has it said on scientific tariffs. The whole object with which that Commission was appointed has failed, and we are still waiting for a scientific tariff. I am in total ignorance of what the right hon. Gentleman means by a scientific tariff as applied to this country. I know what he means as applied to Germany, but would the right hon. Gentleman translate the German tariff into the system of this country? ignorance on this subject is unpardonable, it is not we who have to seek pardon. It is the Tariff Commission which has refused to enlighten us. I think I am justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental error when he argues about this country from the experience of other countries. I, for one, frankly state that I consider that other countries are mistaken in establishing their fiscal policy on a protective basis, but that is not the question for us to consider. What we have to consider is not what is done in Germany or the Colonies, but what is good for this country. The right hon. Gentleman has not made any suggestion as to what he considered would be a right tariff for us to adopt here. Whether in view of a protective policy, or a policy of Colonial preference, the suggestions ofthe right hon. Gentleman are purely fanciful. They have no basis either on experience or on any plan we can understand. What we have to go by in considering the right hon. Gentleman's proposal in the light of his speech, is the system we had under the right hon. Gentleman when Chancellor of the Ex-
1460
chequer, and the definite changes proposed to be made in that system now. I think I have said enough to show that the fears expressed with regard to the reduction of the income tax in certain cases from 1s. to 9d. are quite unjustified, and to dispose of the suggestions—for they were nothing more—that all that has been proposed by my right hon. friend, and far more, could be met by a protective tariff, the details of which have never been stated to us.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in order that the debate might not be too long it would be necessary for every Member who spoke to confine himself to some particular portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not attempt to traverse the arguments of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. His purpose in rising was to put some questions to the Government and to examine the Budget from the point of view of the future finance of the country. His right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education had declared that the principle of the Government was the distribution of the burden between the taxpayers according to ability to pay. The general canon of ability to pay was applied to the income-tax in particular. The desire of himself and some of his friends was to make their position clear so far as the future was concerned as to the extent to which the Budget was based, or was likely to be based next year on the principle of ability to pay. There was no relief within this Budget, some of them thought, where relief might have been given. It had been shown to demonstration that there was over-taxation of those who were least able to pay, such as the agricultural labourers, as well as an insufficient weight of taxation thrown on those whose ability to pay was greatest. The right hon. Gentleman pointed, very justly, to the continued elasticity of the income-tax, to the increased utility of the income-tax as a war tax, as against the plans of the other side. The Report of the Committee had shown that they would be able at a time when they had public opinion behind them to raise money by a heavily graduated tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the basis of his speech one which was likely to turn up

1461
in their debates all through the discussions on this Budget. When the Liberal Party wanted to have debates on tariff reform at a time when they might have been useful for the enlightenment of the country they never could got them. It would be a pity now to was to all their time with sterile discussions of tariff reform when they might be discussing the Budget proposals. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to base his view on a greater productiveness of our fiscal system which would enable us to have a low income-tax, and to tax the foreigner. But let them take the nearest protectionist countries—France and Prussia. France raised a larger proportion of her revenue from direct taxation than Great Britain did; and other taxes in the nature of an income-tax which French statesmen were now trying to raise were much heavier than ours. In Prussia they had a 2s. income-tax—1s. for Imperial purposes, and 1s. for local purposes. But it would be found that the adoption of such tariffs as theirs did not reduce their contributions to the income-tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made another remark which was directed against the Budget as a whole for this year and that for next year, to which he wished to make an allusion before he came to the present Budget itself. They all on the Ministerial side of the House rejected the view that in dealing with old age pensions the Government should adopt the plan recommended by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. They thought that the arguments adduced against the thrift and contributory plan were overwhelming. Of the other hand that rejection was important, because of the great expense involved by it. He himself would offer the most uncompromising resistance to a scheme of old age pensions based on thrift and contributions, and would fight it to the death, because it would be monstrously unjust against the poorer classes of men and women workers. That was a remark by the way; but he wished to put it on record in view of what might take place next year. He did not want to deal with the Budget as a whole; but one remark he wished to make arose out of what he had said as to the equality of contribution. He thought that those who contributed the most according to their means, the agricultural labourers, did not receive
1462
the relief which they ought to have. His right hon. friend had said that they could not touch the sugar duties this year for reasons which might possibly be misunderstood abroad. He would, therefore, note that he assumed that the Government were going to act on their pledge to denounce the Sugar Convention at the earliest possible moment. But when considering a Budget for two years he was very much afraid that the argument put forward by his right hon. friend might affect his power of dealing with sugar next year. He must enter a caveat against the proposition that the House of Commons was committed to the idea that duties on articles of consumption by the poorer classes and by agricultural labourers were to be continued for all time. They were all delighted that his right hon. friend was going to deal with the intercepted revenue for local taxation. At the same time, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that his desire was to free the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that rather looked as though in any future development of new sources of taxation, these would be treated as Imperial and not as for the benefit of the local authorities.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that no one was more strongly opposed to that than himself.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that it was assumed by some that, before the matter could be settled, it was necessary to wait until the question of valuation should be dealt with. His own difficulty-concerned not valuation but boundaries. If the urban authorities were to be given new sources of taxation the present boundaries could not stand, and, therefore, the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some one representing the whole country would be requisite. It was quite clear that by this Budget they were not committing themselves on that point; and it was to be hoped that new sources of local taxation might be discovered. As the alternative was the use of the income-tax by localities, he pointed out that all other countries were throwing local taxation on the income-tax. In this country they must contemplate a heavy income-tax for local purposes or discover new

1463
sources of taxation. He now came to the income-tax in the Budget of this year. His right hon. friend had told the Committee that the Select Committee were unanimously in favour of upholding the necessity of the differentiation he had proposed. That was going rather far, though strictly speaking that was so. Some people came to differentiation as the main thing they wanted; other people who wanted graduation only came very reluctantly to differentiation. He admitted freely that the description that the hon. Member for Spen Valley had given of what had occurred was that the Report of the Select Committee did not accurately represent the opinion of any one Member of the Committee; while the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that the Report was not logical; it was the result of discordant views, and that that was the reason why it was accepted. That was a little like the case of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It was difficult to say whether the Puritan majority of the House or the Bishops disliked those Articles most in the time of Queen Elizabeth, but they were accepted. Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Select Committee said that it was not desirable that the total revenue to be derived from their income-tax should be less than under existing circumstances, and that the tax should be raised in other directions to compensate for any loss. His right hon. friend was extending the principle of declaration. At the present moment all those with an income below £700 a year, who were in the vast majority, had to make a full declaration in order to get the benefit of the reduction. The right hon. Gentleman called upon others to do that which some did now, which the London newspapers did now, namely, to return the wages of all employeés, yet in some cases they were not to return their own income if it was above £2,000 a year. The recommendations of the Committee were contradictory and were not clear. The words used on two pages of the Report were not the same, and one of those recommendations was carried only by his casting vote. The recommendation of the Committee of 1905–1906 was repeated by the unanimous recommendation of his Committee. That was not enough for many of them. As many as seven voted for the strongest possible reform, so that nearly half were in favour of the fullest possible return for income-tax in the country. Was there anything to be said
1464
against that? He admitted it might be difficult to obtain these full and free returns if it was for the purpose of increasing a man's taxation; but for the purpose of obtaining relief these declarations might easily be required. It was suggested that there was evasion at the present time on the part of some of those who returned income under Schedule D, and they felt the effect of those evasions, of which all in their individual capacity were aware. He was not going to allude to the formidable evidence enforcing the necessity for universal declarations which came before his Committee and was not allowed to be published, but let them take the evidence published by the former Committee of 1905–1906. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that if they had a high income-tax or even continued it permanently at a shilling there would be evasion; but was there no evasion now? The Chancellor of the Exchequer put very high the advantage which they obtained by collection at the source, but no one desired to part with collection at the source. It was not necessary for graduation to part with collection at the source. He, for one, only agreed to differentiate, as it was proposed in this year, if it was to be confined to incomes in the lower portion of the scale. The hon. Member for Paddington contended that the death duties ought not to be connected with income-tax, but though there were eases in which they were not connected, there were others where both income-tax and death duties pressed in an equal degree, and there were cases in which they were connected. It had been shown beyond dispute that the power of getting income-tax by death duties was least in the lower scale. There was some ground, therefore, for treating differentially the incomes below £2,000. Many of them had yielded to differentiation below the £2,000, with all its difficulties, and they were great; they had yielded, as they would not yield in the upper portion of the scale, because there graduation and differentiation came into competition; and it was graduation many of them wanted. There had been some attempt to put the individual case, but it was useless to fight long on the individual case, because it was quite possible to find great hardships in individual cases in every tax that had ever been imposed. Up to the present the difficulty had been looked at either from that point of view

1465
or from the point of view that there was a risk of creating greater injustice. In 1894 Sir William Harcourt, one of those Chancellors of the Exchequer who always refused to accept differentiation, quoted these words—
"Unequal measure must be dealt to persons whose circumstances are equal, and equal measure must be dealt to persons whose circumstances are unequal."
They were those of Sir Stafford Northcote, accepted by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe, who all thought that there was a risk of creating greater injustice than existed at present. There was ground, he thought, for differentiation provided it was understood that differentiation was not to be extended as graduation might be extended, to the upper portion of the scale. Sir H. Primrose yielded to differentiation; he showed conclusively that the machinery of the department did not adapt itself to the distinction based upon the nature of precarious incomes, and therefore if they were to differentiate it must be on the basis which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted and not upon that of the precarious nature of incomes. They should put in some words of caution to prevent differentiation being brought in over £2,000, and to prevent graduation being ruled out, and he desired to make it clear that some of them could only accept differentiation on that principle. The Report of the Committee of 1905 made it clear why some of them denied universal deductions. It said—
"There are many kinds of income to which this system of assessment at the source can not be applied at all, or can only be very imperfectly applied, as for instance, the profits derived from a private business, the income derived from a profession, and certain descriptions of income derived from abroad. In order to ascertain these incomes the Government has to rely largely upon self-assessment by the taxpayer. Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence to show that in the sphere in which self-assessment is still requisite, there is a substantial amount of fraud and evasion."
What was the evidence of Sir Thomas Hewitt? He was asked whether it would not be an improvement to compel everybody to make a return, and he agreed. He was then asked, "You are of opinion that evasions are extending considerably," and he said, "Yes I know it is so. I can speak absolutely and positively." They must also remember what was said by Sir Felix Schuster, that the belief people had in their minds was that the
1466
Government collected everything at the source. That very fact tended to defeat the object of assessment at the source, and to prevent people remembering to make a return in the case where money came to them from abroad. There were many rich people who did not know whether the tax was paid upon such incomes or not, and so easy-going people would fill up nil upon the form without inquiry. Sir T. Hewitt had called attention to the fact that, according to a case which had been decided, the Government had very considerable powers now of forcing people to produce their accounts. They heard a good deal about the inquisitorial character of the tax, but that inquisitorial character was only in order to make all people do what most people did—make a fair and honest return. Those people who did not pay upon a fair and honest return ought to be made to do so, for otherwise the honest people had to pay more. It had been shown that a startling amount of back duty was recovered at the present time, a very small proportion of which was treble duty, but referred almost entirely to evasions under Schedule D. There were, however, other schedules besides Schedule D which were the subject of evasion. Looking at the evidence showing the enormous evasion of the income-tax and the easy way in which people failed to make any return of their dutiable property on the ground that other people did the same, he thought that not too much ought to be made of the boast that virtually the whole of the tax was gathered at the source. Those who had looked into the subject were aware of the enormous amount of property that escaped the payment of income-tax at present, and a great deal of the tax would be gathered if precautions were taken to see that everyone made a declaration of his income from every source. But that end could only be attained by frankly accepting what was called an inquisition as to the amount of income derived from all sources. It had been suggested that graduation, an increase of the death duties, and inquisitorial declarations would result in the flight of capital from this country. To what country was capital to go? The death duties were being increased in Germany and France, and indeed it was a race among foreign Powers as to whose death duties should

1467
be placed at the highest point in respect of great properties. But surely it was desirable to consider whether causes other than the amount of the income-tax did not eventually settle the ultimate destination of capital. In Monaco, for example, there was no taxation; in France direct taxation was the highest in the world; but no one had ever detected the flight of anyone to Monaco in order to escape taxation.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsubmitted that there had been cases of the flight of capital from France to Switzerland and from France to the United States.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that there was a fashion in these things in France confined for the most part to the idle rich, but not found among the business people. There could hardly be a fear of the income-tax in France, where, by the showing of M. Poincaé, the average income-tax, under other names, was already for national purposes, nearly 8£ per cent. There was a wish to see a heavy income-tax shifted and placed on a reasonable basis; but the moving of capital from France through the fear that another tax would be introduced was not a tenable view. The evidence available, at any rate, did not provide justification for the view of timidity with regard to the shifting of capital from land to land. He admitted that it would be difficult to collect a large amount of money here by means of a graduated super-tax against the will of the trading community, though by means of degression a much larger sum of money might be collected from the income-tax than was now procurable without the fear of causing capital to flow into other countries. The main ground on which he supported the Budget of this year was that it kept the door open, and that not a word had been said which made it difficult in the future to adopt the principle of graduation within the income-tax itself. He hoped that his right hon. friend would see his Way to do something to meet the fears that he had expressed as to the future. They could not contemplate even the spending of £20,000,000 on old age pensions if it involved keeping up permanently such enormous indirect taxation as now existed, for example, on
1468
the agricultural classes. In addition to the tea duty, there was the sugar to duty, which was a very serious hindrance to the industry of the country; and when they looked at the nature of the tobacco duties, how they pressed heavily on the tobacco consumed by the poorest of the poor, and the beer and licensing duties, it was assuredly difficult to justify the permanent retention of indirect taxation on such a scale. In the circumstances of this year his right hon. friend was justified in the course he had taken, but next year he hoped that something might be done to meet the views that he had urged.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYbelieved the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to a great extent underrated his opportunity, and the resources available to him, for dealing with the sugar duty this year. If he were before them with a clean slate, he would have a surplus, on the basis of existing taxation, of £3,433,000, and if he added the £600,000 increased estate duty he would have £4,033,000. Taking that as his clean slate, and after providing £200,000 for necessitous schools, he calculated that if the right hon. Gentleman made no further proposals, he would this year have a surplus of £4,583,000, and next year of £5,183,000. These figures would enable Mr. Asquith this year to take 2s. 2d. per cwt. off sugar, leaving the tax at 2s., or next year to take off 3s. 2d, and leave the tax at 1s. There was another alternative. It must be borne in mind that sugar was the raw material of important British industries. The right hon. Gentleman might give a rebate on sugar used for the purposes of manufacture, either of confectionery or of mineral waters, or of other commodities. In that way he would give the sugar manufacturers no greater advantage than was now enjoyed by the manufacturers of tobacco in this country, who paid on their raw material a duty of 3s., while the importer of manufactured tobacco had to pay as much as 3s. This concession would enable British manufacturers to supply the consumer at lower prices than if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a small remission on all imports of sugar. As had been pointed out, the danger was that this Budget was to be connected with a future series of Budgets, and there was a chance that the question

1469
of the sugar tax might be altogether drowned out by the magnitude of other questions. The right hon. Gentleman had used two sentences in his speech to which he would draw special attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"I intend to treat the income-tax as a permanent part of our fiscal machinery,"
and he also said—
"I cannot part with the one million and a half of money. I shall need the money for the future I shall need it next year."
It was not out of any absolute unkindness to the right hon. Gentleman or from any malicious intention that he dwelt upon the personal pronoun "I," which was the nominative case of those interesting paragraphs. It was necessary to make this reference in order to remind the Committee of the object in view. It might be perfectly right to aim at continuity in these Budgets, but that did not mean that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to issue promissory notes to embarrass his successors. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that it would be he, or even a colleague of his, that would have to deal next year with the £1,500,000 that he pretended thus to pledge in advance? That observation applied to both the right hon. Gentleman's proposals as to income-tax and old age pensions. For the life of him he could not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer stopped the differentiation at incomes above £2,000 a year. It might be that the Select Committee had recommended some such limit, but with the utmost respect to that Committee, he could not find that there was anything about it contained in the reference to them. It was really not a question connected with practicability; they did not say it was a question connected with practicability, and the evidence did not show that it was connected with practicability. It was really a question which ought to be settled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House itself without reference to any Committee. The fundamental distinction was that the capital value of the asset taxed was not the same, and that disparity applied throughout the whole scale. He knew what was in the minds of the Committee, and in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What weighed upon their minds was the
1470
bugbear of the too prosperous brewer, the man who got so rich that they had to disregard the fact that it was by his personal exertions that he was making money. But the mere fact of the brewer's riches was no argument except in the case where the very success which had produced the riches had also, by creating a good-will, given permanency to the income; and, in that case, the claim to differentiation disappeared. The true distinction was not between earned and unearned income, but between temporary and continuing income—continuing, that is, independently of the life of the recipient. In the case of temporary income, they ought not to stop at £2,000 a year, in giving the advantage of differentiation, because however rich the recipient might be, the income died with him, or ceased when his personal capacity to earn it ceased. Its permanency should not depend upon its magnitude; it depended on the earning capacity of the individual himself. A continuing income might be an earned income, but yet not deserve the favour of a differentiated rate. To tax the temporary income on the higher scale, though temporary, and only because it was largo, was really to introduce graduation without having the honesty to say so. One advantage of differentiation over the whole scale, that was to say above £2,000, was that they would get the full declaration of income from all except those who had no temporary income at all. In connection with the two paragraphs which he had quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he had also to consider the proposal with regard to old age pensions. Before they made promises about old age pensions two things had to be said. They ought not, to promise old age pensions unless and until they could actually appropriate money to answer them. The Committee would observe that he used the word "until" as well as "unless." His second proposition was that they ought not to appropriate for old age pensions money got by reductions of the Navy. He was old fashioned enough to believe that money got by reductions of the Navy ought to be disposed of either by remission of taxation, or by payment of Debt. Only in that way could we preserve our defensive power. If they remitted taxation, they restored the money to fructify in the pockets of the

