Sitting of 24 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North East London Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 6).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS informed the House that, the Committee on Group 6 of Railway Bills not being appointed to meet until To-morrow, the parties opposing the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, which was set down for consideration upon the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Sub-Divisional Inspector Arthur Sims, of the Y Division of the Metropolitan Police, of Platt Street Police Station, Saint Pan-eras, N.W., was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That Sub-Divisional Inspector Arthur Sims do attend the Committee on
  4
  Gloup 6 of Railway Bills to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Reported [preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
  Sir LEWIS M'IVEE reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL,
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Rhymney, in favor; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Edinburgh, and, Leith; to lie upon the. Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Two petitions from Trafford Park, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Arbroath; Dumbarton; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Mid Argyll: Portobello; Selkirk; and,. Shettleston: to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Annan; Arbroath (two); Banchory Ternaw; Bannockbun; Bervie; Bishopbriggs; Bonhill; Broughty Ferry; Callander; Calton; Camelon; Campbeltown; Chryston; Coalburn; Cuminestown; Dollar (two); Dumbarton; Dundee (six);

  5
  Edinburgh (five); Falkirk (three); Fraserburgh; Galashiels; Garlieston; Girvan; Glasgow (eighteen); Gourdon Grangemouth; Greenock; Johnstone; Keith; Kilmarnock; Kincardine; Kir-kintilloch (two); Larkhall (two); Lauder; Maxwelltown; Milltown; Milnathort; Motherwell; Muirkirk; Nitshill; Partick; Perth (two); Portessie; Rosehearty; Saltcoats; Scotstown; Sorbie; Shettleston; Stevenston; Stranraer (two); Uddington; Whiteineh (two); and, Wynde; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) BILL
  Petition from Staveley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition for legislation; from Burnley and Hastings; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from West Stockwith, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF WHISKEY BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF TRADE (REPORTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd April; Mr. Lloyd-George]: to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 126.]

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended
  6
  31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Swansea, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the County Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Prisons Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-eighth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 1, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Independent State of the Congo [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EGYPT (No. 3, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Earl of Cromer, respecting proposals of the Egyptian General Assembly [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 659 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3768 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of all Moneys contributed out of the rates by the county council and other local bodies in each county in Ireland during the financial year 1906–7, for the purposes of schemes under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 170, of Session 1906)." — Mr. Ginnell.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOFES.

  Soldiers Employed by the Post Office
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of men the Post Office has asked the War Office to supply for use in the Telegraph Department during the forthcoming summer; what number of vacancies on the permanent establishment he has decided to reserve for these men; and whether these preferential appointments will be at the expense of those hitherto reserved for the ex-messengers, or from those recruited from open competition.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The military telegraphists recently employed in the postal telegraph service consist of a group of twelve ex-soldiers who are at present engaged as probationary telegraphists. These men will, if satisfactory, be appointed to established posts in the Central Telegraph Office under the conditions stated in my Answer to my hon. friend on the 11th instant, i.e., they will be placed on the same scale as that in force for other telegraphists in the same office. As my hon. friend is already aware from previous Answers, the chief object of employing these ex soldiers as telegraphists is to enable a larger number of vacancies to be left for the ex-telegraph messengers. These appointments will therefore be to the benefit of the ex-messengers, and will not result in a larger number of ex-soldiers being employed in the postal service. Besides the above, there are a few soldiers still serving with the colours to whom the acquisition of a knowledge of telegraphy will be an advantage, and who are temporarily engaged with a view to the reduction of excessive overtime in provincial offices during the coming summer. The number will probably not exceed twenty. As regards these, there is no question of appointment on the establishment.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-Genera whether the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1907, showed that 1,736 male telegraphists were attached to the Central Telegraph Office, while for the current year the number is
  8
  stated to be 1,659; whether the Department is employing soldiers on telegraph duties in this office, paying them 6s. 6d. per week for an attendance of forty-eight hours weekly; and whether ho will explain why he has reduced the permanent staff and resorted to the use of military casual labour.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The reduction in the force of male telegraphists employed in the Central Telegraph Office during the current year is due to diminution of work in that office and has no connection whatever with the recent employment of a small number of ex-soldiers in that office. As I stated in my Answers to my hon. friend on the 21st March and 11th instant, the object with which these men are employed is with a view of leaving a larger number of vacancies for ex-telegraph messengers and not with the view, nor with the result, of employing a large number of ex-soldiers in the postal service. I have already explained that it is not a question of "casual" labour, nor of cheapening labour. If these men, niter their probationary period, are found to give satisfaction, they will be appointed on the establishment on the same scale as that in force for the telegraphists in the same office.