1471
people, with the certainty that if they called for it again, in order to increase our naval strength—and who could say that they would never need to do that?—they would only be laying on the people burdens that experience had already shown they could bear. If, on the other hand, they used the money to pay off Debt, they were creating in advance the best of all possible war chests against future naval attacks, the mere knowledge of the existence of which, in the minds of any whom it might concern, would be the best conceivable security that no such attack would be adventured. But if they pledged for ever, for old age pensions, or for any other perpetual or irrevocable charge, money saved by reducing the Navy, they would not be able, in case of need, to bring the Navy to its former strength without putting on new taxes, or raising the rate of old ones. He onfessed that he shared the uneasiness of his right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire, that the Budget meant that the income-tax was not only to be a permanent institution, but was also to be maintained at the present or even a higher rate; also, that it was to be administered in an increasingly inquisitorial way. In the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were getting further and further away from the policy of making the same people find the money for the public service who spent the money. That was why he did not think that the Budget tended very much in the direction either of justice or of economy.
*SIR T. P. WHITTAKERsaid he regarded the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one of the soundest and most courageous he had listened to since he had been a Member of the House. The speech of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer proved that it was a strong Budget. The Opposition seemed troubled at the idea that the income-tax was likely to be a permanent one at a shilling. It was quite true that the Chancellor did not say it would be kept permanently at that figure, but he did say that the income-tax would be permanent. Some of them, he might say, had arrived at that conclusion twenty-five years ago. After the experience they had had of Tory finance, the way in which the late Government piled up the debt of the country, and the cost of the Army and Navy, it might be
1472
expected that the income-tax would be high. Having separated earned from unearned income the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to raise one portion altogether independently of the other. At times of national emergency, it would be much easier to raise the Is. income-tax than it would have been if that tax involved those earning smaller incomes as was the case at present. He did not share the fears which had been expressed on this point. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was afraid the effect of the change would be that money would be invested abroad, and that incomes would go there as well. He did think any trouble would arise from foreign investments, because they would only suffer if the income from those investments did not come back to this country, and those likely to invest such incomes abroad were very few indeed. As a rule the men who inherited their wealth lived pretty well up to their incomes. The man who invested large sums of money abroad was generally the man who was making money pretty freely, namely the great business man. He was not the man who would be likely to invest his income abroad simply because there was a heavier income-tax placed upon it in this country. He could do far better with it in his own business concerns here. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed very much troubled about the returns being demanded from employers stating the salaries they paid. That simply amounted to this—that because a number of people who ought to pay did not pay but evaded payment, he thought it was a great pity that the law should be made effective. He did not think any sufficient reason could be given why he should sympathise more with the working man earning £180 a year than he did with the clerk earning the same sum, and if the clerk paid income-tax he thought the working man ought to pay also. It was rather a curious argument to object to a change the aim of which was to make the law more strict. Under the present law a great many evaded the tax altogether, and the right hon. Gentleman thought they ought not to be made to pay. He did not think that was the way to deal with the position. If it was thought that wage earners ought not to pay income-tax, then by all means let the

1473
House alter the law in that direction. He thought this provision for getting a return from the employers might deal to a limited extent with working men, but it would also deal with a large class who were earning considerably more than £160, but did not pay income-tax because they were difficult to got at. Surely it was only good business that they should ascertain from employers what were the incomes of those they employed in order that they might be taxed accordingly. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the Forest of Dean defended the use of the phrase "earned and unearned" as distinguished from "permanent and precarious." He thought the former was much the better term. It was quite true that there were difficulties and differences in regard to incomes which were derived from annuities, leaseholds and mining securities, as compared with incomes derived from Consols and other high class securities. We were, however, a practical people. Parliament had to go on definite lines, and they could not go into endless distinctions. There was a clear distinction between earned incomes and those derived from investments, whether precarious and permanent or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire bad given as an illustration the case of a gentleman who followed the business of an estate steward and received £1,000 a year for managing an estate. That estate must have been bringing in considerably more than £1,000 a year, because no landlord would pay £1,000 a year to a steward unless the income was very large. According to the illustration that steward gave up his position and managed an estate of his own which brought him in £1,000 a year, and it was contended that it would be unjust to tax such an income on the higher scale. The suggestion was, of course, that both positions were the same, and that in each case the income was earned. But such was not the case. The management of his own estate might occupy only a very small proportion of his time, and therefore his income would be derived not so much from actual work, but from property left to him, and surely there was all the difference in the world between the two cases. Then the light hon. Gentleman seemed very much troubled about the person deriving his income from
1474
a lot of small property, and suggested that on an estate worth £2,000 a year the amount collected in rents, rates, and taxes might amount to £4,000 a year. In such a case the rates and taxes would be deducted, and there would also be a strong case for deducting the cost of collection. The balance would be income from the property, and in no sense earned income, and he would only be taxed on his net income The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had expressed an opinion in favour of graduation by degression. That meant that if they fixed a maximum tax of 4s. in the pound on incomes of £40,000 a year, and everybody below that was to pay less than that maximum, they would be obliged to collect the maximum tax from everybody, and then return to everybody, except 250 millionaires, some portion of the tax In some cases they would have to return 3s. 11d. out of the 4s. He thought that system a cumbersome and impracticable method, because it meant taking from the people tens of millions of money, holding it for a considerable time, and then returning it. His opinion was that if they were to graduate the rate of tax on large incomes it would have to be done by a super-tax. In regard to differentiation it had been said that £2,000 was an arbitrary figure. And so it was. If they selected any limit at all it would be arbitrary, but it did not follow that it would be undesirable. Some of them no doubt would have preferred to carry the differentiation further, but there were many difficulties in the way. At the present time there was no difficulty whatever in dealing with professional incomes like those obtained by lawyers, architects and others, because they were very simple. A salary was an earned income, and he thought they would all agree that they included amongst earned incomes the incomes of the small traders. They could not argue that the small shopkeeper did not earn his income, but in his case they had to take into consideration the capital invested in his business, and that was not quite the same tiling as a salary. The difficulty was that the higher the scale went and the larger the income from a trade or business the greater would be the element of capital. The man making a large income from a business often had a large amount of capital in it. Consequently it became very difficult, unless

1475
they were prepared to call upon men in business to return the amount of their capital and make an allowance for the capital, deducting it from the total income, and treating the balance as earned income. That system would be complicated and difficult, whereas, as a matter of rough justice, if they took £2,000 as the limit— he was quite willing to go up to £3,000— they would be dealing with incomes which were very largely earned. If they went right through the scale beyond £2,000 they would find themselves landed in very great difficulties. Let them take, for example, the case of the Rothschilds. They were in business and they earned their incomes, but they all knew that those incomes were also very largely a return upon capital. If they were to include all traders as earning their income they would have to include such people as the Rothschilds, and it was absurd to argue that the Rothschilds should pay at a lower rate than a widow with a large family who had been left £750 a year which she derived from investments. In the case of a successful barrister earning from £5,000 to £10,000 a year he thought it would look a little anomalous if he were to pay income tax of 9d. while a widow with children had to pay 1s. He did not care which way they went, they would have anomalies and difficulties, but on the whole the limit of £2,000 would work fairly well. All they could do was to decide on broad lines and then do substantial justice. Any scheme would lend itself to detailed and carping criticism. After all, the object of taxation was to get money, and it must be got in substantial sums. Little riddling distinctions were a nuisance. They cost more in collecting than they were worth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money in a lump. A considerable difficulty arose from the case of limited liability companies Many small traders formed their businesses into companies, for family and personal reasons, and they derived an income from them which, if a private income, would entitle them to come in under a lower scale. He did not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision on that might be, but his own view was that they would have to charge the incomes from companies as incomes from investments. He was afraid they could not go into details and separate
1476
earned from unearned incomes there, and he thought that view might be justified on the broad ground that, if men took advantage of the law to place themselves in a special position for particular purposes of their own, they must consider this extra rate as part of the price they paid for occupying that position. There was a point to which, as he happened to have personal knowledge in regard to it, he would like to draw the attention of the Government namely, that at the present time a great many people who borrowed money and paid interest upon it deducted the income-tax from the interest. A very large number of those people had incomes under £700, and did not pay the 1s. rate of tax; but they always deducted the 1s. It did not matter to the man who received the interest, but it was lost to the public revenue. That applied very largely to insurance companies. That difficulty was going to be accentuated by the new differentiation. It was not for him to suggest a way out of the difficulty. It was a point which ought to be dealt with, because it might cause a leakage in the revenue. With regard to the death duties, he thought the increase which had been made was a most equitable and desirable one, and the only complaint which he made was that it was very modest. He saw no reason why the increased rate should only come on after the first £1,000,000. Why should it not apply to the whole estate and not only after passing the first £1,000,000? As he understood the proposal it was that the rate was to be 10 per cent. on an estate of £1,000,000, and if a man left £1,500,000. the rate was to be 10 per cent. on £1,000,000 and 11 per cent. on £500,000. He did not see any reason why it should not be 11 per cent. on the full amount. As to the reduction of Debt, that was where he thought this was a courageous Budget. Nothing paid better than paying off Debt. The recent fall of securities was largely owing to the great increase in national expenditure. The figures showed that the national expenditure raised by taxes in the ten years between 1887 and 1896 was £784,000,000, while the amount in the ten years between 1897 and 1906 —the latest decennial period for which the figures were available—was £1,286,000,000, an increase of about £500,000,000. The expenditure by local

1477
authorities in the United Kingdom in the ten years from 1884 to 1893 was £691,000,000. In the ten years from 1894 to 1903 the amount was £1,181,000,000, an increase of £500,000,000, or nearly double. [An HON. MEMBER: All the better.] Was it all the better? Most wise people arranged their expenditure according to their means. The result was a great fall in the value of securities, amounting to at least another £500,000,000. "What did that mean? He was not expressing any opinion as to the wisdom of any particular capital expenditure. This fall in the value of securities meant that the available capital of the nation was £1,500,000,000 less. [Cries of "Not at all," and "It is largely productive."] Yes, it was £1,500,000,000 less capital available for investment and use in trade. The issue of Consols and Government stock, and the increased trade produced an increased demand for money from the market already depleted to the extent of that £1,500,000,000; therefore the price of money went up, and every municipality was suffering because they had to pay more for their money. And therefore he rejoiced that the Chancellor was going in for improving the national credit. Many Members were returned to that House with a great cry for economy, but he found that a great many of them were voicing a good many demands for expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the working and consuming taxpayer must pay for social reform, and he understood that that was a reproach. He thought, however, that it did not he with the right hon. Gentleman to reproach this Government with anything in that direction, because he proposed to raise the revenue by taxes on imports, which would be taxes on the working and consuming citizen. The right hon. Gentleman preferred a contributory scheme of old age pensions, but he thought he would find it would be extremely difficult, costly, and almost impracticable to carry out such a scheme. The difficulty of getting any contribution at all from the poorest and least settled section of the community would be almost insuperable. Reference had been made to the taxes on sugar and tea, but he would point out that there was a great difference between that kind of taxes and the kind of taxes which the right hon. Gentleman advocated.
1478
He himself did not like the tax on sugar, but, at any rate, it was a tax on the whole article. If, however, a tax were put on only the wheat and corn which came from foreign countries, leaving wheat and corn from the Colonies and British possessions to come in free, it meant that the price of the whole wheat and corn consumed in this country would be increased, while a revenue would be obtained from only a very small portion. Another thing was that, if they were to look forward to anything like a satisfactory scheme of old age pensions and other social reforms, they would want a very considerable revenue. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham admitting that he would never have gone into the question of tariff reform but for the purpose of gaining revenue for old age pensions. At the same time they were told that we were to be a self-contained Empire, and that only foreign wheat and corn and manufactured goods were to be taxed. He could not help wondering where the money for old age pensions was to come from when we became self-contained and imported no corn on which tax was paid. It was said that there was to be no tax on raw material; but had the right hon. Gentleman opposite considered the difficulty of finding out what a raw material was? Steel plates and bar iron were the raw materials for making machinery; leather was a manufactured article of the currier, but the raw material of the shoemaker; dyes and chemicals were manufactured articles, but the raw material of the dyer and manufacturer of many articles. Were all these things to be taxed? It seemed to him that the Budget was a sound and courageous one. As he had said, if they were to look forward to anything like a satisfactory scheme of old-age pensions, they would want a very considerable revenue, and while he did not agree as to what was meant by a contributory policy, he thought they ought to look for contributions through taxation towards those pensions from all classes of the community in proportion to their means.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he quite agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that it was necessary for them to

1479
some extent to limit their remarks; and he proposed to address the Committee in that sense. The three most prominent features of the Budget were:— first, the establishment of the income-tax as a permanent part of our fiscal system; secondly, the determination to increase the death duties upon those who were too few to unite in resistance; and thirdly, the non-interference with indirect taxation, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted he could not afford. These three points showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a nervous feeling that he had come to the end of his resources. He could not but think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to make a permanent 1s. income-tax—for that was what it came to, although he demurred officially to the simple statement —was a very dangerous departure. They had heard over and over again what were the economic objections to an income tax it all, and that it could only be defended as an emergency tax. They knew that it was a tax on capital, and in that respect paralysed enterprise, and affected wages. The most eminent statisticians, such as Sir Robert Giffen, were insistent upon relieving it. Mr. Gladstone himself had repeatedly condemned it in emphatic words, as a dangerous, vexatious, and demoralising tax, which affected the trade and industry of the country more than any other; and yet, that was the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to impose on the country as a permanent tax. What was going to happen in the event of an emergency arising? Was it to be increased to 1s. 6d. in the pound and proportionately to 1s. 3d. in the pound to those whose incomes were under £2,000 a year? If so, that was a very serious outlook for the country. War was not the only emergency which might arise. For instance, if the cost of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme for old age pensions was under-estimated, as it easily might be, an emergency might arise ten or fifteen years after it came into operation which would necessitate the provision of large additional funds, and it would be very undesirable that the whole of these should come out of the income - tax. It would dislocate the industries of the country. He did not think hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches properly appreciated how strong also was the sense of injustice that many
1480
people might feel in regard to the increase of that tax, and in consequence he was not at all sure that it would not be evaded oven with the reduction on earned incomes which was proposed. It would certainly be evaded from that sense of injustice if it were to be raised to 1s. 6d. or 2s. whenever there was an emergency. The President of the Board of Education had said that he could not see how it could effectually be evaded. His information had been drawn from reading the Report of the Select Committee, in which Sir Henry Primrose had pointed out that it would not be at all difficult for people to evade the tax. The evidence pointed to the probability that people here would transfer their capital to other countries, would transfer their property to their children in their lifetime, and that the revenue front their investments abroad would be reunited to them direct instead of through their bankers. The President of the Board of Education asked to what countries they could transfer their capital and not be subject to income-tax. He would suggest the principality of Monaco, Canada, or the United Stales, and he really did not see what there was to prevent people who were so minded from transferring a large portion of their property from this country to other parts of the world, and thus not only evade any increase of the income-tax, but also the 1s. in the pound they were paying at the present lime. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be likely to frighten away the people who had been described as "the idle rich" the very people whom he desired to catch, and they would evade the tax. Moreover, rich people would also take into account the death duties—which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was increasingly—as part of the gross taxation they paid, and that also would influence them. There was some evidence before the House that the taxation of this country, taking the income-tax and the death duties together, was probably higher, certainly as high, as that of any other country. At any rate he read with considerable interest the evidence of Mr. Bernard Mallet, who had made a special study of income-tax in this and other countries, and had arrived at the conclusion that the effect of our present system as to combination of the death duties and income-tax was

1481
already practically equal in severity, for differentiation, to that in force in any foreign country or colony. If that was so, was it surprising that people should take the course referred to in the evidence of Sir Felix Schuster, who said that certain investors had to his knowledge made inquiries in regard to, and had already placed investments in the hands of bankers in New York and Paris. That meant that there was a tendency to evasion already manifesting itself among certain income-tax payers. It appeared to him from the evidence of exports who were acquainted with the subject, therefore, that it was far from certain that the Government would not low as much as they gained by putting on an increased income-tax, as they would frighten away the very people out of whom they wished to get the money, and they would find the, money they wished to secure slip through their fingers. Of course, the real question was the point at which they would resist, and he said in his humble judgment that the point of resistance had been reached now that the proposals of the Government had been put forward. If the Committee thought differently he could only say they must wait and see what occurred in the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn a distinction between earned and unearned income, but he doubted whether that distinction would be received quite so popularly as the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to believe At all events, he had had one or two very interesting letters from his constituents upon the subject, and they could certainly not be called millionaires. He thought that the small tradesman and employee viewed the question from a standpoint which had not been sufficiently discussed in the House. In a letter which had reached him two days previously it was said—
"A man or woman may work hard for thirty or forty years, save a little money, and invest it, and then just in their declining years they are to be taxed far more than the young, strong, and healthy man who is able to work."
He was sure that there was a widespread feeling in the country that the Government were going to tax incomes from investments with that result. He thought the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made between earned and unearned income was an
1482
unfortunate one from that point of view and was not likely to be popular. He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by requiring a compulsory declaration of income from men with incomes of over £2,000 a year would lose the co-operation of that class. There was nothing that an Englishman resented so much as prying into his private affairs for a purpose which he did not consider necessary, and he did not think that any man would calmly sit down to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anyone else, a full and complete declaration of his income from all sources when it would not benefit him in any way and was only made in an inquisitorial manner for the purpose of taxing him more highly in the future. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, would find that his arrow had been shot in vain. He approved, however, of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the reduction of Debt, as he thought they were statesmanlike and excellent, and he also approved of his proposal to sweep aside the barrier which divided local from Imperial taxation. Then as to the remedy for the present state of things, for they were ready to propose one from that side, they could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's wild declarations about free trade. He did not know, for instance, why he could not abate some of the incidence of taxation, say, upon chocolate and cocoa imported from the Colonies, which was heavily taxed. He did not know, moreover, why there should not be a reduction of the tea, coffee, or sugar duties upon goods coming from the same quarter. It was ludicrous that under our boasted free import system manufactured chocolate was protected and taxed on importation here 2s. 3d. to 8s. 6d. more than raw cocoa. He supposed the answer was that the Free Trade Party would not touch anything which savoured of colonial preference. He was sorry that that had not been done, but he felt certain that the time would come when the country would insist upon it, and it might be left to his Party to carry out what the Party opposite had completely declined to do, their idea of a remedy being to broaden the basis of taxation. The only breadth of this character, however, that appeared to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sight