  Transfers of Irish School Inspectors.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is customary for the Commissioners of National Education to transfer their inspectors of national schools every three years, and that more than half these inspectors were transferred at 1st April, 1906; whether he is aware that inspectors, as a rule, give unfavourable reports against which the Board will allow no appeal or re-examination, on their first visits to schools, when reports equal to the two preceding reports would mean promotion; whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, requesting that no teacher who had got two consecutive reports up to the required standard for promotion should be disallowed that promotion through the first report of any inspector; if so, will he say whether the Board will comply with that

  9
  resolution when considering the promotions during the year commencing the 1st instant upon the inspectors' reports for the three preceding years; if not, how many teachers will be disallowed to first grade and first-of-first grade respectively through the Board's non-compliance with that request; and will he, in view of the slowness of promotion, impress on the Board the desirability of complying with the request mentioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there is no fixed rule as to the transfer of inspectors from one circuit to another. The period for which an inspector may be retained in any district depends on the exigencies of the service. It is not the case, as stated, that inspectors as a rule make unfavourable reports on their first visits to schools, when reports equal to the two preceding reports would mean promotion. In January last the Commissioners received from the National Teachers' Association a resolution to the effect stated in the Question. They do not, however, consider it necessary or desirable to adopt the suggestion contained in the resolution. The Commissioners cannot at present say in how many cases promotion will be disallowed. The question of the promotion of teachers is one entirely for the Commissioners, and I am afraid that I cannot interfere with their discretion in the matter.

  Endowed Schools Commissioners and the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Endowed Schools Commissioners and the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland are the same persons; are all permanent charities and endowments in Ireland now under the control of these bodies; by whom are inspectors appointed over the various properties and institutions; on whose recommendation; what are the qualifications for these inspectorships; how are the inspectors paid, and by whom; how is performance of duty vouched; and will he grant, if moved for, a Return of all the charities and endowed institutions now
  10
  under the control of these two bodies of Commissioners, showing the date of foundation or acquisition, name of founder, nature of property, original and present value, annual yield, annual expenditure, and how applied.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The two bodies of Commissioners referred to do not consist of the same persons. The Endowed Schools Commissioners, whose statutory title is the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, have control of certain endowments connected with education. The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests have vested in them certain charitable and pious bequests, and have powers for protecting and controlling charities other than those vested in them. In this regard I would refer the hon. Member to the Acts 7 and 8 Vic, c. 97, 30 and 31 Vic, c, 54, and 34 and 35 Vic, c 102. Inspectors of the endowments under the control of the Commissioners of Education are appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant under Section 17 of The Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act, 1885. The Lord-Lieutenant satisfies himself as to the competency of the persons whom he appoints, and subsequently as to the satisfactory performance of the duty. The annual fee payable to an inspector ranges from £1 Is. to £3 3s., and is a charge on the endowment. In many cases of small endowments the duty of inspection is performed without fee. The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests do not employ inspectors. I am advised that no public purpose, commensurate with the labour involved, would be served by the preparation of the Return suggested. To prepare such a Return extensive inquiries reaching back for centuries would be necessary, I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports presented to Parliament by each of the bodies in question.

  The Land Policy of the Government — The Prime Minister and the Demand for Land.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the Prime Minister on what official information he has relied in making the statement that in one district after another the demand

  11
  for land for the purposes of use and labour is met with blank denial; and whether he can lay such information before the House, giving the names of the districts to which he referred.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The following cases, taken from the return on The Small Holdings Act, 1892, dated August 15th, 1895, show that county councils were in many instances unable to obtain land by agreement:—
  Bedford.—Your Committee have made careful inquiry and find that… there is no reasonable prospect of the council being able to obtain the land…. Your Committee, therefore, cannot advise the council to put the statute into operation.
  Cornwall.—The Committee endeavoured to obtain land in different parts of the county, but found that in some instances the land applied for already formed part of small tenements, and that in others the owners were unwilling to part with the land.
  Dorset.—From this inquiry and from other sources the sub-Committee believe that considerable difficulty would be experienced in obtaining available land.
  London.—The great proportion of the owners have either refused to entertain the council's advances altogether, or have made difficulties by coupling their consent with impossible or unreasonable conditions, so that little progress has hitherto been made in this direction.
  Warwick.—The chairman of the council reported on inquiry that if land were available, it would be taken up to a fair amount by the labourers and tradesmen. The Committee subsequently reported that it had not been practicable to obtain land.
  Northumberland.—It appearing to the Committee that land at Harbottle, suitable, in the opinion of the Committee, for small holdings cannot be obtained, resolved that an intimation to that effect be given to the applicants there. It appearing to the Committee that land at Leamington suitable, in the opinion of the Committee, cannot be obtained, resolved that intimation to that effect be given to the applicants
  12
  there. The sub-Committee appointed to negotiate for the purchase of land at Haydon Bridge reported verbally that… they had not been able to negotiate the purchase of suitable land.
  Wilts.—At Broadchalk, where there were seven applicants for small holdings, suitable land was pointed out, but the Committee were unable to come to terms with the owner, and the proposal fell through.
  Some specific instances of the difficulties experienced by the rural sanitary authorities in obtaining land for allotments before the passing of the Local Government Act of 1894 may be found in the House of Commons' Return of June 20th, 1892 (No. 310). Land could not be obtained at all by agreement in the rural districts of Buckingham (Bucks.), Whittlesey (Cambridgeshire), Braintree (Essex), Tetbury (Gloucester), Isle of Thanet and Blean (Kent), Banbury and Thame (Oxford), and Cosford (Sussex).
  In giving evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Small Holdings in 1890, Mr. Fyffe, the estates bursar of University College, Oxford, described an estate in Sussex, covering an area of 20 square miles, of which no portion could be bought at any price.
  The evidence given before the recent Departmental Committee on Small Holdings abounds with instances of the practical impossibility in many cases of obtaining land. The following cases may be mentioned. Lord Onslow's Report on a visit to the small holdings in Worcestershire states, "The men endeavoured to obtain land from a neighbouring landowner, but a rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers."
  Mr. Winfrey's Evidence.
  Question 1989. With regard to the parochial parish which includes Holbeach St. Mark's and Holbeach Bank, it comprises no fewer than 21,133 acres, being the largest parochial parish in England. The applicants asked altogether for 146 acres of land, but we were not able to find a willing seller under the Small Holdings Act in that enormously large parish. The Crown has land in the parish, and a committee of the county council was