1483
was that the income-tax payer had a good broad basis to his back, upon which he intended to apply his rod. He thought the Opposition remedy was infinitely better, and that was tariff reform and colonial preference. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that when the 1s. duty on corn was taken off nobody was ever heard to say that he was richer for it; on the contrary, he thought it would be an advantage, from the point of view of Empire, to have some duty of that kind. If the colonial corn was allowed to come in free it would be the foreign producer who would pay the 1s. or 2s. duty which might be imposed, because the foreigner must come down to the price of the colonial. If a scheme of that sort were adopted it would be much more efficacious than the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I rise now because unfortunately later on in the evening before the close of the debate I have another engagement elsewhere which I am obliged to fulfil, and as I do not wish to be regarded as disrespectful to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer I wish to notice the speech he made at the beginning of the debate. In one respect I set a very bad example to the Committee which has been universally followed by, I think, every speaker in the debate. I made a very long speech on Thursday last, and during the whole time I have been in the House to-day I have not heard a single short speech except that of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. I am going now to try to repair my bad example by compressing what I have to say into the fewest possible sentences. I rise really for the purpose only of removing misconceptions due, I am afraid, to want of clearness in some of the language that I myself used, though I did my utmost to make it clear; misconceptions which are prevalent outside, and which to some extent arc reflected in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. For instance, I said in emphatic terms when introducing the Budget that we must face the fact that the income-tax had now become an integral part of our fiscal machinery. The right hon. Gentleman did not quarrel with that, but he translated it into something entirely different, namely,
1484
that I suggested, which I never did, that the income-tax was to be treated as a tax that was to remain permanent at, at least, 1s. if not something more. I defy any one to find a single sentence in my speech to justify that contention. At any rate that is not my view, and indeed it would be a most illegitimate use of political prophecy on my part to attempt to forecast what five, ten, or fifteen years hence the fiscal system of this country might be. I am budgeting, as I said on Thursday last, for the next two or three years, and it is in reference to that situation and that situation alone that what I said then and what I say now applies. Another question was put to me founded on an entirely different apprehension by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. I said I thought that if we were going in for a policy of social reform, which costs money, all classes of the community must contribute their share of the expense. That I think, isself evident, and I am certain there is not a representative of the working classes in this House who will not admit it to its fullest extent. I said further, in regard to two principal indirect taxes upon necessaries of life, namely, the sugar duty and the tea duty, that I did not feel I could make any remission in them consistently with the general object I presented to the House. That object is two-fold. In the first instance, we have imposed on us the duty, both by the exigencies of the country and by our own declarations and pledges, to make a manful, courageous, and exceptional effort to repair the public credit. I put that in the forefront at this moment as the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has only to remember that in consequence of the South African War we have an addition to the National Debt of £130,000,000 to see that any Chancellor of the Exchequer who duly appreciates the gravity of the national situation is bound to make a solemn appeal to the House of Commons to forego remission of taxation in order to help him to relieve and mitigate this tremendous burden of debt. That is my first object. What is my second? My second is to provide the nucleus of a fund for social reforms, and in particular for making a start with that which I believe everyone, on both sides of the House, agrees is the most urgent instalment of social reform. I cannot fulfil

1485
those objects unless I ask the country and the House, as I do ask them, to make some sacrifice by foregoing remission of taxation this year. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would tell me, in fact, I rather anticipated it in my speech, that I was a purblind and fanatical devotee of an obsolete system of fiscal philosophy, and that I had only to raise my vision to a wider horizon to see that there were large tracts of untaxed territory which were only awaiting the attention of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I used an expression that seems to have given some pain to the right hon. Gentleman when I said that we were limited in our area of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was other ground, but I confess I prefer ground which is sound to ground which is boggy. The right hon. Gentleman differs from that, and complained that I should have been so disrespectful to a system of fiscal policy which prevailed in many continental countries and in a large number of our Colonies. But we are not missionaries or professors to lecture other countries on what they ought to do. The question is what should be done here in the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for the purposes of the free trade argument—I suppose I have made more speeches on the subject than any man in the House during the three years the controversy lasted, and I cannot charge my memory with having laid down on any single occasion any abstract principle as to the necessary superiority of free trade in all countries at all times and under all circumstances—it is sufficient for our purpose to say that here in these islands we cannot live and cannot carry on our industries; cannot keep our command of the markets of the world, and cannot keep open this the largest market in the world for foreign and Colonial products; cannot maintain the position which lies at the root of the foundation of our prosperity, unless we adhere not only to the doctrine but to the practice of free trade. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told me where I might find the resources to make it possible to remit part of the income-tax, reduce the sugar duty, and perhaps to repeal the tea duty. Where am I to find those resources? By adopting a system of what is called Colonial preference. That is to say by taxing food products—
1486
corn, meat, butter, and the rest, the necessary staple food of the great majority of our population—which come from foreign countries at a higher rate than those which come from our Colonial possessions. But you cannot do justice even on the broadest and roughest scale between the different parts of the Empire unless you supplement preference on food by preference on raw material. South Africa, for instance, does not send food, but wool and hides, the raw material of some of our greatest industries. What answer can you give to South Africa when she complains that you have given a preference to Canada and Australia and says that she also is entitled to some share in the benefit of the arrangement entered into in the interests of the Empire for the purpose of strengthening its bonds? I have never seen any answer to that argument, and no answer has ever been given to it from that bench or anywhere else. The essential difference between the sugar and tea duties, which I agree are grievous taxes which, weigh heavily on the class of our population least able to bear the burden, and those other taxes which it is proposed to substitute for them, is that they have this merit, that substantially the whole of the added price which the consumer pays, owing to the tax, goes into the Exchequer, whereas under the old system of the protective duties a large part of the added price which the consumer pays would be intercepted by the favoured interests. That is the reason why we stick to what the right hon. Gentleman regards as an antiquated system. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the inquisitorial developments in the income tax which were outlined in my Budget speech. I have no paternal pride in the matter at all. This inquisitorial arrangement, which I am accused of having invented, is substantially founded on the suggestions of the able Departmental Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, which sat for two years, and which was presided over by that clearheaded and excellent man of business, Lord Ritchie, whose loss we all deplore. It is a strange perversion of some observation I suppose I happened to drop, to say that I propose the abolition of the three years average in arriving at the amount to be paid by the income-tax payer. I have suggested nothing of the kind; it would be a

1487
monstrous thing to do. What I am going to ask the House to sanction—and it will be very beneficial to the revenue and do no harm to anybody if it is carried out—is to repeal Section 133 of the Act of 1842, which enables a man, if in his year of assessment his income falls below the amount of the three years average, to make application to have part of the amount paid refunded. This involves a loss to the revenue, and there is really no loss to the taxpayer if his year of assessment is unfruitful, for that year will, of course, come into the calculation for the next three years, and there is no reason whatever for going through the complicated system of refunding That is the arrangement we propose, following, not exactly the recommendation, but the spirit of the recommendation, of the Committee. I have been censured for having an open mind. I do not know why. I remember a Government that lived on an open mind. The late Prime Minister reproaches me with not having an open mind; the late Chancellor of the Exchequer because I have an open mind.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not reproach the right hon. Gentleman for having an open mind; be gave me to understand that he had no mind on the subject at all, though he subsequently corrected that impression. I was criticising the attitude I understood him to have adopted, that he had not made up his mind, and had not formed any opinion on the subject, until he then spoke.
MR. ASQUITH: I do not in the least object to the interruption. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that the arguments are nicely balanced upon this question of pension. It may be treated as deferred pay, and, it may be argued, is therefore entitled to the lower rate; or it may be treated as accumulated savings—accumulated, no doubt, by compulsion, the recipient not being a free agent, accumulated on his behalf by somebody else—and when he comes to the enjoyment of this, at his time of retiring, it may be argued that it should be treated as property and taxed on the higher scale. There is a great deal to be said on either side, and therefore I think I am not acting disrespectfully towards the Committee when I say that before I fully make up my mind I shall
1488
be glad to hear what is to be said on either side. My sole object is to avoid imposing a grievance, and at the same time I do not want to admit a principle of exemption which may be capable of indefinite and illegitimate extension in other directions. The right hon. Gentleman has put several concrete cases, most of which, not all, have been dealt with by the President of the Board of Education; but there was one point in reference to which he sought to score against me. He said I had departed from the terms "precarious" and "permanent" incomes which I had formerly used, and that now I propose to take as the real test or criterion of incomes—entitled to the lower or subject to the higher scale—whether they are "earned" or " un earned." Well, I frankly admit I am indebted to the Committee for their remarks on the subject, and I am convinced that the latter is the more logical arrangement for differentiating between the two classes. It is better understood, in popular parlance, as explaining what we want to have, namely, that the income taxed at a lower rate shall be that which is earned by personal labour or exertion. The other night I illustrated my argument by reference to the hardships that arise under the existing system, which taxes both earned and unearned income at the same rate. I pointed out how hardly this bore upon the man who makes provision for his old age. I was not contending, and I do not think I was understood as contending, for more than that the lumping the earned and unearned incomes in one category was doing an obvious and undesirable injustice. No doubt there will be many cases brought forward; the right hon. Gentleman is not the only recipient of letters on the subject. It is a very odd thing—and I cannot but refer to it—that you never in these cases get a single expression of gratitude in these letters from any of the people of the class whom by your legislation or your change in taxation it is intended to benefit. On the contrary, the moment you make a proposal, which it is not denied will be an immense boon to a large number of people, you are overwhelmed with letters containing objurgations and indignant remonstrances from people who have been paying the shilling all their taxpaying lives, and who did not know they had a grievance until, finding themselves near the border

1489
line of differentiation, they cry out to be allowed to come over to enjoy the relief. That is the character of the correspondence. I say frankly you can find nothing approaching mathematical or, as old philosophers would call it, strict distributive justice in this class of case; the perplexities and complications of human nature and society and industry are so great that no wit of man has over yet conceived a perfectly logical system. All we can do is to try something that will be a nearer approximation to justice than the present system. I have studied the subject, and shall continue to study the subject, with as much sympathy as I can command —and there have been large drafts upon my reserve of sympathy; I shall study all such cases in the hope that, if they can be brought within the equity of the change, they may in some form be brought within the exemption. What used to perturb Mr. Gladstone, as will be seen by reference to his statement on the Budget of 1852—I think it was—and as will be seen from the passage of the Report which has been read of the Committee of 1861—a rather colourless Report, drawn up, apparently, by Sir Stafford Northcote—what used to perturb Mr. Gladstone was the picture of the poor widow with £150 or £300 a year, left by her husband, with which she had to bring up her children and give them a start in life. Mr. Gladstone could not help contrasting this picture with that of a bustling young and energetic professional man who, though really making the same income, could look forward to a considerable improvement of his position in the future. This was the case Mr. Gladstone constantly quoted, and it was a case which impressed the House of Commons. But let the Committee remember that extensions of our illogical and haphazard system of exemptions and abatements have enormously reduced hardships of this character. The poor widow whose income is £300 does not pay 1s. income-tax; she has an abatement of £160, and only pays on £110, and the rate in fact comes to 5½d. in the pound. The additional relief in a case like that, with this measure of differentation, would be almost infinitesimal. In point of fact you get rid of almost all—I will not say all—but by far the most serious cases of hardship by the exemptions rising as; high as £700, and, on the other hand, by
1490
keeping the limit at£2,000. Confining ourselves within these limits we get rid of the most oppressive burdens existing, and, without predicting or prejudging what hereafter may be the figure of the tax should it become a permanent part of our fiscal system, I ask the Committee to accept the proposal put before them as one which, on the whole, is a long-delayed and much - needed measure of practical justice to the taxpayers of the country.
*MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that with regard to the question of differentiation, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Board of Education had given the Committee any information whatever as to the bearing of the incidence of the death duties upon it. Anyone who had road the Report of the Select Committee must have been impressed by the evidence given by Sir Henry Primrose, who pointed out that, although the income-tax did not of itself provide for differentiation, yet differentiation was provided for indirectly by the stamp duties, the house duty, and the death duties. Some very interesting tables were laid before the Committee showing exactly what effect the death duties had in regard to differentiation He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the figures given in those tallies. Sir Henry Primrose produced a table which proved that the estate duties really amounted to a very heavy burden on the inheritor of an estate; and his figures showed that a person who succeeded to an estate worth from £1,000 to £10,000 bringing in an income of £40 to £400, really paid a charge on his annual income of 9d. in the pound. In the case of estates worth £10,000 to £25,000 that charge amounted to 1s. in the pound; £25,000 to £50,000, 1s. l½d.; and £50,000 to £75,000, 1s. 3d. Those were very striking figures, and they ought to be seriously taken into consideration. He thought some reason ought to be given by the Government for not following the advice of the Commissioners of the Board of Inland Revenues, who were in favour of adhering the system of differentiation afforded by the death duties instead of adopting the present proposal. Mr. Bernard Mallet also showed by another table that a person who

1491
inherited an estate bringing in £200 a year paid 2·60 of his whole income annual charges, whereas a person earning a similar income only paid 1 per cent. of his income. In other words a person who inherited an estate bringing in £200 a year paid 2·60 times as much as the person who was earning £200 a year. A person inheriting an estate worth £500 a year paid 5·64 of his whole income whereas the possessor of an earned income of £500 a year paid 3·50. An income from an estate of £700 paid 6·64 and an earned income of £700 4·50, and so on up to £2,000, when the unearned income paid 7·40 and an earned income of that amount 5 per cent. Those calculations were based on the estate duties only, and did not include charges under the legacy succession and settlement estate duties; and if those were taken together the proportion would be very much higher. Those were very important points, and he submitted to the Committee that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had determined to carry out a system of differentiation it would have been much more simple to have readjusted the scale of these various duties. What he suggested would have saved an infinite amount of trouble and expense, and would have avoided a very great feeling of injustice which would undoubtedly be experienced by those who came just outside the limit. This differentiation would compel a person to pay upon his savings and he would be penalised, whereas if the death duties were adopted to carry out the principle of differentiation the person who would have to pay the penalty would not be the man who earned the savings, but the person who inherited them. He was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had stated that the Committee which considered the question of the graduation of the income-tax were in favour of this differentiation. He did not think that was correct, because what the Committee reported was that the system was practicable; but they did not report that it was desirable; and nobody who read the evidence put forward by the officials of the Board of Inland Revenue could come to any other conclusion. Sir Henry Primrose, when asked whether he was in favour of the new system of differentia-
1492
tion said that he was not, and that if anything was done in that direction it should be done by means of the death duties. As regarded earned and unearned incomes, he agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted the best terms. The terms suggested were permanent and precarious incomes or incomes derived from investments or personal exertions. It was obvious that many incomes derived from investments were anything but permanent, and incomes derived from personal exertions were often very precarious; and those distinctions would have led to very great difficulties. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division had clearly pointed out that there would be considerable difficulty in the case of small traders to find out what part of their income was derived from personal exertions, and what part was the result of the investment of their capital. He was strongly in favour of the differentiation not being put higher than £2,000. With regard to the case of an owner managing his own estate, he did not think that point had received a fair answer. The President of the Board of Education had said that nothing new had happened in such a case, because the landlord was assessed under Schedule A and the farmer was assessed in his profits under Schedule B. That was quite true, but it did not touch the question of how much time a man managing his own estate spent upon it. At the present moment the landlord paid far more in excess of his share of taxation than any other income-taxpayer; because anyone who knew anything of the management of an estate was aware that the allowance made in respect of upkeep was totally inadequate. A landlord was always assessed on the gross rental of his farms, upon which he was allowed a reduction of ⅛ upon land and ⅙ on buildings. He submitted that those two abatements were not by any means a fair proportion of what the owner actually spent upon the upkeep of his estate. If a landlord managing his own estate was not to be treated as earning his income the least they could do was to give the landlord a fair abatement in respect of the upkeep of his estate and of the time he spent upon its managment. The question of the effect these stages,

1493
would have upon the actual revenue was a very important one. It was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to estimate correctly what the actual difference would be. One thing was, however, undoubtedly true, and that was that there would be very many hard cases and much injustice would be felt by those people who came just outside the limit. He instanced the case for example of two men earning by their own personal exertions £1,900 a year each. One of them had accumulated no savings, but the other by careful expenditure and economical management had managed to save a sum which brought him in £200 a year from investments. That income from his savings would bring him over the limit and he would not be able to claim any abatement on the earning clause, while his friend who had not saved anything would be able to claim an abatement. That was a great hardship which would certainly lead to discontent. He was afraid under these proposals people would be tempted not to furnish proper returns of their income, or else they would be tempted to divide up portions of their income and invest them in separate funds amongst their children. In that ease people might keep themselves below the limit and claim abatements. All these things would have a very considerable effect on the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LONDON PORT AND DOCKS BILL [BY ORDER].
Order for Second Heading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time"
*MR. BARNARDmoved that the Bill be read upon this day six months. He said he did not propose to go at any length over the contents of the Bill, although he thought it contained propositions which would be very legitimate matter of debate upon
1494
the Second Reading. It appeared to him that the proposed dues on goods should be collected at the Customs House by the public authority. The proposal to divide between the dock companies and the river authority the proceeds of the port dues was in his opinion open to objection because the dock companies were profit-making concerns, and it was a very grave question whether such a proposition should receive the sanction of the House. He desired to discuss the measure not so much upon what it contained as upon the larger consideration of what he regarded as the interests of the Port of London. It appeared to him that at the present time there was every reason why, in the interests of the port, they should pause before they did anything further of a piecemeal character. The considerations which governed the interests of the port required a comprehensive measure once and for all dealing with the whole subject. The Port of London was altogether unique. It stood apart from nearly every other port in the country. He did not desire to take up the time of the House by going over the different propositions which had brought them to the position they occupied that night. There was no doubt that the present stagnation had arisen through the jealousy of the varying interests involved. It was not necessary for him to point out the great differences between the Port of London and the other ports of the United Kingdom. Everybody knew that Manchester had the ship canal. They knew what had been done in connection with the Mersey by the Dock and Harbour Board, and they were familiar also with the efforts which had been made in connection with the Tyne and the Clyde. He did not propose to discuss the details of these different ports. The dominating question which existed in connection with all of them was how the necessary money was to be got in order to carry out the work, and what ought to be the controlling body which should carry out the administrative work. There were different proposals continually placed before the House in connection with this subject. They heard a great deal about Antwerp and the Thames Conservancy, to which he happened to belong. He had mad; two or three expeditions to Antwerp and other important Continental ports to investigate what had been done there,