  13
  appointed to interview the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. We asked the Commissioners to sell us some land; but they declined to sell, alleging that it would be detrimental to the future disposition of the Crown estate.
  Question 1993. In the case of Whaplode we advertised for suitable land, and we had land eventually offered to us, but at a price which the Committee thought was prohibitive. It really was prohibitive, being about 20 per cent. higher than the market price of land in the district.
  Miss Jebb's Evidence.
  Question 7831. Is it your belief that men have gone into the towns because they were unable to get land?—I have certainly met with that in a great many cases.
  Question 7832. You did meet with it in actual practice?—Yes.
  Question 7909. Probably you know of many cases in which families have left the country, and gone to the towns, because they could not get land to occupy as small holders?—I know of a good many young men, sons of small holders or small farmers, having done so.
  Question 7910. And probably you have known of whole families going to the towns because it was impossible to get a small holding?—I think I could refer you to cases of whole families if I were to go to the different districts I have visited, but it is more the younger men who drift from the country into the towns on this account. Of course, it comes to the same thing in the end.
  Mr. James Stewart's Evidence.
  Question 9017. But had you a garden at your cottage to begin with at Rattray? —Yes, and then I took an acre. I was at the landlord for four years for that acre before I got it. I got it because I wanted to keep things together.
  Question 9019. You had difficulty in finding any land?—Yes.
  The President of the Board of Agriculture informs me that he has this week received a petition (copy attached), signed by all the members of the Parish Council of Moulton, near Spalding, pointing out the pressing demand for land for small holdings in the neighbourhood. The parish contains 12,000 acres of
  14
  excellent land, and has a population of 2,017. Nearly half the land in the parish is occupied by twenty tenants, three of them holding nearly 3,000 acres. There are 151 allotment holders in the parish, but they can make no progress owing to the impossibility of obtaining more land. The average rent of the existing small holders is about 33 per cent. more, than the average rent of the larger farms. As long ago as 1893 the Small Holdings Committee of the Holland County Council received applications for small holdings and held an inquiry in the parish, but no land could be obtained, and, though continued efforts have been made since that time, the applications still remain unsatisfied. At least six other similar inquiries have been held in neighbouring parishes at intervals since the passing of the Act of 1892, but in each case the result has been the same.
  (Copy)
  Moulton, Near Spalding, April 15th. 1907.
  To the Right Hon. Earl Carrington,
  President of the Board of Agriculture.
  We, the undersigned, members of the Moulton Parish Council, assembled at the annual meeting, respectfully desire to draw your Lordship's attention to the pressing demand for small holdings in this and surrounding parishes in South Lincolnshire.
  In the past, vacant farms have usually been let to progressive farmers; and small holders and would-be small holders have been passed by. As things are at present it is almost impossible for an industrious and capable man to hire a small holding except at an exhorbitant rent. Even at such rent the holdings available are very few.
  This large parish contains about 12,000 acres of fertile land, nearly all of which is suitable for cultivation by small holders.
  Nearly 3,000 acres are held by three tenants out of a population of 2,017, living in 463 houses; twenty tenants occupy nearly half the land in the parish, upwards of 5,000 acres.
  We believe that this distribution of the land is typical of the parishes in South Lincolnshire.
  The rents paid by existing small holders run to £5 per acre including the house and buildings. There are five small holdings in the parish, cultivated as Ordinary agricultural land, rented at £4 and upwards per acre.
  The average rent of all existing small holdings is about 33 per cent. more than the average rent of the larger farms. The larger farms are well equipped as a rule with house, cottages, and buildings; the small holdings are often badly equipped with buildings. Several persons pay a separate rent for a house and buildings, and then hire odd fields at rentals of 50s. and 60s. per acre.
  The parish council hires allotment land from five landowners which it has to let at rents varying from £2 to £3 per acre, inclusive of rates. This land has no buildings of any kind upon it.
  There are 151 allotment holders in the parish. Under existing circumstances they can make no progress. Several of these desire to become small holders. There is also a strong demand for land from persons who would not require houses. But the experience of members of this council is that holdings of from 25 acres upwards with cottages and buildings on them are chiefly required.
  There are capable men with money saved and friends willing to assist, ready to take and work such holdings; hundreds more in the future would come forward for such holdings if only they could see a prospect of obtaining them.
  The parish council desire, if they may do so, to add that where the land is suitable, the question of buildings need be no obstacle. The small holder can live and afford to pay the same rent as paid by the larger farmer and, in addition, a fair interest upon any reasonable sum necessary to furnish the land with houses and buildings.

  (Signed)

  F Webster, Chairman.

  (Signed)

  J. France, Vice Chairman

  (Signed)

  W. Ginn.

  (Signed)

  G. Ventus.

  (Signed)

  H. Alcock.

  (Signed)

  F. Cusson.

  (Signed)

  B. Peake.

  (Signed)

  S. King.

  (Signed)

  R. Allison.

  (Signed)

  E. W. Derby.

  (Signed)

  E. W. Thurston.

  (Being all the members, eleven, present at the meeting.)
  Two young men left the parish this week for Canada.
  Six of the brothers of the chairman, emigrated to Canada.
  Appendix 3 to the Report of the Select Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Amendment Bill shows that out of sixty replies received to inquiries addressed to rural and urban district councils as to the causes of scarcity of cottages in their districts, thirty-seven complain of the difficulty of getting land, the land is either unobtainable or the price put upon it is prohibitive. The last Report of the Medical Officer of Health to the Surrey County Council mentions that a proposal to adopt Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act was negatived chiefly on the ground that no suitable land was obtainable at a sufficiently reasonable price. The hon. Member will also find some instructive evidence in the Reports of Mr. Wilson Fox, C.B., to the Royal Commission on Labour, as well as in Mr. Fox's book on agricultural wages during the last fifty years.

  Street Ambulances for London.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed last year to consider and report upon the question of the provision of ambulances for street accidents in London has finished its inquiry; and when its Report will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not in a position at present to say when the inquiry will be completed and the Report issued.

  Claims for Indian Lawyers for Judgeship.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if it is intended to appoint a sixth puisne judge to His Majesty's High Court at Madras; and whether, in view of the fact that the requirements of the statute have been complied with as regards the number of English barrister judges and judges drawn from the ranks of the Indian Civil

  17
  Service, and seeing also that only one Indian is a member of the court as at at present constituted, the claims of Indian lawyers will be considered when the appointment is made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The appointment of a sixth puisne judge to the Madras High Court has been sanctioned. The statute requires not less than one-third of the judges to be barristers and not less than one-third to be members of the Civil Service. When the number of judges was six, it was necessary to appoint not less than two barristers and two civilians. Now that the number has been increased to seven the requirements of the Law can only be fulfilled by the appointment of three barristers and three civilians. An Indian lawyer has been appointed Advocate General.

  Army List and Colonial Militia and Volunteers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the importance of imparting to the auxiliary forces of all His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas a feeling that they form part and parcel of the Imperial Army, it will be possible to arrange for the inclusion of the several recognised corps, their location, and the names of their officers in an annual Army List.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly refer to pages 1821 to 1903 of the Quarterly Army List he will find the desired information concerning the Colonial Militia and Volunteers.

  Small Bore Bullets.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any recent inquiry has taken place as to the relative efficiency of small-bore bullets of various shapes and patterns with regard to muzzle velocity, low trajectory, and stopping power; and whether the result of such inquiry is available to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is under investigation, and it is not yet possible to say whether the
  18
  results of the investigation, when available, can be published.

  Conversion of Lee-Enfield Rifles for use of Auxiliary Forces.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the conversion of Lee-Enfield rifles for the use of the auxiliary forces has yet commenced; when it is expected to be completed; what sum is placed for this purpose in the Estimates for 1907–8, now many rifles can be converted for this sum; and how many will still remain to be converted at the end of the present financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The conversion of the Lee-Enfield rifles for the use of the auxiliary forces will be commenced this year. The date of completion will depend on the number of rifles required for the Territorial Army. The sum taken in Estimates is £29,800, for which 44,000 rifles can be converted. The numbers remaining for conversion at the end of the year will depend upon the number required for the Territorial Army.