1495
and to get the advantage of knowledge of what was going on. But the Port of Antwerp could not be properly compared to that of London on business grounds, for these reasons. Antwerp was aided enormously by what he would term national funds. The Port of London, after all, had been conducted on purely business lines. When he looked at the figures as to how these different ports had progressed he said at once that the comparison in his opinion was altogether fallacious. If he read the figures showing what London had really done it would appear that the result was not so bad. In fact, the Port of London would bear a good deal of looking into. In 1895 the Fort of London tonnage of shipping inwards with cargo amounted to 14,200,000, while for the last year in respect of which figures were available the tonnage was 17,450,000. Liverpool had risen from 7,800,000 to 9,800,000. He mentioned these figures simply by way of illustration in order to show that London had increased by a larger tonnage than any other port, and that at the present moment it stood in the proud position of being more than equal to Antwerp and Rotterdam put together, their combined total being only 14,000,000. This question was a difficult one, and he believed that the main trouble had arisen in connection with what was to be done in regard to the taking over of the clocks and wharves. He did not know what might be the feeling in the House, but they were all familiar with the findings of the Royal Commission. They recollected that if the original idea of taking over the water companies had been earlier accepted on the recommendations of Mr. Cross's Committee, or even that of Sir William Vernon Harcourt, it would have been a great deal better for London. They knew, equally in connection with licenses, that if Mr. Bruce's proposals had been accepted at the time they were made, it would have been better for all of them. He ventured to think that in this country it was generally recognised that a private interest was not to be ruthlessly interfered with. He was not going to lay down what principle ought to be followed respecting control, but he believed the time was coming when the Government should face the question of the Port of London and produce legislation which would, as far as possible, do no harm to the private
1496
individual but lay down the principle that the port should be controlled by a public authority, and that the present condition of affairs should be ended—that the Thames Conservancy, as it now existed, should cease to exist—and that there should be an authority governing the upper river, and be another authority controlling the Port of London. From his experience as a member of the Thames Conservancy he was personally of opinion that that body had been unduly assailed by people who did not understand its working or its powers. According to the powers at their disposal and according to the weapons and tools they had to work with, he, with all respect, expressed the view that they had done the very best they possibly could do in the circumstances. Whenever they had made proposals they had been assailed by particular interests—persons who were looking after their own particular affairs. The Thames Conservancy proposed a Bill after the Report of the Royal Commission was published, and it adopted as far as possible the recommendations of the Commission. After a time it became evident that the whole Bill could not pass. The Thames Conservancy therefore threw over a great many of its propositions, but it left in one which carried with it the principle that the Thames Conservancy should be immediately entrusted with power to raise revenue for the purpose of extended dredging. What was the answer of the Thames Conservancy? That was passed unanimously through the House, and the Thames Conservancy, in carrying it into effect, had done what he believed would be of great future advantage to the Port of London. He thought that the policy of the Thames Conservancy could not be fairly attacked. They had made no serious mistake, but they simply had not the means to carry out the work which it was necessary for them to undertake. He would not attempt to discuss what ought to be the constitution of the Port of London, but personally he could not help feeling this. He recognised that the London County Council proposal to have a controlling interest was a perfectly legitimate one if they were to be responsible for the financial security to carry on the new authority. In that case they were

1497
undoubtedly entitled to a controlling influence. He himself favoured the lines of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, the Tyne Commissioners, and the Clyde Trustees, as much more desirable in the interest of all concerned. Briefly put, it amounted to this, that those who provided the money—the shipowners, due-payers, or whoever they might be— were the people who were best qualified to see that the money was properly spent. If they required business facilities they would not hesitate to tax themselves in order to raise revenue to improve the port, for the purpose of assisting in the development of their business. As to economical expenditure, if it really was their money that was going out they would be very careful to see that it was wisely and properly spent. They knew that in connection with Liverpool and the two northern ports that system had worked very well indeed, and he thought that it would be so also in London. Last year when a similiar Motion was proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, he suggested that it was desirable that there should be a conference of the parties principally concerned. The President of the Board of Trade agreed to that idea, and a conference was held, the discussions at which cleared the air. It did not accomplish all they wished, but some points of difference were compassed and he thought the decisions arrived at would make it easier for the Government Department to draft the measure which they proposed to bring forward. A great deal had been heard about the Port of Antwerp. That port received assistance out of the public funds of the Belgian Government. The British Government had made themselves responsible as guarantors for Irish land, and he thought it would not be unreasonable if, in some form or another, on business lines they took upon themselves responsibility in connection with the development of the Port of London. He did not believe they would be ever called upon to fulfil any guarantee. The port could easily be made self-supporting. It was for this reason, among others, that he ventured to move the postponement of the Bill, for he was hopeful that the President of the Board of Trade would announce his intention of bringing in a measure, which, once and for all, might settle this very great and vital question.
*MR. W. BENN (St. George's)said that the Second Reading of the Dock Company's Bill afforded a very welcome opportunity for discussing the urgent needs of the Port of London. That was perhaps the best that could be said about it. The recent disclosures concerning the contribution made by the Dock Company to political propaganda would hardly have inclined the ear of the House of Commons towards them, even if the Bill itself, in view of the history of the movement for the reform of the Port of London, had not been altogether an impossible proposition. What were the proposals put forward by the Dock Companies, and what relation did they bear to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and to the Bill of the late Government? First of all, it was proposed to impose upon all goods imported from over seas (except transshipment goods) dues on a scale copied from that in force in the Port of Liverpool. The Dock Company and the Conservancy were to share in the proceeds of these dues in proportion to the amount of goods discharged in the river and docks respectively. The exact amount of the yield was not certain, but in all it should not be less than £750,000 per annum, and of this it was estimated that two-thirds would go to the Dock Company. It was notable that in addressing his shareholders in 1902 Mr. Cater Scott, the Chairman of the London and India Docks Company said, that "A proper system of charges need not be as high as the Liverpool Schedule." It had also to be remembered that the dock rates and charges were in most cases higher in London than in Liverpool, so that to add to the dues actually levied in Liverpool would be detrimental to the interests of those using the Port. Further, the Government Bill in 1903 did not impose dues, but only gave the Commission the option of imposing them, and it was clear from the proceedings on that Bill that it was not necessarily intended that the option should be exercised. It was, of course, impossible to exaggerate the importance of not making London a dear port. The evidence given before the Commission by the London Waterside Manufacturers Committee stated that the members of that committee imported annually 8,000,000 tons of raw material. Thus it was easy to understand what enabled

1499
London to be a great manufacturing centre, and the raw material so imported was actually able to compete in the manufactured form with foreign goods which came in at the same port. The second desire of the company was to put a tax on barges, amounting to 3s. 6d. on those under 100 tons, and 5s. on those over. It was hoped that the yield of that tax would amount to £30,000 a year. The Royal Commission considered the proposal to curtail the ancient right known as "free water," and described it as an attempt by the company to secure "power to tax their rivals in trade in order to recover a lost position." He would come in a moment to the important part played by the wharves in the success of the port, and it was only necessary now to say that any proposal to limit their present privileges would have to be considered with the greatest care. The third proposal of the company was to reduce the shipping dues from 1s. 6d. to 1s. It would be remembered that some five years ago these dues were raised from 1s. to the statutory maximum of 1s. 6d. In view of the profits which the company would derive were their other proposals accepted, it was not surprising that they were willing to bait their line with this sprat. He now came to what the company proposed to do in return for the privileges conferred. They offered to spend £2,000,000 on dock extensions. That sounded a large figure, but it was worth remembering that Mr. Cater Scott in his evidence spoke of two or three millions which would be "necessary for meeting all the dock requirements of the port on very moderate terms." Further, the Royal Commission recommended an expenditure of £4,500,000 on dock extensions and improvements. What the proposals amounted to, therefore, was that the company proposed to spend less than half what the Royal Commission recommended, and yet desired to impose a scale of dues on goods which was certainly much heavier than the Commission ever contemplated. The next proposal was that the Thames Conservancy should spend £1,000,000 on improving the river. Whether that proposal was made with the consent and approbation of the Conservators was not stated, but under the new scheme of dues it was estimated that they would receive about £237,500. The Royal Commission suggested that a sum of £2,500,000
1500
should be spent on dredging, and proposed, as it would be remembered, that the London County Council should find the money. Then there was the power which it was proposed to give the Board of Trade to increase the number of Conservators from thirty-eight to forty-five. What was the reason for that? The Bill sought to give the dock companies public money. It proposed what was in effect a tax on all the trade of London, and as they had a Government pledged to public control following public money, the promoters felt constrained to make an otter which should have at least the appearance of a concession to the public. It took the facetious form of "public money for the docks, public control for the Conservancy." Was it necessary to add that no such tinkering could possibly make the Thames Conservancy a suitable port authority? To sum up the objections, no private Bill could possibly deal with a problem of this magnitude. That was the reason given by the Conservative Government for rejecting the London County Council Bill in 1905. Further, the present proposals were quite inadequate to meet the needs of the port. The Commission recommended an expenditure of four and a half millions on the docks, and two and a half millions on the river. Again, it was of paramount importance to keep London a cheap port. The Commission only countenanced the imposition of dues as a last resort. Finally the object of the Bill was to set up the finances of the dock companies, and in consequence it would increase the purchase price should it ever become necessary for a port authority to take them over. The fact that the company's proposal was a bad one did not diminish the urgency of the problem. There was absolute unanimity as to the necessity for a new port authority. The mere enumeration of the existing bodies and their powers and constitution proved the need for unified control. On the need for a new authority the Conservators, the London Chamber of Commerce, and Lord Desborough's Committee were all in agreement. Leaving the question of the constitution of such an authority, he came to the powers which should be bestowed upon it, and the important question of taking over the docks. Supposing the new authority purchased the whole undertaking—docks, warehouses, and all as a going concern. They then would find themselves in

1501
this dilemma. If they kept the warehouses, they would be in active competitions with the wharfingers. If, however, as was half-heartedly recommended by the Royal Commission, they disposed of the warehouses, they would then have parted with the most profitable part of the undertaking, and at a price which must entail a loss, because clearly the warehouses as an independent undertaking would not be so valuable as when running in connection with the docks. That certainly did not point to the advisability of the purchase of the docks. There was another matter worth consideration from the business point of view. Was it wise to put public money into dock undertakings? Let the case of the wharves be considered. These wharves dealt with an enormous and increasing amount of the trade of the port. The Royal Commission said that—
"The business of wharves, independent of the docks, has, under the present arrangements, grown to a magnitude unequalled in any other port,"
and the Thames Conservancy in support of their Bill in 1905said—
"More than one-half of the tonnage of the port is dealt with at wharves and mornings in the river, and in respect of that part of its trade London is the cheapest port in Europe, so far as the dues payable to the port authority are concerned."
Taking the figures of 1901 and 1905, it was found that in that period, while the total tonnage dealt with in the docks had increased by only 207,953, the total tonnage dealt with in the port had increased by 1,236,494. It had to be remembered, too, that at Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Antwerp large use was made of river quays. Sir Thomas Sutherland and Mr. Beckett Hill advocated this development before the Royal Commission, and it was stated that at one time the Peninsular and Oriental Company had actually purchased land with a view to constructing such a quay. It was a striking fact that in Antwerp, notwithstanding the recent addition to dock accommodation, more than half the tonnage was dealt with at river quays, and, further, the average tonnage of the ships was greater at the quays than at the docks. It was true that at the moment all the development was taking the shape of docks, but when the question of the diversion of the river bed was settled, no
1502
doubt the construction of more river quays would be proceeded with. Finally, he might point out that quite recently the Board of Trade had sanctioned an undertaking for the construction of river quays at Long Reach. Those considerations made it necessary to think carefully before recommending the purchase of the docks by the new authority. This was not a question, however, the decision of which need stand in the way of the setting up of the new port authority which they all desired to see. There were many duties quite unconnected with the management of docks and warehouses. There was the deepening of the river which the Commission estimated to cost £2,500,000. Surely it was not too much to ask that the Goverment should find that money. London bandied 31 per cent. of the import trade of the country, and the service might well be regarded as a national one. The new authority might also take over the maintenance, management, and control of dock entrances and waterways. These, of course, were only suggestions, but with a strong Commission consisting of worthy representatives of the greatest port in the world it ought not to be impossible to do something to save London from the decline that was feared for it. It was true that so far they had held their own, but in matters of this kind it was absolutely necessary to be ahead of the times. He maintained that it should be the duty of a new authority to maintain the port up to the requirements of her trade, and he hoped they would hear from the President of the Board of Trade that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this matter with the boldness and completeness which its importance demanded.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Barnard.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*SIR E. BOYLEthought the last speaker was altogether mistaken in his view that the port dues of London were higher than those of other ports. The hon. Member had also said that £2,000,000 for the construction of a new dock was inadequate,

1503
but after careful consideration the promoters believed that it was every penny that would be required. In addition, the hon. Member had talked about a tax being levied under the Bill upon goods coming into London, but, of course, if one had to support docks, the money must be got from somewhere and the promoters thought it was fair that it should come from the goods which passed through the docks. The £7,000,000 estimate provided for much more than the construction of a dock; it also included the cost of widening and deepening the river and several other charges. The objects of the Bill were of such a character that he thought they would, to the mind of any unbiassed Member, bring more or less conviction as to its utility. There was nothing in the Bill that could be considered of an objectionable character. He was not going to read any of the clauses of the measure, because they were very lengthy, but he would summarise the more important ones as they stood as amended after interviews with the chief interests concerned. The Bill constituted the Thames Conservancy as the port authority, with duties to dredge the river, to regulate traffic on the river, and to collect port dues on ships and the new dues on goods. It gave the Board of Trade power to compel the dock companies to make any further and necessary improvements required by traders, and it left the dock companies as they were. But it put an obligation on the London and India Docks Company to construct at once a new dock and other works to cost £2,000,000, and on the other two companies and the London and India Docks Company to do whatever was necessary from time to time. It reduced the dues on ships from 1s. 6d. to 1s. per ton as recommended by the Royal Commission. Moreover it put dues on goods limited in amount by a schedule attached to the Bill. That again was the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission and was done at every other port except Hull. Coastwise transhipment and export goods were to be exempted. The schedule attached to the Bill, whether it was high or low, was the Liverpool schedule, and the Bill gave to traders an appeal to the Board of Trade and the Railway Commissioners on every port and dock charge, so getting over any question of the dues on goods being
1504
said to kill any manufactures or any trade by putting an exceptional charge upon them. These were the chief objects as set out in the Bill, and he was sure that there was no unbiassed and open-minded member of the commercial world who, after going through the measure, would find anything greatly to object to in it. It was true that it gave the London and India Docks Company power to levy dues on goods up to the amount of an annual payment rising to £270,000 in 1911 and thereafter. Why did it do that? It did it for the reason that the dock company undertook to spend £2,000,000, the amount which on the highest authority was said to be necessary, on a new dock; that sum would not be raised under 4 per cent., which equalled £80,000 a year. The dock must be a burden for many years until it came into full use; it could not be remunerative for twenty years at least, as a dock must be built far larger than present requirements, to meet future needs. Another reason was that the dock company were giving up 6d. per ton on dues on ships, and therefore that amount had to be got from somewhere. That 6d. per ton would amount to £150,000. In addition the dock company would have to pay increased rates and taxes and other outgoings on the new docks, and that would amount to £40,000 a year making a total of £270,000. This £270,000 which the Bill provided for would be gradually reduced as the new dock came into play, and in view of these figures it was a mistake for anyone to say that the Bill enriched the company. It did no such thing, but the port would get a new dock and the public further and better accommodation. The dock companies had no objection to being taken over by a board of trustees, they had no objection to being taken over by the London County Council or any other authority. All they said was that what had to be done in this direction should be done at once as time was of the greatest consequence. The effect of the adjournment of the question even, for one year was to be deplored. If, at the end of that period, some method of purchase was provided for by the Board of Trade by means of a Port Trust, it would be two years before the proposal could be carried out. He took the precedent of the water companies, and said two years, because that period elapsed.

1505
before they, after the passing of the measure, finally took over the undertakings of the water companies. With the year's delay, that made three years before anything could be done, and then it would take at least a year for the new authority to ascertain where was the best place to construct the now docks and to get out plans and specifications and make contracts for the building. If the Bill was not passed, therefore, it was practically impossible to relieve the pressure on the space of the docks till the year 1911. It must take four years. Supposing however, the dock companies were allowed to proceed with this Bill, they could start to get out their plans, specifications, and contracts next August, and there was no reason why the dock should not be open to receive ships in 1911. There was another reason why they should be allowed to proceed with the measure this session. The dock would be constructed in the poorest part of London, in the East End, and if they were allowed to commence it this year, the necessary work would give relief to thousands of working men in the district. The construction would last over this Christmas, next Christmas, and the Christmas after, and directly the work was completed the dock would give employment to thousands of people in the district in which it was most required. If the Bill passed it would do nothing whatever to stop a Port Trust or any other arrangement when the Government thought fit to bring it forward, with this advantage to the Government, that at any rate the maximum claim would be to some extent fixed, as the Bill would limit the dock companies to a dividend of 4 per cent. The dock companies had brought in a special sterilisation clause to that effect to meet the objection that their dividend would be unrestricted. He would not read the clause because it was a little long, but it was to the effect that they were willing to limit the return on the new capital, spent on the construction of the dock, to 4 per cent. for the next four years so as to give the Government time to take over the Dock undertaking. There did not seem to him to be anything very grasping in that proposal. They were willing, so as not to stop the necessities of the port being adapted to the requirements of the trade, to say,
1506
"Let us commence this dock; let us charge interest at 4 per cent. and you at any moment may step in and only pay us the cost of constructing the dock plus 4 per cent. on the money we have spent." He thought it must be admitted that the matter was urgent. In 1903, in the King's Speech, the necessity of dealing with the Port of London was referred to as a matter of "urgent national concern" They were now in 1907, and such was the urgency of the matter that the dock companies would be content to accept only this return of the money actually expended upon the new dock.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD GEORGE,): Four per cent, on what?
*SIR E. BOYLEreplied that it was 4 per cent. interest on the capital employed in constructing the new dock. He did not wonder at it striking the right hon. Gentleman as moderate. It was not 4 per cent. on the capital of the company, but 4 per cent. on the cost of the dock.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked where that was in the Bill. It did not appear from anything he was officially told in the Bill, which was what he was talking about. The only thing which he had officially was the document which he held in his hand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to refer to extraneous matters.
*SIR E. BOYLEsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the new clause which was to be added to the Bill, he would see that it set out what he had stated in no uncertain terms.
MR. ROWLANDSinquired in what part of the Bill it was to be inserted.
*SIR E. BOYLEsaid he did not know as he had not the Bill with him, but the new clause ran—
"If the undertaking of the company is purchased at any rate not later than four years from the passing of this Act, otherwise than by agreements by any public body or trustees, the provisions of this Act shall not be taken into account in ascertaining the price or consideration to be paid by such body or trustees for the said undertaking. Provided that in the event of such purchase the company may bring into account the actual amount of any capital expenditure wade by them in pursuance of the