  The Albert Hall Dinner to Colonial Premiers — The King's Colonial Guard of Honour.
  DR. HAZEL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a detachment of His Majesty's auxiliary forces attended in uniform and under arms at an entertainment organised by a party political club at the Albert Hall, London, on Thursday, 18th April; whether he gave his permission for their attendance; if not, by whose permission they were present; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to prevent His Majesty's forces from being thus identified with party political organisations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The application of the guard of honour furnished by the King's Colonial Imperial Yeomanry at the Albert Hall banquet was sanctioned by the General Officer Commanding, London District, in accordance with Paragraph 12, Imperial Yeomanry Regulations. I do not consider that the corps in question identified itself with any party political

  19
  organisation. A unit composed of representatives of British Colonies throughout the world and incorporated in. a regiment of His Majesty's auxiliary forces would appear to be an appropriate body to do honour to our Imperial guests at an entertainment that was not organised for party or political purposes.

  Sale of War Department Land at Bexhill.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of the sale of War Department land at Bexhill to the Bexhill Corporation is still under consideration; and how soon a decision on this question may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). The matter is still under consideration, and it is not possible to say when a decision may be expected.

  Cost per man of Horse and Field Artillery under the New Scheme.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain his estimate that the average annual cost per man of the horse and field artillery will be only £45 12s. under his new scheme, as compared with £74 7s. 4d. under the old system; and to what causes does he attribute the corresponding savings of £8 16s. 8d. per man and £6 Os. 6d. per man in the cases of the infantry and cavalry of the line respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). The figures given in my reply to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for the Reigate Division of Surrey on the 11th inst., † for both the present and the new systems, represent the average annual cost of all those who, on a general mobilisation, would be liable to serve abroad. For the present system these comprise the regular peace establishment and the Army Reserve. For the new system they include in addition the special contingent and the special service section of the territorial force. The reduction in annual cost under horse and field artillery is due partly to the larger Army Reserve to be obtained by a shorter period of colour service for part of the regular establishment of that
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 346.
  20
  arm, and partly to the inclusion of the special contingent men for ammunition columns; the cost per head of these men being much less than that of the regular soldier. The corresponding savings under infantry and cavalry of the line are similarly due to the inclusion, under the new scheme, of infantry of the special contingent and cavalry (Yeomanry) of the special service section respectively.

  Salaries of Irish Dispensary Doctors.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total amount of salaries paid in each county in Ireland to dispensary doctors in the year 1897; the credit given each county in respect of those salaries in fixing the amount of the Agricultural Grant; the total amount of salaries paid in the year 1906 and the additional contributions towards those salaries from sources other than the Agricultural Grant or local rates; and the total for each county of credits in respect of Agricultural Grant and other contributions.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total amount of the salaries of dispensary medical officers in the year 1897 came to £90,727, of which one-half was recouped from the Parliamentary Grant. In arriving at the amount which should be allowed for the Agricultural Grant in respect of union charges, account was taken of the amounts actually raised as poor rate by boards of guardians in the standard year, regard being had to any exceptional circumstances which may have caused a variation from the average in accordance with section 49 (1) of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. Special account was not, however, taken of any individual item, and it would not be possible to state with accuracy the actual credit given to each county in respect of the salaries of dispensary medical officers. In the year ended March, 1906, the salaries of the medical officers, together with the payments for services of temporary medical officers, came to £110,134, of which it may be taken that somewhat less than one-half was recouped from the Local Taxation Account. The exact amount of recoupment cannot be given owing to the limitation imposed by Section 6 (1) of the Local Government Act

  21
  of 1902. The salaries of medical officers are paid according to unions, and the unions are not in all cases co-terminous with the counties. The present number of unions extending beyond county limits is forty-six, but there were more than this number in 3897, and no sectional valuations are available for the purpose in that year, so that a comparative statement could not be arrived at, which is presumably what the hon. Member desires.

  Religion of Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Tipperary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether all the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary now stationed in county Tipperary are Roman Catholics; and, if so, will steps be taken, and when, to have some Protestants stationed in this county.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) According to the latest statistics the Royal Irish Constabulary in county Tipperary consists of 388 Roman Catholics and sixty Protestants.

  Dublin Metropolitan Police—Proportion of Roman Catholics and Protestants.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that there are in all ranks of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force 995 Roman Catholics and only 195 Protestants, including thirty-four Presbyterians and seven Methodists, he will recommend the advisability to cease recruiting Roman Catholics until a reasonable proportion of Protestants are taken on; and, if not, can any reason be assigned for not doing so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police informs me that, in recruiting for the force, no preference is given to men of any particular relgiious belief. The comparative paucity of Protestants is simply due to the fact that few candidates other than Roman Catholics present themselves. It is neither possible nor desirable to make any change in the method of recruiting.

  Conduct of Sergeant Cox, Dublin Metropolitan Police
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if an inquiry was recently held into the conduct of Sergeant Cox, of the B. Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; whether as the result of this inquiry summonses issued on his report were withdrawn; whether these summonses were withdrawn owing to the contradictory nature of the reports made by Sergeant Cox and the sergeant in charge of the police station; and, if so, will he state whether Sergeant Cox was reprimanded or punished in any way.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Chief Commissioner informs me that no recent inquiry has been held in this matter. In December last Sergeant Cox reported a breach of the Licensing Laws by a publican, and a summons was ordered. It subsequently transpired that there was a difference in the recollection of Sergeant Cox and another policeman as to the precise words used by the publican's foreman, and, as this raised a doubt on a vital point, the publican was given the benefit of the doubt and the summons was not proceeded with. Sergeant Cox's veracity and conduct were in no way impugned, and he was not punished or reprimanded.

  Judicial Rent of Mrs. Dolan, of Carrickcrevagh.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an appeal has been lodged against the judicial rent fixed on the holding of Mrs. Dolan, Carrickcrevagh, tenant on the Tottenham estate, county Leitrim, although Mrs. Dolan has signed a purchase agreement and paid interest on the purchase money agreed on, and although about twenty years have elapsed since the judicial rent was fixed, and what action does the Land Commission purpose taking with regard to this appeal.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Land Commission inform me that the appeal referred to was twice listed for hearing, but owing to the death of the tenant the case was adjourned. Recently the case

  23
  appeared in the list for the third time, but as it was stated that proceedings for purchase were pending the court made an order striking the case out of the list of pending appeals, with liberty to re-enter if the purchase should not be carried out.

  Irish Education Expenditure.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what sum derived from Irish sources is raised and expended per head of the Irish population on public education in Ireland, in addition to the 6s. 7¼d. annually spent per head of the population which is drawn from Votes of Parliament and the Consolidated Fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not in possession of figures which would enable me to answer this Question, but I would refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave on the 16th instant to the Question of the hon. Member for Darlington. †

  Abolition of Slavery in Zanzibar.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House of the nature of the contents of the despatch addressed in January to the Acting Commissioner in East Africa on the immediate abolition of the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar Coast Strip, and the abolition of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba; and can he state why it was thought necessary to ask the Acting Commissioner in Mombasa for further proposals as to arrangements to be made, although the Commissioner himself was in attendance at the Colonial Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) In the despatch referred to the Secretary of State stated that, in his opinion, the time had come to abolish the legal status of slavery in the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and asked for a report on the most, convenient measures to be taken to carry the decision into effect. He added that the matter should be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. The Acting Commissioner was also requested to consider the question of abolishing slavery altogether within a limited period,
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 778.
  24
  and it was added that similar measures to those which might be approved for the mainland would be taker, for the abolition of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. The reason why the Acting Commissioner was consulted as to the arrangements to be made was that it was at that time hoped that the arrangements could be put into force before the Commissioner returned, so that the responsibility for carrying them out would fall upon the Acting Commissioner.

  Greenwich Hospital Pensions—Case of Daniel Symes.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Daniel Symes, who entered the Navy on the 22nd March, 1855, after service therein served for five years in the Naval Reserve; whether he is aware that Symes was discharged with a character marked very good; that he is now seventy-three, still trying to do the little labourer's work of which he is capable, and has no children who can render him help; and if he can see his way to grant to Symes a Greenwich Hospital pension under the circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Although Daniel Symes is eligible for consideration for the award of a Greenwich Hospital special pension, it has been decided that, having regard to his very short service (two years and fifty-five days), after which he was discharged to the shore at his own request, the grant to him of a special pension would not be justified, in view of the numerous superior claims on the funds of the charity.

  Shortage of Naval Stokers
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the deficiency in the number of stokers needed for adequately manning the fleet; and when such deficiency may be expected to be made good.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) There is no shortage of stokers at present. During the current financial year an increase of 1,500 stokers is being allowed for to meet increased requirements, but the rate of recruiting will suffice to produce this number in addition to making good the normal waste.

  Political Influence and Civil Service Promotion.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Exchequer and Audit Department have recently issued an order drawing the special attention of subordinates in the Department to Article 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Office Rules of 1895, to the effect that the use of political influence for the purpose of advancing claims to Promotion or increase of salary will be considered in the gravest light; whether he will state the totallength of service of the present Assistant Comptroller, and the number of years he has served in each of the positions occupied by him in the different Government Departments, including the Exchequer and Audit Department; and, seeing that the position of Assistant Comptroller is a political appointment, will he explain why Article 10 is in force in the Exchequer and Audit Department, and the reason for recently circulating an order drawing attention to it.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The rule in question is based upon a Treasury Minute, and is, I believe, of universal application throughout the Civil Service. Attention is drawn to it whenever it appears desirable to do so.