1507
obligations imposed on them by or under this Act together with interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum from the date of such expenditure."
Last year the Company brought in a Bill which would have assisted both themselves and the Millwall Docks, but they had to withdraw it because of the sterilisation clause that was insisted upon by the President of the Board of Trade, who said he would bring in a Bill this year. He knew how a sterilisation clause affected the claims of the Water Board, and he asked hon. Members who were business men whether they would submit to be put under a contract which meant "Heads I win and tails you lose." The returns of a dock company were not certain, but speculative. They depended on the trade. Let them imagine a dock company saying that if they earned 6 per cent. they would never accept more than 4 per cent., and if they earned nothing they would be content. If that sterilisation clause was put in it meant that the Bill would be thrown out. The present Bill had the support of the shipowners, merchants, and large timber trade of this country and other traders, but it was obvious that in a Bill of this magnitude it was impossible to please everybody. Somebody was bound to object. All he asked was that the Bill should be allowed to go forward, and that if it was just and beneficial it should be passed into law. If it was unjust let it be thrown out, but let the House not destroy it unheard with the sterilisation clause. If the Bill was allowed to go upstairs, if there were any objections they would be investigated, and if there was no substance in them they would be put on one side. During the last seven years the Company had spent £20,000 in bringing in Bills to obtain what they believed would be beneficial to the country and themselves. That was the position seven years ago when they were first seized of the necessity for the enlarging of the Port of London, not only for their benefit but for the benefit of the traders at that port. Since that date 1,200,000 tons more had come to the Port of London, and so far as the Company were concerned, they had no more area or facilities to offer now than then. Was there any other; reason that should impress itself on the Government why they should give to the Company the relief they asked? Hon.
1508
Members would be somewhat surprised to know that at the present moment these great docks, the greatest in the world in one sense, did not possess an opening wide enough to admit battleships of the "Dreadnought" type, and that the Thames Shipbuilding Company lost the contract to build such ships because there was no dock in which they could be docked in the Port of London. To put it into colloquial language, that was bad business; bad for the port not to be able to accommodate such ships and bad for the State that the Thames shipbuilders were not able to contract for that size of vessel, because if they were constructed on the Thames there was no place in which to dock them. With our clear improving trade this was a really pressing subject, and the Company did not want to be put off with fair sounding terms and kindly wishes. They wanted to have a firm, clear, and definite promise that something would be done which would prevent the trade of the Port of London being injured and that the docks of London should no longer be restricted from making the full use of the natural advantages and magnificent premises they possessed. In 1905, that tonnage of the Port of London was 285,000,000, in this last year it was 314,000,000—an increase of 29,000,000, and the docks had no more facilities, no more advantages, to offer the public than in former years, and if the ships were too big they had to refuse them altogether. Things had arrived at such a pass that something must now be done. They had waited patiently and had been buffetted every way by one Government and another who had seen the necessity but done nothing, and if they were not now allowed to press this matter further the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some definite pledge that he would without further delay relieve the Docks Company from the unfair position in which they had been placed and take such steps as might be desirable for the improvement and protection of the Port.
MR. ELLISsaid the House would appreciate that the question before them was of great magnitude and complexity, and of the greatest possible urgency, and also agreed whith those who said that they wanted practical performance and not

1509
merely fair words. As a member of the Royal Commission that investigated this question for two years, he regretted that the 1903 Bill had not been passed into law. In the course of the inquiry no fact astonished him more than the volume of the trade of London, which was by far the greatest port in the world. There was no signs of diminution of trade, but proof of a steady increase in its volume, even since the Report of the Royal Commission had been issued. He would like to read one of the concluding paragraphs os the Report of the Commission which put the matter very clearly—
"In conclusion we desire to say that our enquiry into the conditions of the Port of London, has convinced us of its splendid natural advantages Among these are the geographical position of the Port; the magnitude, wealth and energy of the population behind it; the fine approach from the sea; the river tides strong enough to transport traffic easily to all parts, yet not so violent as to make navigation difficult; land along the shores of a character suitable for dock construction and all commercial purposes. In addition to these advantages, London possesses docks, which, although they are not in some cases upon the level of modern requirements, are yet capacious and capable of further development. The deficiencies of London as a Port, to which our attention has been called, are not due to any physical circumstances, but to causes which may easily be removed by a better organisation of administrative and financial powers."
While sympathising with the objects sought to be attained by the Bill, he could not agree with its methods. Clauses 25 to 38 relating to the constitution of the Thames Conservancy, were surely almost ultra vires, actually out of order they could not be the Bill having been put from the Chair, Coming to the works proposed, they were urgently needed; everybody wanted the work done who knew anything of the circumstances of the case. He rather regretted to hear what had fallen from the hon. Member for Taunton with regard to the sterilisation clause. The omission of the Thames Conservancy clauses and the adoption of a reasonable sterilisation clause would be to his mind the ideally best course. But he dared say that his right hon. friend on looking carefully over the case had found himself not quite able to take that course, especially after what had fallen from the hon. Member. Therefore, it came to this, that, though the Bill had considerable merits, he did not suppose for a
1510
single moment that, having regard to the Report of the Royal Commission, and to the universal demand there was that the Thames should be placed as regarded the administrative authority in the same position as that occupied by some of our great rivers—the Government saw their way to allowing the Bill to be read a second time. The President of the Board of Trade would speak for the Government of course, and he earnestly urged him not merely to make a promise or to say a few fair words, but to bind himself by a Parliamentary pledge to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject next year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who was the one other Member of the House on the Royal Commission permitted him to speak on his behalf. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to him as follows:—
"I think the delay in putting through the improvements of the port which we recommended is deplorable. In my opinion the docks ought not to be impeded in legislation, appropriate to their powers and constitution, except on a distinct pledge by the Government themselves to pass a Bill next year."
It was purely a non-political and business matter. Following the precedent of 1903, the Bill could go to a Joint Committee, and i t would come back from that Committee in such a position that the Government would be able to put it through. He did most earnestly but he hoped that they would have a Parliamentary pledge from his right hon. friend of the nature he had indicted.
*MR. WILESsaid he desired to support the rejection of the Bill for two reasons. First of all, because the Bill seemed to him one of the most astounding proposals that had ever been put before Parliament; and, in the second place, because he felt that the dock companies of London, in the days tint they had been handling the trade of the port, had failed in their trust to the people and commerce of London. The Bill was opposed by all the organised trades of London. Shippers, sugar merchants, metal merchants, those engaged in the grain and flour trade, and those connected with the whole of the riverside warehouses, were all opposed to the Bill and with no uncertain voice. He believed it was understood that the Bill was pro-

1511
moted by all the dock companies of London, but really he thought that it was promoted by the London and India Dock Joint Committee. He believed that that Committee managed the Albert and Victoria Dock, the West India Dock and the Tilbury Dock Companies had some working agreement with the Millwall Dock Company, and the Commercial Dock Company he thought only gave a half-hearted support to the measure. The latter was the only dock, he believed, which had been managed in an efficient and business-like manner, and the only dock company which paid a dividend and had given satisfaction to the traders of London. The proposal of the Bill was to put a tax on all goods which came into London from over the sea. Further, it proposed to put a tax upon barges that were obliged to enter the docks to take goods off steamers. As far as he could see very little advantage was going to be given to the merchants and traders of London in exchange for the tax to be put upon goods. The only advantage suggested was that a new dock was to be built at a cost of something like two millions of money. He thought that it was a great question whether the new dock was required in London. What Londoners and merchants and shippers required was that the present dock accommodation should be brought to a perfect condition by the introduction of modern machinery; that, he believed, would give satisfaction. If the Bill passed, a tax would be put on the raw material of all the manufactures and industries of the River Thames, simply, he believed, to enable the dock companies to make better dividends, and perhaps very few, if any, facilities would be given for delivery and despatch in the management of the docks. He spoke with rather bitter experience of the dock companies. He had been in business in the City for twenty-five years, and he knew that everyone who had brought a large amount of goods through the docks had always found that London was in a worse position than the other great ports of the country. Especially was the trade of London hampered by the management, or he might say, very often the mismanagement of the docks of the Joint Committee. The grain trade, with which he was acquainted, was perhaps the largest
1512
trade that passed through the docks of London, and it was the one which had suffered particularly. A few years ago London not only supplied the great district of the Home Counties, but she also a large through trade with the Midlands. London had lost that trade very largely, because buyers said that the delay was so great when they bought in London, the weights so irregular, and they never knew what charges would be made by the dock companies. They said that they would rather buy from Liverpool, Hull, or Bristol, because those ports took pride in the management of their docks, and the docks at none of those, ports were managed by private enterprise. The London dock companies had long realised the tremendous consumption of the growing districts of the Home Counties and of the districts around London, and they thought, he supposed, that they had a monopoly of that tremendous trade. But in the last few years the ports of Harwich and Southampton had grown up like mushrooms, and they had made great competition with the traders of London. In those two ports, especially in Harwich, the working-out charges were very light indeed. In London it cost 1s. 9d. to work grain from a steamer into lighters; in Harwich they could work it for 10d. or 1s. a ton, leaving a profit to the contractors. When representations were made to the London dock companies about these disadvantages, what happened? Unfortunately the dock companies were unable to obtain more capital; so they fell back upon the old resource of making subsidiary companies. The Millwall Dock Company had to form the Millwall Equipment Company; they had more directors, more shareholders, more expenses in connection with that subsidiary company. They divided the 1s. 9d. a ton profit with the old dock company. It was the same with the Victoria Dock Company. The Victoria Dock Company, he supposed, could not raise money for the new machinery which was required, and so they also formed a subsidiary company called the Grain Elevator Company, which worked the trade and divided the profit. He believed that if these dock companies were to work themselves, the goods would be worked

1513
out of the vessels easily for 10d. or 1s. a ton. But now, instead of merchandise being worked out cheaper, they proposed to put a heavy tax on all goods entering into London. What the people of the Port of London wanted were cheaper working-out charges instead of the higher charges which the dock companies proposed to put on. These tariff reformers, as he might call them, were not satisfied with putting a tax on food that came into London, but they also proposed to put a tax on barges which carried the food. He thought that London had suffered long enough at the hands of these dock companies and syndicates, and he was convinced that the proposal in the Bill was the worst that could be made for the trade and interests of the people of London. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade, with his great knowledge and ability, would before very long bring forward a better scheme, in order to deal with the whole question. It was a matter of great regret to the merchants and traders of London that the Bill of 1903 was not carried through. Why it was dropped nobody could ever understand. Whether the Government of the day were afraid of the dock directors who were then in Parliament, or whether they were afraid of the Lord Mayor, who opposed that Bill, he did not know. He felt sure the right hon. Gentleman would fear neither dock director nor Lord Mayor, but would bring forward a satisfactory measure which would help forward the trade of the Port of London.
MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that this was not a Party question. The late Government introduced a Bill during the last Parliament dealing with the question. The right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had stated that he was not quite sure whether the clause dealing with the reconstitution of the Thames Conservancy Board was in order. He wished to point out that that Board held its powers under a private Act passed in 1894, and therefore such a proposal to amend its constitution was within the limits of order.
MR. ELLISsaid what he said was that
1514
it must have been in order or it would not have been introduced.
MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid the company could not be blamed for introducing the Bill. They were, he believed, given to understand that in the present session of Parliament the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject, and delay in dealing with the question would be most unwarrantable. At the present moment they were no better off than when the Royal Commission reported in 1902. That Report was followed by the introduction of the Bill of 1903, and all who took an interest in the question knew that that Bill had to be withdrawn because it seemed impossible to reconcile those who were in various ways interested in its provisions. He agreed that the withdrawal of that Bill was unfortunate, but under the circumstances he did not think that the Government could have forced it through the House. It was true that since that time the trade of the Port of London had not decreased in the manner predicted by the Royal Commission; during the past few years it had increased, and last year there was a record increase. But that fact, far from suggesting any reason for further delay, seemed to him to be an additional reason for immediate action, because if the accommodation in the Port of London was insufficient in the year 1902 it must be infinitely more insufficient in the year 1907 when the trade had greatly increased. There was at this moment the added advantage that the chances of coming to some agreement amongst the various interests concerned were brighter than they had ever been before. If the President of the Board of Trade could bring together all those interested he would be deserving of their congratulations. As a supporter of the Bill introduced by the last Government he did not for a moment go against the recommendation of the Royal Commission which reported in 1902, but at the same time he wished to state that he saw much danger in any further delay. If the subject was not dealt with now there might be a delay of several years, whereas if this Bill were passed the new locks might be commenced at once. He could well understand that the Govern-

1515
ment did not desire to prejudice in any way their future action, and if they intended to deal with the whole subject no doubt they would desire to keep a free hand. He would like to know whether it was possible for the Government to allow this Bill to pass and at the same time preserve their own freedom of action. Would it not be possible to place in the Bill some safeguarding provision which would leave the Government perfectly free to act and introduce their own Bill next year? He was anxious that in some way or other it should be made possible for the work to be commenced this year. That was a point which might very well be considered, and he hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman replied he would make up his mind upon it. What he was sure, all sections of the House desired was to see the question settled, because they were all anxious that the accommodation of the Port of London should be increased and improved as soon as possible.
*SIR A. SPICERsaid he agreed that this was not a Party question, and he took no exception to what had been said as to its urgency. Speaking as one who had been connected with the commerce of London for a great many years, and speaking in the name of the large body of traders represented by the London Chamber of Commerce, he desired to say a few words in opposition to the Bill. The measure was promoted by private companies, who were asking Parliament to impose new burdens on traders, primarily for their own benefit. It was a much larger question than could be dealt with by private companies. More than half the tonnage that came into the Port of London did not use the docks at all, but was dealt with by private wharfowners and the waterside manufacturers. The waterside manufacturers alone represented a capital of £100,000,000, whereas the whole capital of the dock companies amounted to only £24,320,000. These manufacturers had invested that large capital on the strength of free water privileges—privileges which existed before the docks were created, and were safeguarded by Parliament when the docks were sanctioned. It
1516
had been said that the shipowners had agreed to the Bill, but it was only the owners of ocean-going ships who were supporting it, and their attitude was very natural, because under it their dues would be lessened. He regretted that the last Government's Bill was not passed, and those who represented London at that time had a great responsibility on their shoulders for the pressure, they brought to bear on the Government of the day to drop it. All delay was bad for London. The sphere of influence connected with London, the trade of which must be done practically in the Port of London, was constantly increasing. They must also bear in mind that there was a large class of trade which, if London did not provide for the ships throroughly up-to-date facilities, drifted not to other British ports but to distributing ports like Hamburg and Antwerp. That trade, having once drifted away, was very difficult to regain. The question was complicated by a variety of competitive interests, but they had to remember that the consumer of the daily necessaries of life was also deeply concerned. The manufacturing industry of London was the largest in the Kingdom. It was split up into an enormous number of specialities. All these varied interests could only be dealt with by a Bill introduced by the Government trying to deal fairly with them. He sincerely hoped that one good result from the discussion would be that the President of the Board of Trade would be able to assure them that there would be no delay in bringing in a Bill. It would not be easy to satisfy all Parties, but for himself he hoped there would be set up a port authority, representative of all interests, which should take over the docks, not by purchase under arbitration terms, but by negotiation, with the understanding that the present proprietors of the docks should be placed in a position neither better nor worse than they occupied at the present time.
*MR. W. PEARCEsaid he was glad that this question had been kept free from the atmosphere of Party. He looked upon a wise solution of the Port of London question as being a most important matter in London's immediate welfare. The present Bill, had, to his mind,

1517
two fundamental objections—objections which, he hoped, the Government would be able to avoid. The first was that it continued to rely on private enterprise; and, secondly, it threw the whole cost of the improvement as a burden upon trade. Those objections were both avoided by London's greatest rivals on the Continent. In judging of this question they must remember that it was the Continental ports which were the rivals of London. It was those ports which had been the latest successes, and it was from them that something was to be learned. In none of the Continental ports did they entrust these duties to private enterprise, and in none of them was the whole burden imposed on trade. In every one there had been large contributions from Imperial or local funds. It was no wonder, therefore, that the Royal Commission made this recommendation, in Paragraph 232, of their Report—
"The power of undertaking large present expenditure and of working for a long time at a loss with a view to compensation in a distant future is, in the keen world competition, an advantage possessed by undertakings which have the force of an empire, state, or great city behind them. If, in some countries national and municipal resources are thus employed, it becomes most difficult for private enterprise elsewhere to hold its own against the intelligent, far-sighted, and formidable rivalry thus created."
Many who had been considering the question had seen the great difficulty of acquiring the docks and the whole of the undertaking because of the large price it would be necessary for the public to pay. He had wondered whether it would not be possible to remove the conduct of the port from the hands of private enterprise, and at the same time not to throw an enormous burden on trade. There appeared now to be pretty general agreement that the pressing necessities of the port were, first, a 35 feet deep channel from the Nore to Gravesend, and a 30 feet deep channel from Gravesend to the Albert Dock; and secondly, new deep water docks 40 to 45 feet deep with entrance locks 900 to 1,000 feet, and dry docks of equal size, Until these new docks had been established London would be unable to accommodate the large ships of to-day. It could not at present dock the "Dreadnought," and "unless the improvements were made it would not be able to take in the large ships which in future were going to do
1518
the commerce of the world. Neither of these needs was met by the Dock Companies' Bill. The first was the duty of the Conservancy, and the second was beyond the companies' powers and resources. On the other hand both could be performed by a revised Conservancy, having powers to spend £5,000,000. That sum should be raised on a Government guarantee, interest secured by an increase of the tonnage dues of ½d. and ¾d. on registered tonnage, now doubled for three years for a similar purpose. It could not be urged that such Conservancy Docks would be unfair to the existing docks, for they would serve a special purpose for very large ships, new and additional, and would not therefore compete for the same class of business. In that way it was possible to escape from the present dilemma, the necessity of changing from private enterprise to public authority by purchasing the whole undertaking of the dock companies. The purchase could only be made at a figure prohibitive of commercial success, and it would saddle the public with a bargain of the worst description. A dock system, over capitalised, not up to date, administered by a new authority without full experience, would bring discredit to all concerned. Moreover, a heavy burden on the trade of the port would be avoided, for his proposed increase in tonnage rates was very much less onerous than a general rate on all goods imported.
MR. BOWLESsaid the hon. Member for Limehouse had based his opposition to the Bill on the fact that its adoption would have the effect of handing over the Port of London, to private enterprise. It seemed to him that the hon. Member entirely misundertood the very grave and urgent situation in which they now found themselves. The situation was simply this. Five years ago the Royal Commission reported that the question was urgent. There was nobody who had an interest in, or knowledge of, the trade of London who would not agree that this was really a matter of the gravest importance and urgency. It was perfectly intolerable that, owing to the failure of successive Governments, urgent and necessary improvements should be denied to London, the greatest port in the world.

1519
The hon. Member for St. George's (Tower Hamlets) had said that the Bill imposed new dues. That was perfectly true. They could not have new facilities without new expenses, The hon. Member had also said that this was taking public money for the benefit of private companies. Did the hon. Gentleman know where this "public money" was coming from? Was money derived from a private dock company acting in their own interest what he called "public money?"
*MR. W. BENNsaid the Bill proposed to put an entirely new charge on the trade of the Port of London. That was what he meant by "public money."
MR. BOWLESsaid he denied that the money so raised would be in a real sense public money. But all these were points eminently for consideration by a Private Bill Committee upstairs. It was quite idle to expect the House to consider the technical matters involved in this measure with any real advantage. The question w as whether, if the Government was unable to find time to deal with the matter itself, there should be another year's delay. On a former occasion the President of the Board of Trade said four things. Everybody, he said, was dissatisfied with the present state of things; that everybody was agreed that the matter was of real and genuine urgency; that what was wanted was primarily dock extension; and, finally, that there should be one authority to manage the Port of London, and that that authority ought to be a public authority. There was nothing in this Bill inconsistent with any one of those four requirements. It was the only attempt they were likely to see in the present year to deal with this important problem, and he thought that the House would be taking a very serious responsibility on itself if, for reasons which had not been avowed, inquiry by a Committee upstairs were refused. This was a great tree trade Government, but he would remind hon. Members that there were other hindrances to trade than tariffs, and that a very serious responsibility would be incurred if the House and Government permanently refused to the London dock companies the power to spend money on the development of the Port of London which every-
1520
body admitted should be spent. He had no interest in the matter except as a London Member, and he believed that the trade of London would suffer more and more unless this Bill received a Second Reading. Therefore, he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would not allow any mere pique to prevent that Second Reading being taken unless he had some real and grave reasons for denying it.
*MR. TREVELYANsaid he did not see why the Dock Company should be allowed extended powers, and the reason was that they took the shareholders' money and spent it for Party purposes in London elections and were not ashamed. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He had brought up the same question in the case of a Bill promoted by the London and North Western Railway Company. The House would agree with him that he would be acting inconsistently and putting himself under suspicion of favouritism if he did not ask the House to treat all companies in the same manner. On that occasion he and the House agreed with him, thought that the railway company had done wrong; but the dock company did worse, because in the former case the directors humbly admitted their error to the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to debates in the same session.
*MR. TREVELYANsaid that in the case of the Dock Company it was apparent from a letter which appeared in the papers that the company had entered into a complete and systematic policy of subsidising local elections in London. That appeared to him to be a practical defiance of the views of the House. The letter to which he referred was written in answer to an, inquiry by the President of the Board; of Trade in regard to the matter. In the letter which had been printed in The Times, and was circulated ins the Votes for that day, the London and India Docks Company stated that the reason why they gave a subscription to the London Municipal Society was to aid the endeavours of that society "to return

1521
members at the recent municipal and guardian elections pledged to economy in local administration." The company went on to point out that they had been acting on this principle for some time, and had subscribed to the West Ham Borough Alliance and Poplar Borough Alliance. And the company further stated that it was because of the success of these alliances at West Ham and Poplar elections that the directors welcomed the efforts of the London Municipal Society in the same direction to secure economy. Of course their operations might have been very successful in the case of Poplar. [An HON. MEMBER: But not in West Ham.] But supposing, for the moment, that it was true that the exposure of the abuses at Poplar was of great advantage to the public; supposing for the moment that it was true that it was not the activity of the Local Government Board under its present head, but that of the political Party called the Moderate Party which was the sole agency that had brought to light these abuses—it was a very poor Party which did not do something good in the course of its existence—apart from all that, this was a Party organisation, and the dock companies had been helping it. It was the assistance given to a Party "which they objected to in regard to dock companies. He doubted whether the House would pass the Bill of a company which gloried in having subscribed to a Party organisation and declared by letter its intention of doing so unless it was absolutely prevented. He thought the House would feel that the matter had become serious, and he hoped the Government would have something to say either on this or some other occasion to prevent this state of things by bringing forward legislation. But, whether the Government were prepared to bring forward legislation of that sort or not, it appeared that the House had before them an unrepentant company and, in his opinion, they ought to take the opportunity of teaching it a lesson. He hoped the House would take that view, as the sooner they got a public authority which did not dabble in politics the better. Until they did get such an authority he hoped the House would not grant any further powers to companies which had taken such action.
LORD R. CECILthought the point of view of the hon. Gentleman was admirably illustrated by the last phrase which he used, that he desired to teach this Company a lesson. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL counter cheers.] He was not surprised to find that that was a fair sample, of the opinion of the bulk of the Liberal Party. Let them see exactly what the Dock Company had done. He thought it would be for the advantage of the debate if he read the letter, which the President of the Board of Trade had published that morning, written on behalf of the London and India Docks Company. That letter was the whole ofthe knowledge he possessed on the subject and gave the actual facts of the case. The letter was as follows—
Sir,—-The directors have had before them your letter of the 12th instant. They have no objection to stilting that they subscribed £100 to the funds of the London Municipal Society in December last, and they are advised that under the judgment given by the Court of Appeal on November 19th, 1906, the contribution was a perfectly legal one.
Their reason for giving the subscription was to aid the endeavours of the London Municipal Society to return members at the recent municipal and guardian elections pledged to economy in local administration.
The Company, like all proprietors of industrial undertakings in and near London, have suffered grievously from the excessive local rates levied upon them. Rates have been increasing for many years past, and there has been no remedy open to the Company in the municipality itself, for although they pay a large proportion of the rates in every locality in which their docks are situated, they have absolutely no voice in the election of the persons who spend their money.
The only course open to the Company, therefore, is to support reputable organisations which are founded to educate voters as to the peril to them of the increase of municipal burdens and to expose the mismanagement of particular local institutions. Acting on this principle my directors have subscribed to the West Ham Borough Alliance and the Poplar Borough Alliance. Both of these alliances have been remarkably successful in the work, and it may be within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that they have been active agents in bringing to light, the notorious scandals which have been the subject of recent official inquiry in these two boroughs; indeed in the case of the inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law at Poplar the alliance was officially recognised by the Local Government Board's representative as the body chiefly responsible for proving the charges made against the guardians. In Poplar alone, as a result of the action taken by

1523
the alliance, there will be savings in expenditure at the rate at £70,000 a year, which will be shared by the whole of the ratepayers of the borough.
It was because of the success achieved at Poplar and West Ham that the directors welcomed the efforts of the London Municipal Society to apply to those matters in which London as a whole is concerned the same reforming energy which has been applied locally at Poplar and West Ham.
The directors observe that it has been charged against the London Municipal Society that it is a political organisation. No ground for such a charge is to be found either in the rules or the statement, of objects of the society. No political test for membership is imposed; and as a fact there are persons belonging to both the Unionist and Liberal Parties amongst its members, and on the council is Sir F. Schuster, who was the Liberal candidate for the City of London at the last general election.
The directors, amongst whom are adherents of both sides of polities, would certainly not continue their support to the society if they had any reason to believe that its aims were political; but no evidence has come before them to show that there has been any conduct on the part of its managers which indicates a departure from the spirit of its constitution.
That was the defence of the London and India Docks Company. The charge of subscribing to a political object was dealt with in the letter, and if it was a technical charge it was sufficiently met by the Company's observation that they had been advised that under the decision of the Court of Appeal they were well within their rights in the action they had taken. He therefore did not rest his observations on any technical ground but went to the larger and more substantial objection which he understood was raised. The objection raised was to the existence of trusts, to the power of money being used to affect political elections. That was the real charge which lay at the basis of this question. He was one of the last to deny that the power of money so used was a serious danger to democracies in all parts of the world. But the danger was not confined to companies. It was as great in the case of private individuals. In fact it was greater, because statutory companies were compelled to publish accounts, and if any money was used for these purposes it could be traced on those accounts. He had had a short experience of the House but a lengthy experience in Private Bill Committees, and he submitted that the practice of utilising the procedure on private Bills to forward objects not connected with those Bills ought to be
1524
very carefully watched. He protested against the practice. Where the action was private no one would defend it, but when it was political it was a very dangerous weapon to use. He hoped the House would not countenance this attempt to achieve a political end, whether good or bad, by supporting an Amendment which would put an end to a Bill intended to forward a wholly different object, and which had nothing whatever to do with political corruption or the maintenance or otherwise of the Progressive Party.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE)said he would rather not enter on the questions raised by the two last speakers and he did not propose to put the action of the Government on this Bill on the ground suggested by his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division. He could not agree that this was the case of a private company entitled to do what it liked with its own assets. It was the case of a company which owed its existence to Parliament, which had a Parliamentary monopoly, and whose revenue depended on privileges and powers conferred by Parliament, coming now and asking for power to levy tolls outside its own territory in order to pay a dividend of 4 or 5 per cent. where it was now paying nothing. The noble Lord, in reading the letter of the London Dock Company, said there was no political test for membership of the London Municipal Society.
LORD R. CECIL: I was merely reading the letter.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was the claim put forward by the dock company, but he believed it was also put forward by the Tariff Reform League. He would like to know from the noble Lord if in his opinion the Tariff Reform League was not a political organisation. It would be rather interesting to get his view.
LORD R. CECILsaid be was the last person in the world to apply to for information about the Tariff Reform League.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was the very reason why he had asked the

1525
noble Lord—because he thought the noble Lord was the last person in the world to endorse that claim. The noble Lord with regard to the Tariff Reform League had acted fairly and with impartiality of judgment, and he only asked that that fairness and impartiality of judgment should be extended to the operations of the London Municipal Society. He would rather discuss the Bill altogether apart from that question, because he wanted the House to believe that the action of the Government had not been dictated or inspired in the slightest degree by any notions they might hold with regard to the subscriptions of great corporations in receipt of Parliamentary powers. He would deal with the merits of the Bill itself. He did not believe that the supporters really anticipated that it would go through the House. On the contrary, he believed that it had been introduced simply for the purpose of raising a discussion on the whole question, and with that object in view he thought that perhaps they had rendered a public service, although he thought that it might have been done at much less expense by bringing on a Motion than by promoting a Bill. The Government could not possibly give support to the Second Reading of this measure. If the Bill were carried it would enable these private companies to levy a toll upon practically all goods that came into the Thames. They contemplated that out of the revenue thus raised they should receive a dividend in respect of one company of 4 per cent., of another 6 per cent., and of a third 4 per cent. The first of these companies was at present earning about 2¼ per cent., the second 5 per cent., and the third had not for at least six or seven years paid a penny in dividend. He did not think the House could possibly contemplate carrying a Bill which would have the effect of placing a permanent burden on the trade of London for the purpose of providing for these companies the dividends which he had mentioned.
SIR E. BOYLEsaid that the company which paid no dividend was a very small one.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was the old plea, that it was only a very little
1526
one. The Millwall Company was only a small one, he agreed, but still that was the general proposition which he stated. The companies had never proposed to eliminate Clause 18 from this Bill. That would have been a totally different proposal. They meant to adhere to Clause 18, and the only thing they proposed was that, as far as the new dock was concerned, it should be valued on the basis of a 4 per cent. dividend. The next consideration was well known to them, that if they put in a provision of that kind it would be practically guaranteeing a dividend of 4 per cent. in the Bill, and the hon. and learned Gentleman well knew that any arbitrator would take that into account, with the result that the value of the docks in London would be increased. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as he was concerned, had not affected the general character of the argument Another point with regard to the Bill was that it had not the support of the trades of London at all. The Chamber of Commerce were against it, the riverside manufacturers were against it, the grain and flour people were against it, and so were the timber trade. It was true the shipping trade at first, induced by a probable reduction of 6d. per ton, gave a kind of qualified assent to it, but they subsequently withdrew that, and now they trusted the Government would see that something was done to improve the Port of London. But that was not supporting the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose measure would have no effect in improving the Port of London. In these circumstances, the Government had come to the conclusion, after most careful consideration, that they could not possibly support the Second Reading of the Bill, which, if passed, would unfortunately have the effect of embarrassing the Government when they came to deal with the question. The Bill, if the docks were purchased, would give them an artificial value by conferring on the dock companies these powers.
SIR E. BOYLEwas understood to say that the right to 4 per cent. as to the new dock only lasted four years, and as to the whole of the rest of the docks the Bill made no difference.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman at all; and he said so after very careful consideration with those who advised him as to the whole effect of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that, in a Bill of this kind, to increase Parliamentary powers, to increase the revenues to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, when the property at the present moment was not in a very solvent condition, and when one company could not pay a dividend to its ordinary shareholders—
SIR E. BOYLE: No, no!
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman must really let him finish his sentence. As far as one dock company was concerned it had paid no dividend; as far as another dock was concerned it had paid only 2¼ per cent. and had been paying 1¼ per cent.; and as far as the other dock was concerned it was paying 5 per cent. With any Bill of this kind giving Parliamentary powers, and increasing the revenues to the extent of hundreds of thousands a year, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience, must know that it would enormously increase the security and the real value, as a marketable asset, of the whole concern. Therefore when the Government had before them the prospect of having to deal with the whole problem of the port of London, it must take into account all questions of this kind, which might have an appreciable effect in connection with the introduction of a Bill. Therefore, when the Government had before them the prospect of dealing with the whole problem of the port of London they must be influenced by these considerations, and would not be justified, for the sake of one year, in supporting a Bill of this kind, which might eventually embarrass them very considerably in the settlement of the whole problem. Probably that answer would not be considered quite sufficient. He
1528
agreed that the Government ought to deal with the subject as soon as possible, and he was authorised to say, on their behalf, that it was their intention to deal effectively with the problem in the course of the next session of Parliament. It could not be done this session, because the Standing Order required that notices should be given in November. He knew he said something not quite so definite last year, and he thought it might have been done even this year if there had been the slightest prospect of getting any general agreement among the parties interested. He had seen representatives of every one of the interests concerned, but it appeared hopeless to expect agreement. He had met representatives of the waterside man, ufacturers, the Corporation of London the Thames Conservancy Board, the London County Council, and others interested and there was not one deputation which agreed with another, there were no two men on the same deputation who agreed, and as far as the Thames Conservancy was concerned the moment one man made a proposal his neighbour got up and repudiated it on the spot. That was the nature of the problem with which he had to deal, and he did not think there was a more difficult problem to deal with even in Ireland. He denied the statement which had been made that this was an easy problem to deal with, because the various interests concerned were far from coming to any common basis of agreement. He did not know whether there was any probability of coming to an agreement, before November, but if no solution was arrived at by that time the Government would suggest the best course, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Some things had emerged out of the controversies, and two or three things must be regarded as part of the necessary basis in any general treatment of the subject. The objects to be attained were agreed upon. There must be further port facilities, a deepening and widening of the channel an improvement in the

1529
accommodation for berthing, discharging, collecting, and distributing. These were objects upon which there would be general agreement. The second consideration was that it must be dealt with by a public port authorty. They could not leave the problem to any private company; there must be one public authority dealing with the whole problem of the port. At the present time he was told that there were over fifty authorities which had some kind of finger in the pie. There ought to be an end to all that. The third consideration was that the trend of public, opinion was against having the control of the river given to any individual municipality. In his judgment that involved as a necessary corollary that no single municipality should have a majority of the representatives on that public authority. The other proposition he laid down was that the general public must be represented apart from the payers of dues, for he did not think that the public authority ought to consist exclusively of representatives of those who paid tolls and dues in the Thames. The best means of securing the representation of the general public was by means of nominations of Government departments and the municipalities concerned. Opinion also seemed to be hardening against the compulsory purchase of the docks. He was expressing no opinion on the subject; he was merely pointing out that there seemed to be a growing opinion in that direction, a growing tendency to protest against the idea that the docks must be purchased compulsorily. It was said that compulsory purchase inevitably meant that they paid twice as much for a thing as it was worth, and the traders said that if more was paid for a thing than it was worth it would always be a burden on the trade of London, for some one had to pay for it, and the effect would be to increase the charges in the river and make the port of London more expensive than at present, without obtaining an adequate return for the outlay. After all, when they came to
1530
settle the problem the interest of London must be the paramount consideration, and not the interest of any private company. There was capital which had been invested in the docks 100 years ago, I a good deal of it dead capital, capital which would have been wiped out long ago by a municipal sinking fund. Those docks were purely and simply private enterprise, which had paid high dividends for over twenty years, but they had neglected to make provision for a sinking fund which would have wiped out most of their capital long ago. Purely they were not justified in coming forward now and asking that they should be paid back the whole of that money. That would be imposing a burden on the port of London which would not in the slightest degree bear comparison with that on Continental ports. He did not think that ought to be allowed in any Government Bill. The next point which he would like to state for the consideration of those who would have to give their opinion eventually upon the best, method of dealing with the port was this: To secure the necessary improvements some dues on goods or ships, probably on both, would be required, and he believed that traders were prepared at least in principle to accept that necessity. He did not think they would agree to anything like the Liverpool scale of charges. There was a pretty strong feeling expressed by all the traders who came before him that the Liverpool schedule of charges was too high, but he thought every section was prepared to contribute something. The only condition raised by many traders was that the dues should not be used for the purchase of docks, but for the purpose of improving the river. A good deal had been said in the debate about a Government subsidy, but the Government could not hold out any hope of any subsidy being given to the port of London. It was said that the Imperial Government had contributed a considerable sum of money to the competing port of Ham-

1531
burg. But in Germany they had only two or three ports of any consequence, while in the United Kingdom we had six times as many ports to deal with. If a Government subsidy were to be given to the Port of London, then Newcastle, Liverpool—where it was proposed to spend many millions of money—Bristol, Cardiff, and all the other great ports of the United Kingdom would want their fair share of Government contributions. Whether the London County Council or the Corporation of London would see their way to contribute anything was a different matter. It was not for him to lay down any proposition on that point, it was purely a question for the London County Council and the Corporation to think out for themselves. He trusted they would not decide the matter in a hurry, but that before the Government gave notice of their proposals they would be able to make up their minds to assist in the matter. If the port was to be an effective competitor with the great Continental ports, millions of money must be spent in deepening the channel and improving the facilities, especially for discharging and distributing cargoes. The facilities at Antwerp and Hamburg were the means of an enormous saving of time, and the equipments there were superior. To effect such improvements as these was the only way in which the end desired could be achieved, and it was because he felt that any effective method of dealing with the problem would be embarrassed by the carrying of this Bill that he invited the House to throw it out.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the President of the Board of Trade had asked the House to reject the Bill on the ground that the Government was going to introduce a Bill on the
1532
subject next session. Was the Government Bill to be an alternative to this measure? He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government Bill would recognise the fact that no municipal authority should be the body entrusted with the affairs and fortunes of the Port of London.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, at the rate of one shilling in the pound—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer)—resumed.
Question again proposed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

LOCAL TAXATION GRANTS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment of certain Grants to Local Taxation Accounts out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of out of the Revenues out of which they are payable under the present Law (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Runciman.)
Adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas; Basingstoke Gas; Keswick Urban District Council (Water); Maidstone Gas; Hull and Barnsley Railway; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment); Brockenhurst Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Tynemouth Corporation (Water Bill) [H.L]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee, one to produce documents.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, land Thornaby Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 14th and 18th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 25th of February and 18th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Tees Valley Water (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]; Southend Water Bill [H.L.]; Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Selsey Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Cathcart be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Scarborough; read, and agreed to.
South Wales Mineral Railway Bill; Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply
1342
Bill; brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [H.L.]; Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Colne Valley Water Bill [H.L.]; Report from the Committee of Selection That the Lord Biddulph be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Seaton; read, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]; (No. 32.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aston Manor (Extension to Erdington), Chesham (Amendment), Hipperholme (Amendment), Lytham, Newark (Amendment), Penrith (Amendment), Pontefract and Stockport (Amendment): And
Canal Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; (No. 33.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, containing the schedule of maximum tolls and charges applicable to the New Junction Canal of the Undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation—Were presented by the Lord Granard (E. Grannard); read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners
Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill; read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill, brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 34.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  Correspondence relating to the resignation by Sir A. Swettenham of his office as Governor of Jamaica.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1896, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, and the Quarries Act, 1894, for the year 1906; East Scotland District, R. McLaren; West Scotland, J. M. Ronaldson; Newcastle, J. B. Atkinson; Durham, R. Donald Bain; York and Lincoln, W. Walker; Manchester and Ireland, John Gerrard; Liverpool and North Wales, Henry Hall, I.S.O.; Midland, A. H. Stokes; Stafford, Hugh Johnstone; Cardiff and Swansea, W. N. Atkinson, F. A. Gray, and J. Dyer Lewis; Southern, J. S. Martin.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Reports of the Local Education Authority and of His Majesty's Inspector upon the educational fitness of Mr. Milnes for the position of head teacher of the Royston National School.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1905–1906.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Order with respect to the urban county district of Cookstown.
  POLICE ACT, 1890.
  Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's certificate, under Section 17 (2) of the Act, to the River Tyne Police Force, for the year ended 29th September, 1906.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853–1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by his Majesty to Thomas Thompson under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY OF GLAMORGAN).
  Order made by the council of the county of Glamorgan, and confirmed by
  1344
  the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Aber Town and Ystrad Mynach wards of the Caerphilly Urban District.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office whether he is able to give the House any information as to the names of the delegates who will represent this country at the Hague Conference.
  THE UNDER-SECRETAKY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): The British Plenipotentiaries to the Conference will be the right hon. Sir Edward Fit, the right hon. Sir Ernest Satow, the right hon. Lord Reay, late President of the Institute of International Law, and Sir Henry Howard, His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague. In addition naval and military expert delegates will be appointed, whose names will be announced in due course.