  Memorial of Customs Assistant Clerks.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has now investigated the allegation of breach of faith contained in a memorial, dated January 7th last, addressed to the Treasury by the new class of assistant clerks in the Statistical Office of the Customs; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The petition is still under consideration.

  Poor Law Children.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children who are entirely dependent on the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The total number of children who are entirely
  26
  dependent on Poor Law relief cannot be stated. To a very large extent children are relieved with their parents, who are not necessarily entirely dependent on the relief given them. I may, however, state that the number of children in England and Wales in receipt of relief on 1st January last was 234,000. If from this total the children who had a parent living, and who received only some form of out-relief, are deducted, the number left is 71,641. Over 60,000 of them received indoor relief.

  Applicants For Poor Law Relief —Production of Marriage Certificate.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the case papers which applicants for relief, medical or otherwise, are required to furnish, include in the case of married applicants the production of a marriage certificate; and, if not, why they are insisted on by the boards of guardians in Kensington and Bethnal Green.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Applicants for relief are not required to furnish case papers. These papers are filled up by the relieving officer from the statements made to him. The case paper in use at Kensington shows if the relieving officer has inspected the marriage certificate, but I understand that relief is not refused on the ground of its non-production. In the case of Bethnal Green, no applicant for relief is required to furnish a marriage certificate. I am informed, however, that persons in receipt of relief there are asked to state approximately the date and place of marriage. Information as to whether the applicant is married or not is found useful by the guardians for the purposes of their administration.

  Supply of Stimulant to Prisoner at Newtownards.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a woman named Macauley who was tried on the 28th ultimo for larceny at Newtownards, county Down, was supplied during the nights she was in the barracks with whiskey; and if he will cause inquiry to be made as to why liquor was given to this woman under such circumstances.

  27
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the police that it is not the fact that this woman was supplied with whiskey during the nights she was in custody. At mid-day on 21st March, she became faint when about to be taken before the court, and the police allowed her to send for a small quantity of whiskey as a restorative. The magistrates were subsequently informed of the fact, and they commended the conduct of the police.

  Aliens Naturalised—Suggested Reduction of Fees.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of aliens who have been naturalised in this country during the last year, and the amount received by way of fees for such naturalisation; whether he has been asked to reduce the fee; and, if so, what reply has been made to this request.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) 851 certificates of naturalisation (including 155 to seamen) were granted in the year 1906. The fees received in that year in respect of naturalisation amounted to £3,470. With regard to the amount of the fee and the question of reducing it, I can add nothing to the statement I made in answer to the hon. Member for North Salford, on 28th February last. A copy of his Question and of my Answer is appended.
  "MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department has his attention been drawn to the increasing settlement of Jewish inhabitants in Manchester, Salford, and other large towns of the Kingdom, is he aware that many of them desire naturalisation in this country, but are precluded from obtaining it by the fees they are called upon to pay; and will he explain why these fees are maintained at a prohibitive figure.
  " (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The fee for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation has for the last twenty years been £5. The number of certificates granted every year is considerable, varying in the last five years from 686 to 978, and there is every year in addition a certain number of refusals. The average number of grants for the live years 1892— 6 was 494, and for the five years 1902— 6 was 850, an increase of about 70 per cent. It should be remembered that an alien must live for rive years in this country before he can be naturalised, and if the saving of £5 during that period presents any difficulty,
  28
  that difficulty is greatly lessened by the existence of a number of agencies which enable him to accumulate the sum on payment of very small weekly subscriptions."

  Accident on Steamship "Hyson" at Liverpool
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of a workman named Meakin on board the steamship "Hyson," at Liverpool, on 9th April last, by becoming entangled in the machinery of the vessel's winch owing to the place being obscured by steam escaping from the cylinders of the winch and the inexperience of the boy in charge of same; if so, has any breach of the dock regulations been committed, and what steps are being taken to enforce such regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I nave received a Report with regard to this accident. No breach of Regulation 14, relating to exhaust steam, or of Regulation 16, fixing the age below which persons may be employed as winch drivers, appears to have been committed. The escape of steam that occurred in this case was due apparently to the blowing out of the packing of the glands. The immediate cause of the accident was the catching of the clothes of the deceased in the shafts of the winch. It has not been the custom I understand to fence this part of the winch, which has not hitherto been regarded as dangerous, and the inspector states that no accident of the kind has occurred previously during the eighteen months he has been in the district. I am, however, causing inquiry to be made as to whether it would be practicable to do so. I have already stated in reply to Questions in the House the steps which I have taken to strengthen the inspection of docks; in particular, the staff of the Liverpool district, where the accident occurred, has been increased by an additional inspector's assistant.