  THE APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.
  *THE MARQUESS OF BATHrose to call attention to a memorial presented to the Lord Chancellor in December last year with reference to the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and to the reply of the Lord Chancellor there to. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I trust that no apology is necessary to your Lordships for drawing your attention to a subject of such importance as that which stands upon the Paper in my name. I desire to elicit the opinion of noble Lords, if I can, on the pressure which it is sought to employ, and which, in fact, is being employed in certain quarters, to compel Lords-Lieutenant to base, or, at all events, to colour, their recommendations for the office of county magistrate on political grounds, and, further, on the effort which is being made to transfer that pressure with the same object to the Lord Chancellor in the case of the Lord-Lieutenant declining to base his recommendations as

  1345
  desired. That is a matter which strikes at the root of the administration of justice, and it is for that reason that I venture to describe it as important and grave and as well worthy of the consideration of your Lordships' House which numbers so many Lords-Lieutenant among its members.
  May I make two preliminary observations? Perhaps it may have occurred to some of your Lordships that it is presumptuous on the part of one who has occupied the office I have the honour to hold for so short a period to draw the attention of the House to this subject. I can only plead that it is precisely those who have the least experience who are most in need of guidance. The pressure to which I have referred has been greatly accentuated since the enactment of the measure of last year which abolished the property qualification for county magistrates. I make no complaint of that measure. I think I can confidently claim that I have honestly and frankly carried out its spirit and its intention. The second observation I desire to make is this. I wish to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I am bringing this subject forward in no partisan spirit, and, least of all, with any antagonistic feeling towards himself. I go further and say that I should be the last person who would desire in the least to embarrass him in the very difficult position he occupies. It would be impertinent if I were to attempt to praise the noble and learned Lord in his conduct of his office. But it would be equally ungracious and ungrateful if I were to fail at once to acknowledge the personal courtesy, the strict impartiality, and, may I venture to go further and say, the extraordinary industry and care which the noble and learned Lord has invariably displayed on every occasion on which I have had to consult him—and I believe that is the experience of others—with regard to appointments to the Commission of the Peace in the county, of which I have the honour to be His Majesty's Lord-lieutenant.
  It is a matter of common knowledge that for the last fifteen years an agitation has been on foot to alter the system under which Lords-Lieutenant appoint county magistrates and to substitute their appointment by the Lord Chan-
  1346
  cellor direct without the intervention of Lords-Lieutenant. This agitation has been confined to one political party, and those who have taken part in it have suggested without hesitation that in making his appointments the Liberal Lord Chancellor should seek his sources of information from the Liberal Members of the House of Commons. This agitation took a concrete form in 1893, and I shall have to refer to what occurred then. But its latest and most active eruption took place in December last, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was the victim of a torrent of lava. The noble and learned Lord survived the shock, and, although he was threatened with a further display of volcanic violence, he seems, publicly at all events, not to have suffered.
  I have no means myself of knowing whether the noble and learned Lord has been warned, by rumblings of a local and scattered character, of the imminence of another eruption, but I myself and others have had indications, which cannot be mistaken, that this volcanic activity is by no means set at rest. In December last a memorial was presented to the noble and learned Lord which complained of the partiality of the Lords-Lieutenant, which desired, as it was expressed, to put the system on a non political basis, and which alleged that the vast disparity between Conservative and Liberal Justices had grown up during the long domination of the Conservative Party. The memorialists then proceeded to explain how the system could be rectified, and they invited the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter with them. The Lord Chancellor did not consider that much good would come of an interview, and I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the opening sentence of his courteous and instructive reply. He said—
  "The memorial signed by eighty-eight Members of the House of Commons which you handed me begins by expressing an earnest desire that under some new system the appointment of Justices of the Peace should become non-political. All the remainder of the document takes for granted that the existing system must necessarily be one of appointment under 'political influences,' find in effect aims at making those influences more dominant and effective than hither to while that system lasts. I agree in the initial aspiration, but cannot reconcile it with the remainder of the document."

  1347
  That the recrudescence of this agitation is closely connected with the passing of the measure to which I have referred is shown by the language of the memorial. It states that—
  "The passing of the recent Act of Parliament removing the property qualification indicates a general agreement that the administration of justice should no longer be the prerogative of a single class, and that, particularly in view of the powers which should reside in the justices with regard to the drink trade, it is of the greatest importance to find, within reasonable time, improved means for making the county Benches more truly representative, both of political opinion and of the different social classes of the community."
  I submit that it is clear from the language of the memorial, from a consideration of the history of the case, and from the pressure which is brought to bear on Lords-Lieutenant, that the aim of those who have combined to exert this pressure is not so much an improvement in the administration of justice, as a political colouring of the Bench, and the extension of political patronage.
  For what purpose is it desired to give a political hue to the county Benches? I regret to have to do so, but I am bound to say—it has been forced on my mind by both observation and experience—that in some quarters, at any rate, there is a hope that the political views of intemperate partisans appointed on political grounds may colour the administration of justice in various quarters and in a variety of ways. This movement, I think it will be acknowledged, is manifestly organised. Many of the recommendations that have been sent forward have not been confined to individual cases, but have been in squadrons and platoons. It is a remarkable fact that it is only since the last general election that these lengthy lists of nominations have been forwarded to Lords-Lieutenant, and in those nominations not a line, not a word, is put in to show that the petty sessional divisions which will be affected by them are in want of additional magistrates.
  The political views of the nominees invariably coincide with the political opinions of the nominator, and in some cases I have found, after careful inquiry, that on grounds of physical in capacity, and even on personal grounds, some of these nominations are unreliable, and are, I suggest, therefore reckless and
  1348
  ill-considered. I have even been requested, in some cases almost peremptorily, to recommend persons for addition to the Commission of the Peace whom I could not honestly have justified myself in recommending had they been Conservatives or Unionists. I frankly state that I do not consider myself a mere conduit pipe to convey messages—I cannot call them recommendations—to the Lord Chancellor. I consider that I have a duty and a responsibility in satisfying myself as to the fitness and capacity of those whom I recommend to the noble and learned Lord. I recognise that in the last resort the responsibility lies with him to accept or reject the reasons which I may have placed before him for declining to forward any particular name or names, but I say that I have a duty to satisfy myself and to be able to guarantee the personal fitness of those whom I submit for his approval and assent.
  The plan of campaign is transparent. The Lords-Lieutenant are to be requested to forward lists of names to the noble and learned Lord, and if they decline to do so, they are to be denounced as partisans, and the Lord Chancellor is then to make his appointments over the heads of the Lords-Lieutenant and without any information to guide him. I ask your Lordships to consider what this means. In these days it not infrequently happens that the representative of a county division has no local connection with the constituency which he represents, and even in some cases has no residence in the county whose Benches he proposes to people and to control. When it is suggested that the Lords-Lieutenant are too much in the hands of the local Benches whom they consult, what must be the case with the nominations of those gentlemen who of necessity are entirely dependent on their political supporters, and on political agents arid wire-pullers for their sources of information?
  The suggestions of partisanship on the part of Lords-Lieutenant, and that the political opinion of the magistrates prevents them from doing justice in the administration of the law, were repudiated both by the late Lord Herschell in this House and by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has himself rejected the first insinuation in terms as gratifying as.

  1349
  they are generous. The Lord Chancellor said—
  "It is bare justice I should say that, with are exceptions, the Lords-Lieutenant, with whom I have been in communication have acted and advised impartially and have taken much pains."
  And again—
  "Without their help it would be impracticable to transact the Business, and they have often warned against and so prevented most undesirable appointments."
  I succeeded in the office which I have the honour to hold an eminent and a deservedly respected Member of your Lordships' House—the late Lord Cork. He was a keen Party man and was a Peer who followed Mr. Gladstone in his Irish policy. He was Lord-Lieutenant of Somerset for forty years, and it was stated in 1893 that the proportion of Liberal justices in that county was 20 per cent. I think the proportion now, of those I have nominated, is 34 per cent.
  But, my Lords, is it suggested for a moment, to take one or two illustrations, that the late Lord Cork, or, may I say, the noble Marquess the respected Leader of this House, who was His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant for the North Riding of Yorkshire for thirty-three years, and, I believe, succeeded a Liberal Peer who was appointed in 1838—is it suggested that those noble Lords have deliberately refrained from appointing to the Bench gentlemen of their own political views? I am perfectly certain that they acted with the greatest impartiality, that they based their recommendations on personal fitness irrespective of political opinions, and that they did not pass over their political friends because they were afraid of outside criticism. I am certain that no unworthy and no ulterior motives prompted their action, and the fact that the political complexion of the county Benches is largely of one hue is due to the accident of conditions and not to the design of responsible authorities. The suggestion that the vast disparity in the numbers of Conservative and Liberal justices is due to the long domination of the Conservative Party is proved, after impartial investigation and a study of the facts, to be without foundation.
  There is another element to be considered besides merely the personal fitness of those recommended—namely, the requirements of the locality. I cannot help feeling that that considera-
  1350
  tion has been totally ignored by those who have bombarded us with their applications. After careful inquiry I find, so far as my own county is concerned, that most of the petty sessional benches are full, that some of them are even over-manned, and it is no exaggeration to say that if I were to succumb to all the demands made upon me room would have to be found for the overflow of magistrates, I presume, in the dock, and then we should have a demand made for further accommodation for the evicted tenants of that undesirable holding. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am glad to say, has not lost sight of that point, and he informed his correspondents that he was not prepared to flood the Benches, and that if he were to accede to all their demands there would be a regular deluge.
  May I briefly refer to what occurred in 1893, because history only repeats itself? There was a deputation to the Lord Chancellor of the day, the late Lord Herschell, and then, as now, there was the complaint as to the partiality of Lords-Lieutenant, and even as to the partiality of the magistrates; there was complaint as to the undue proportion of political opinion on the Benches, and then, as now, the suggestion was made that the Lord Chancellor should appoint without the intervention of the Lords-Lieutenant. Lord Herchell, I think rather rashly, as he afterwards found, invitedan expression of opinion from the then House of Commons to justify him in departing from immemorial practice, and a Resolution was passed. But I should be doing an injustice to the memory of that distinguished Member of this House if I did not draw your Lordships' attention to a part of his reply to the deputation. He said—
  "It would not do to take merely the recommendations of the representatives or the chairman of the Liberal association who sends the name to you, because it is not always necessarily those who are the most active politicians who would he the best for the magisterial bench."
  In the month of June a Resolution was moved in this House by the Duke of Richmond to the following effect—
  "That it has been a long-established custom that the Justices of the Peace should be appoined in counties on the recommendation of the Lords-Lieutenant; and that in the opinion of this House it is highly inexpedient

  1351
  to disturb this usage in any county for the purpose of placing on the Bench justices whose political opinions are in consonnance with those of the Government of the day."
  Lord Herschell took part in that debate, and the Resolution was carried nemine contradicente. I trust that the terms of that Resolution commend themselves as emphatically to your Lordships to-day. With accurate foresight the late Lord Selborne pointed to the probability of the pressure of which I submit the Lord Chancellor is now the subject. He said—
  "I venture to say that there was no more difficult or unsatisfactory part of the duty of the Lord Chancellor in my time than that which related to the appointment of borough magistrates. There was constant pressure to obtain appointments for every reason except the fitness of the persons recommended for the performance of judicial duties, and most especially for political reasons. One manifest evil is the constant tendency to an undue increase in the number of magistrates. I am thoroughly convinced that there will he pressure brought to bear which the Lord Chancellor will find it most difficult, if not impossible, to resist, on party grounds, for making appointments which are not necessary to be made for the proper administration of justice, and which, when made, will not be conducive to the administration of justice."
  Lord (then Mr.) Courtney, whom we welcome to this House, also expressed the same apprehension when he referred to—
  "An unconscious confession that in the minds of some there lurked the feeling that magistrates should be appointed, not on the grounds of personal fitness, but as the reward of political support. He was sure that the present Lord Chancellor, and he believed all Lords Chancellors, would beg protection against the pressure that would thus be put upon them."
  The noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) referring in the same debate to his experience as a Lancashire representative, stated that pressure had been frequently brought to bear upon him to make appointments based solely and avowedly on political grounds, and simply as a reward for political services. Lord Herschell, in this debate—and it shows that he had considerably modified his views since he made his suggestion in March—said—
  "I admit at once that the transfer from the Lord-Lieutenant to the Lord Chancellor of the entire responsibility of manning the Bench would not be satisfactory. I am aware that the difficulty of the Lord-Lieutenantin a particular county is great in ascertaining whether the names presented are those of fit persons or not, but the difficulty of the Lord Chancellor in dealing with all the counties of England,
  1352
  Scotland, and Wales is infinitely greater. If, however, he has the assistance of those who know the county thoroughly in such a matter, there would be less liability of making mistakes. The Lord Chancellor would be perfectly mad if he relied entirely on wire-pullers and political agents. If I were to man the Bench solely on the recommendation of the politicians in counties I should make blunder after blunder."
  Now, when the suggestion is made that there is dissatisfaction with the composition of the county magistracy, I ask, where is the evidence of any dissatisfaction and discontent with the administration of justice? I am almost inclined to think that disappointed ambition and the consequent discontent of some local politicians have been magnified into conclusive evidence of the existence of discontent with the administration of justice.
  But, my Lords, if there were any real, any widespread, any deep-seated or well-grounded dissatisfaction with the administration of justice, I submit that it would be found in the popular voice in the elections to local councils and boards, and not merely in the rumblings and grumblings of disappointed politicians It is because I believe this agitation to be artificial and unreal that I have drawn the attention of the House to it this evening, and I venture to assert that to Americanise our system of administering justice by treating appointments to the magistracy as the legitimate spoil of political victors would be the last and the worst form of dementia Americana. It would open the door to methods of retaliation to which we are at present happily strangers.
  Recommendations are one thing, and they are certainly not to be discountenanced. Solicitation is another, and should not be encouraged. But dictation is a third, and it becomes intolerable if it is not stoutly resisted. The principle which I have endeavoured to place before the House this evening may be summed up in sentence. It is this—that appointments a to the county benches should be made because the localities require them and not because politicians desire them; and, further, that in the appiontment of magistrates men should be selected for their personal capacity and character, and not merely for their party zeal or political services. If I have been able at all to carry your Lordships with me in the principle I have endeavoured to give

  1353
  utterance to, I, at all events, shall feel that the trespass I have ventured to make on your Lordships' time is not wholly unpardonable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, probably it will be thought most convenient that I should address your Lordships immediately after the noble Marquess. Most of my colleagues will have to leave in a short time for the purpose of attending other important duties, and I therefore hope that if there should be anything said during the debate which I ought to answer, the House will be so indulgent as to allow me the favour of a few words at the conclusion.
  I agree with the noble Marquess in one thing. I do not think that there is any foundation whatever for the idea, if such idea be current, that justice is not fairly administered in the main by the justices of the peace in this country. My belief is that they render a public service for which the country ought to be grateful to them; and in the whole of the time that I have been in my present place, although I have had complaints in regard to the vaccination laws, I have not received, and I believe that there has been really no ground for, any complaints in regard to the improper administration of justice by the magistrates of this country. It would be indeed a very ill thing on my part if I gave the slightest countenance to whit I believe to be an unworthy aspersion.
  Having said that, I pass to the main subject of the noble Marquess, and I think the simplest way is to begin by stating what it is that I want to see in regard to the bench of justices, and what is the policy in which my friends and colleagues, I believe, heartily concur. I attach the utmost importance to the office. Lord Bacon regarded the appointment of justices as being among the most important duties of the Lord Chancellor, and I think it is perfectly true. They have, in the first place, at the present day to administer the licensing laws—a matter of very great anxiety and difficulty; and, whether in their character of justices at petty sessions or at quarter sessions, or as grand jurymen, nearly all the criminal cases that there are in England and Wales come before them at one stage
  1354
  or another. And therefore I regard the office as one which ought not to be made a reward for political service, and as one which ought not to be distributed except because of the merit and claim of the person to be appointed. That is what I should like to see, and I hope we may attain some day in this country.
  I strongly object, of course, to anything like a monopoly of this office on the part of any Party in the State, or of any creed, or of those occupying any particular social status. It is a matter in which no one ought to look beyond the question, Is this person a person respected in his locality and likely to administer justice impartially, with knowledge, and with the sympathy of the population at large? Very well, I believe that will be the opinion of all of your Lordships, and I am bound to say that in the numerous communications that I have had with Lords-Lieutenant I have found that we do not really differ in our objects. I may add also that we have hardly ever differed in regard to the names of the justices who have been placed upon the Bench. The noble Marquess and myself have had more than one interview, and in the end I think we were agreed as to the names of those to be placed on the Bench. So it has been in regard to almost all the other Lords-Lieutenant with whom I have had the honour to communicate.
  I wish to describe, simply and without offence, what we found was the case when we first came into office, and I think those who are acquainted with rural England will not dispute the truth of the description that I am going to give. For whatever reason—and I will say a word about the reason presently—there is no doubt that most of the magistrates in many of the counties of England belong to one political side. I am not attributing blame—I am going to speak of the cause presently; but that is a fact, and a fact that was admitted when we were discussing this subject last year. Also they were nearly all gentlemen of the same social status. They were not bad magistrates; they did their duty; but that was the description of their opinions and their social position.
  Now, how did this come about? I do not in the least suggest, and I do not suppose that the noble Marquess thinks that I suggested, that this was done by

  1355
  any deliberate action or desire of the Lords-Lieutenant. I do not think so. On the contrary, I know that in many cases that I have discussed they have expressed a desire to find men of other than one particular creed and other than one particular class of opinion; but they stated (what I believe in many cases is perfectly true) that the difficulty is to find them, and that has undoubtedly been one factor. Also there was in existence, as we are aware, a law requiring a property qualification, which has been abolished. It is certainly the case that, by some freak of nature, those who are in bettor financial circumstances incline the more to the Conservative Party than they do unhappily to the Liberal Party, besides which there is this, the Lords-Lieutenant, of course, cannot know all the persons themselves individually, and they necessarily derive their information from other sources.
  The Lord-Lieutenant himself is nearly always a person of great rank and distinction, and the petty rivalries and ambitions of his neighbourhood seem to him to be a fragment of the infinitely little. But it is not so among people of humbler degree who live in the locality and advise him. And I think the noble Marquess will admit this much, that the constant influence and the constant prepossession of the local Benches and their chairmen, and those others who have been in the habit of advising Lords-Lieutenant, has beyond doubt been unfavourable to one particular Party in the country, and has been biassed in favour of persons of a particular social status. I am not imputing malevolence. These things are all perfectly natural. It is not at all unnatural that those who have to choose, or to recommend, men who are to sit with them on the Bench should prefer people who move in the same circle, whom they know personally, whom they meet in the hunting field, the cricket field, or wherever else they seek their recreation. These things are not unnatural; but I say these influences have been permanent, and, although operating in a small way and in a small circle in each county, they have had a very great influence in producing the result which I have described.
  I do not believe that h is the desire either of this House or of any other responsible body of men that there should
  1356
  be a sense of exclusion on the part of any of our countrymen, or that men should feel that the ways of honour and of distinction are closed to them in the neighbourhood where they live and like to be well regarded. It is not fair play, and it is not policy for this reason—that you ought to have, not merely the fact that justice is well administered in a district, but the general confidence of the community in the administration of justice, and a feeling that they or any of their class may, if they are worthy, be placed there to take part in administering justice.
  There is no doubt at all that a very strong feeling has arisen and been existing for some time in reference to this subject. The noble Marquess thinks it is rather fictitious. I do not deny that there are fictitious elements in almost every agitation in this country upon every side in public life. We are all too familiar with the fictitious side of these things. But there is a genuine and a real side as well as a fictitious side; and I can assure the noble Marquess that if he had access—and for that matter he is heartily welcome to it—to the communications that come to me from different parts he would not think that it was merely the local wire-pullers or the person fired with the ambition of being made a magistrate—a very curious ambition, I must say it often appears to me, for it is a most laborious duty if properly discharged—he would not think this feeling was confined to so narrow and so unworthy an element as that. There is, I can assure him, and there has been for some time a very real feeling that men who otherwise would be placed upon the Bench have been prevented from being so placed because of the partiality shown to Conservatives and to others in a particular social status. That is true. It may be exaggerated, if you will, but there is a very real and true feeling to that effect; and I certainly have had, and Lords Lieutenant have remedied on my representation, repeated instances of men of very high standing who have been unaccountably passed over, not by the fault of the Lord-Lieutenant, as I have learned whenever I have made representation to him, but by reason of the influences and bias to which I have referred.

  1357
  I admit in the fullest manner that there is another side to it. The noble Marquess has referred to a communication that I had to make to Members of the House of Commons last December. I stand by every word that I said, and I shall not be shaken, under any circumstances. But may I remind him of this? I said then—and it is perfectly true —that the great bulk of the communications that have been made to me by Members of Parliament have been of names, carefully prepared and thought over, honourably put forward by men who have as much repugnance as he or I have to the prostitution of the Bench of justices for any base purpose, but put forward really and truly because those who did not themselves want to be magistrates, but did wish to see fair play, felt that in their own locality something ought to be done to redress what was amiss. I must certainly say that I think the great bulk of those recommendations that have been made to me have been made in that spirit. I will not say that everyone knows, but I think it is the case that, whenever a new Government comes in, I do not care which side it is, there is apt to be an ugly rush for the purpose of getting some sort of political reward in the form of appointments to the Bench of justices. I do not want to say much about that, except that, if it has been complied with by some Chancellors, it will not be by me.
  I have this feeling, that whatever may be said about the distribution of decorations, or titles, or other marks and badges of honour, under no circumstances ought any position of trust, as the position of a justice is, to be given to any person who is not quite fit for it in the opinion of those most competent to judge. Under these circumstances what have I done, what has the course been that I have adopted? What I have done in each case is, when any complaint or any representation was made in regard to the political complexion of the Bench that any persons were being excluded or had been excluded because of their opinions, or not equally treated, I have always forwarded anything that has been said to the Lords-Lieutenant, whenever I thought it was worthy of attention. There are many names and cases which I have not forwarded at all, because I did
  1358
  not think them to be worthy of attention.
  I have no doubt the noble Marquess is perfectly right—in fact, I am sorry to say, from my own knowledge, that it is true—that some names sent forward in that way have not been the names of suitable persons. I am sure everyone will feel that it is impossible for me to be responsible for that being the case; but I can say that I have really tried to know, before sending these names forward, whether they were fit and worthy names. I have taken a good deal of pains to do that, and, when I have done so, I have met the Lords-Lieutenant. Our interviews have neither been long nor stormy. They have been, I think, always of a very pleasant character, and, with hardly any exception at all, the names that have been placed on the list have been placed with the concurrence of the Lords-Lieutenant. That has been the case with the noble Marquess, when certain names were placed on the list with the approval of the noble Marquess himself. So it is in the case of others. If, for example, a class of persons like workmen have not been placed on the Bench, or it was a case of the representatives of Roman Catholics not being admitted to the Bench, I have done exactly the same. I have communicated with the Lords-Lieutenant, and any remedy that has been applied has been applied with their approval, I believe almost without exception.
  For my part, may I say that I think it is not a question of appointing simply on political considerations? I think you ought to get the best men, and see that no one is excluded either by reason of his political or religious opinions or by reason of his status; and I am glad to say that many working men, who have had the highest record, have been placed on different Benches in this country during the time I have had the honour of being Chancellor. That is what has been done and now, having said that, I want to indicate, in one sense, concurrence with something that has been said by the noble Marquess.
  I am not fully satisfied with the present working of the system of appointing magistrates. I have pointed out that

  1359
  a certain stream of information came to the Lords-Lieutenant, and that I thought that stream was charged with prepossession to a certain extent and with bias. A stream of information comes, also, to me, which is equally charged with prepossession and with bias. I do not think that that is a satisfactory condition of things on either side. I do not think it is desirable that a Lord-Lieutenant, with his great responsibility, should be dependent upon sources which are in any degree prejudiced, nor do I think it is desirable that I should be dependent upon such sources. I have thought a good deal as to whether it would be possible to make any suggestion by which, not during the tenure of office of one Government or of another, but permanently, some machinery should be set up by which we could get simply and solely the best men without hearing of the political side or the social side, by which an unbiassed choice should be made of the very best men for the purpose without the slighest regard to their opinions on any subject.
  I have found it a matter of extreme difficulty to think out any such project. The other day I was sent a letter by a friend of mine written in the year 1745, from which it appeared that the great Lord Hardwicke, who was then Chancellor, had asked the Members for Norfolk their advice with regard to the appointment of magistrates, and they went to the assizes and consulted the grand jury as to what names they should send up to the Lord Chancellor in compliance with that request. I do not know whether the grand jury might be invoked, or whether, what would perhaps be more suitable, the county council might be asked to assist. I think it is most desirable that the ultimate responsibility should remain where it is, with the Lord Chancellor and the Lords-Lieutenant and that they should themselves act cordially together in trying to get the best men under considerable difficulties. But I do not know whether it is possible. As I say, I really have not made up my mind, I cannot make up my mind definitely, on the subject of whether it is possible that a committee should be selected in each county, a committee of perfectly impartial men, with full local knowledge, who should be consulted in respect of all appointments that were to
  1360
  be made. Whether that is practicable or not, I really do not know; perhaps in the course of the debate some other plan may be suggested. If that course cannot be adopted, I can see nothing for it but to go on in the way in which we are going on now, and I hope that if we do we shall escape undue censure on any hand.
  One other alteration which I should like to see, if possible, was referred to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition last year. The noble Marquess asked whether anything could be done for the purpose of preventing gentlemen from continuing to hold the office of justice of the peace without discharging any of its duties. There is not the least doubt that a number of justices are merely nominal justices, and that they have no excuse for not discharging their duties. There are many of us in this House who, though we happen to be justices, have something else to do, and may well be excused, or at least hope for consideration, but if a man has nothing else to do, or has plenty of leisure, and systematically neglects to attend on the Bench, I think that I and the Lords-Lieutenant between us might arrange some method of asking such a person whether, in the interests of the county, he should not make place for someone who would discharge the duties. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be most wrong to over man the Bench, and I have no intention of doing anything of the kind. But it is a different thing that gentlemen should remain justices or accept office when they have no intention of discharging the duties. I have stated what I have tried to do, and the spirit and object with which I have tried to do it; and I have also suggested the different amendments which do not require legislation, but which might be arranged between the Lords-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor. I hope this debate will be fruitful in suggestions by which these difficulties may be overcome.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend for having been the means of inducing the noble and learned Lord to make the important statement to which we have just listened. It is a statement which I for one, and I think many of your Lordships must have listened to with

  1361
  the utmost satisfaction. That speech, following as it does the statement made by the noble and learned Lord last year, and following the remarkable letter published not long ago in The Time newspaper by the noble and learned Lord, seems to me to dispose once and for all of all the statements which have been freely made—statements in my belief entirely unfounded and unjustified—that these appointments to the Bench have in the past been usually given as the reward of political service; and it disposes also of the still more mischievous suggestion that, in order to redress the balance, future appointments should be made on the same grounds.
  I gather from the noble and learned Lord's statement that he, at any rate, is satisfied that the manner in which the county magistrates of this country have administered justice has been satisfactory and beyond suspicion. I gather that he is determined that, for the future, appointments to the Bench will be made solely with reference to the merit and fitness of the individual concerned; that he is entirely opposed to the idea of flooding the county Benches with new magistrates in order to redress the disparity which now exists between the numbers in which the two political Parties are represented; and that, on the other hand, it is his desire that no person fit for one of these appointments should have the feeling that he is excluded on account of the particular political or religious tenets which he happens to observe. If that correctly represents the creed of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I take leave to say that that is my creed also, and I believe the creed of every reasonable man in the country.
  When I speak of selecting magistrates with reference to their fitness for a seat on the Bench, I ask myself what is it that we mean when we speak of a person being fit for magisterial work. In the first place, we intend that he shall be a person possessing, if I may use the words of the noble Lord in charge of last year's Bill, "education and intelligence." I do not suggest that a knowledge of the dead languages or anything of that kind is indispensable; but I do mean that a person should have that kind of education which, at any rate, will enable him to sift evidence in a reasonable manner, and to distinguish between statements based
  1362
  upon mere assertion and matters of proved fact.
  What is the next qualification upon which we should insist? It is that the individual should occupy a position of independence. I do not mean independence in the sense of social rank or connection, but a position which places him beyond the reach or beyond the suspicion of improper influence. And that is the view of His Majesty's Government, because the House will remember that in the Act of last year there was a clause which made it illegal for a solicitor to sit upon the Bench before which he is in the habit of practising.
  I think it is impossible to deny that in the past persons possessing qualifications of this kind have been more numerous and easier to find in the ranks of the Party represented on this side of the House than on the other side. That is a consequence which is inherent in the circumstances of the case; and in the past appointments to the Bench have been made, not because the individual has been a member of a particular Party, but because the particular attributes for which the Lords-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor had to look have been more usually found among persons possessing that territorial qualification of which we got rid last year. It was for that reason that I for one was ready to welcome the legislation of last year, because it seemed to me to extend the area within which the Lord-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor could look for suitable magistrates, and there by break down what was, in appearance at any rate, the monopoly of one political Party.
  I regret as much as the noble and learned Lord regrets that in the result it should prove to be the case that so enormous a preponderance of magistrates in some counties should be drawn from one political Party rather than the other. That is a political misfortune; but it would be a still greater misfortune if, in order to redress the disparity, incompetent persons were appointed recklessly and in a wholesale manner. But the declaration of the noble and learned Lord on that point appears to me entirely satisfactory, and I have not a word to say against it. I may say that the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord seemed to me more satisfactory than

  1363
  that propounded a few days ago by the Prime Minister in another place. The Prime Minister made a statement which, to those who read it, appeared to suggest that magistrates might be appointed as a reward, I will do him the justice to say, not of political service, but of local service, and with the object of redressing the inequality of which I spoke a moment ago.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the noble Marquess will understand that I should be the last man in England to say anything inconsistent with the declarations of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that if the noble Marquess reads the Prime Minister's statement carefully he will find that there was nothing inconsistent with what I have said.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There may not have been a difference in intention, but there certainly is a difference in the manner in which the case was put. The Prime Minister used these words—
  "We are engaged in redressing the inequality of the present position of things."
  My point is that that is not the object, or, at any rate, the main object, with which appointments should be made to the Bench; but that they should be made solely with regard to other considerations—first, whether the Bench stands in need of additional magistrates; and, secondly, whether the person put forward is in all respects a competent person. But I do not believe that, so far as the Lords-Lieutenants are concerned, there will be found to be any difference of opinion with regard to the principles on which we ought to proceed; and I for one should look forward, so long as these principles are observed, to there being not only no friction, but very loyal and useful co-operation between the Lords-Lieutenant and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the selection of magistrates. Whether it is possible that the machinery of selection can be permanently improved on the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord, I do not like to say at this moment. I understood him to hint at the possibility of establishing a committee of what he described as perfectly impartial men to whom might be
  1364
  entrusted the duty of selecting these gentleman.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Advising.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid there might be some initial difficulty in satisfying everybody of the strict impartiality of every one placed on that distinguished body. With regard to the other proposal, which I think the noble and learned Lord attributed to me, but the credit of which I cannot help thinking is due to my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn—that a magistrate who habitually shirks his work and absents himself from the Bench should by some means or other be relieved of hisduties—that seems to me an admirable suggestion, and if the noble and learned Lord carries the matter further, I believe he will receive a great deal of support.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  CARNEGIE INSTITUTE.
  LORD LEITH OF FYVIErose to move for any correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America respecting the international celebrations held at Pittsburg, United States of America, in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute; and to ask why His Majesty's Ambassador was not present or represented on that international occasion.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question I have placed upon the Paper requires an answer in some form, and I have no doubt it will be one which will remove the feeling that there has been indifference on the part of our Ambassador in America to affairs going on there. The institute to which I refer, the Carnegie Institute, has been growing for many years and is regarded by the people of the United States as a national institution. It is really the expression of an enormous evolution and development in the arts of iron and steel, especially in that centre of industry, Pittsburg, and therefore invitations were

  1365
  sent by the Committee to all nations to take part in the celebration of inauguration. Our Ambassador at Washington was invited, together with the representatives of all other foreign nations. His Majesty the Emperor William was not only represented by his Ambassador but he specially requested that a Commission, representing him, of the highest arts and sciences of his country, should be allowed to visit Pittsburg at the time and take part in the inauguration.
  France, Italy, and other countries as well were represented by their highest minds in science and art, but in this international gathering England apparently was not represented. Our Ambassador declined the invitation, stating inability to attend, and he also declined on the part of the members of the Embassy to allow them to attend a meeting at which the representatives of all nations were taking part in doing honour to a very great evolution—a world evolution. England alone stood aloof in the inauguration of this institute. Those who have worked in the United States and in connection with the people of America are aware how sensitive they are, and how often it is that little things of this kind affect the public mind and grow from an acorn into an enormous tree of public opinion.
  It will be a great disappointment to those who have been connected with the United States if they see that the great work done by the patient endeavours of the late Lord Pauncefote in establishing the entente between the two countries is in any way endangered by an act of indifference which might be construed into something rather stronger; and I think it is desirable that the matter should be mot at once and the American people told that there was no intention of any indifference. Our own people were represented largely by the Colonies and representatives of arts and letters, but when it came to the question of the Government, England was silent. Surely England should have taken the lead in a matter of this kind to congratulate the country on this great institution which constitutes an immense development of the technical and scientific education of the nation.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for any
  1366
  correspondence which has taken place between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America respecting the international celebrations held at Pittsburg, United States of America, in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute.—(Lord Leith of Fyvie.)
  LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, there is no correspondence which, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, could be usefully laid respecting the celebrations held at Pittsburg in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute. I hope, however, that I shall be able to give a reply which will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I make no complaint of his asking the Question. On the contrary, statements have been made in the Press in regard to this gathering which, if uncontradicted, might possibly leave a mistaken impression. I therefore think it desirable that they should be contradicted, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me this opportunity of doing so.
  I wish, in the first place, to say that the invitations which were issued to the heads of foreign Missions, were not issued to them as such, or in any official capacity. I have been in communication with His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington since the noble Lord placed his Question on the Paper, and the statement I am making is based on information received from him. His Majesty's Ambassador had only just returned from an official visit to Canada, and had important business to transact at Washington, which made it impossible for him to absent himself again so soon, especially as he was due to attend the National Arbitration and Peace Congress Conference at New York and a conference at Philadelphia during the following week. It was, as I have said, impossible for Mr. Bryce to attend the opening of the Carnegie Institute owing to the multifarious character of the duties which awaited him immediately on his arrival at Washington from Canada, whither he had gone for high reasons of State, and he selected those engagements which he could attend with the greatest facility consistently with the discharge of his other duties at Washington. Neither the Gorman, Austro-

  1367
  Hungarian, French nor Russian Embassies were represented at Pittsburg; therefore there was nothing in the absence of Mr. Bryce to call attention in any marked way by contrast to any discrepancy between the position of the British Embassy and the Embassies I have mentioned. There were important representatives of those great interests, educational and other, to which the Pittsburg Institute so much appeals in the presence at the celebrations of delegates from our great and ancient Universities as well our more modern Universities, and I believe the Government of the United States and the people of America fully recognised in the presence of those deputations the outward sign of the respect and sympathy which the Government and people of this country felt in that great gathering and the proceedings connected with it. If there has been any misunderstanding such as the noble Lord seems to think has arisen, I am exceedingly glad of the opportunity publicly to state how much His Majesty's Government and our Ambassador at Washington appreciated the importance of that occasion, and how much Mr. Bryce himself regretted that he was prevented from attending; and I need not remind the House that there is hardly any man in the whole of our diplomatic service to whom a great educational occasion of this kind would appeal more than to Mr. Bryce.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.