  Payment of Instalments of Guaranteed Land Stock.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury is prepared to receive payment of the instalments under the Land Purchase

  29
  (Ireland) Act, 1891, in Guaranteed Land Stock, as provided by Section 2 of that Act; whether such payments can now be made at any post offices in Ireland, and will he publish or lay upon the Table of the House the regulations of the Treasury in regard to such mode of payment.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on the 22nd instant upon this subject by my right hon. friend the Postmaster General.†

  Pensions of Widows of Indian Officers Resident in England and India.
  MR. REESTo ask the Secretary of State for India whether the widows of Indian officers who reside in England receive from military funds an annual pension of £250 6s. 4d., while such widows as elect to reside in India receive in rupees the equivalent of only £152 8s.. l0d.; and, if so, whether he will explain the reason for such difference.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The widow of a subscriber to the Bengal Military Fund ranking as a lieutenant-colonel receives £250 6s. 4d. a year when resident in England, and Rs. 190.11.6 a month (which, at the present rate of exchange is the equivalent of £152 11s. 6d. a year in sterling) when resident in India. These rates were fixed by the subscribers to the fund many years ago, when it was managed by their representatives, and I see no sufficient reason, as at present advised, for diminishing the one rate or increasing the other.

  Women on Local Bodies.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Prime Minister whether lie can state when the Bill to enable women to sit on local bodies, referred to in the gracious Speech from the Throne, is likely to be introduced.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man): I cannot as yet name a date for the introduction of this Bill.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1432.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Channel Fleet Cruise
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Channel fleet is to visit Kingstown early in May; and whether a visit will also be paid to Bangor, county Down.
    THE SECRETARY To THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The "Hibernia" and three other vessels of the Channel fleet will visit Kingstown on the 2nd May, but no arrangements have been made for a visit to Bangor. I may, however, add that the Atlantic fleet will visit Irish ports later in the summer, but the programme has not yet been definitely arranged.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I hope the northern town will not be left out.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The programme has not been definitely arranged, but the matter will not be lost sight of.

    Battleship Gun Reserves.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a reserve of 10-inch and 7 ·5-inch guns was included in the purchase from the Chilian Government of the battleships "Swiftsure" and "Triumph;" and, if not, whether a reserve of both classes of gun has since been provided.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No reserve guns were included in the purchase. A reserve of both classes of gun has since been provided.

    The Home Fleet.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the armoured ships constituting the Portsmouth and Devonport divisions of the Home fleet with nucleus crews, whose length of service will not be a fixed period, will practice fire control and carry out gunlayers' tests and battle practice; and whether the annual allowance of ammunition for target practice for ships in the Home fleet will be in.

    31
    the same proportion as that for ships of the Channel, Atlantic, and Mediterranean fleets
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the latter part in the negative.

    Rosyth.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the numbers and grades of the present staff of the Works Department employed at Rosyth.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:The staff at Rosyth consist of the following— one superintending engineer; one civil engineer; one assistant civil engineer; two draughtsmen one accountant clerk. These officers also supervise coast guard works in Scotland.

    The Colonies and Deaf Mutes.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the names of the Colonial Governments who prohibit the landing of deaf mutes from the United Kingdom, and the reason given for such restrictions on this class of British subjects.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I am not aware of any Colony which prohibits the landing of deaf mutes from the United Kingdom, although powers appear to exist in all Colonies possessing responsible government and in other Colonies also to prevent such persons from landing if likely to become a charge upon public funds.

    Slavery on the Zanzibar Mainland.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a definite and detailed statement in regard to the abolition of the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Elgin wrote to the Acting Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate on the 7th January last, saying that in his opinion the time had come to abolish the legal status of slavery in the mainland dominions of
    32
    the Sultan of Zanzibar and asking for a Report as to the most convenient measures to be taken to carry this decision into effect. He added that the matter should be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. He has now learnt by telegraph that a full Report embodying the recommendations of the local authorities will shortly be despatched, and I hope to be able to make such a statement as the hon. Member desires in the course of the next few weeks. The local authorities are aware of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the early settlement of this question, and I hope there will be no unnecessary delay.

    Australian Tariffs
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by a firm of importers of Melbourne, to the effect that the new Commerce Act is being used by the Australian Customs authorities in such a manner as to give a preference to foreign goods; whether, as alleged, goods imported from England by that firm have been arbitrarily declared liable to duty on prices much in excess of those actually charged to the importer; and, if so, whether such action has been so far directed exclusively against goods of British manufacture; and, if an arrangement exists between the Australian Customs authorities and certain American firms by which the goods of the latter are admitted to the Colony under a secret schedule at prices mutually agreed upon to the disadvantage of British manufacturers, will he take steps to bring these concrete instances of Colonial preference to the notice of the Colonial Conference which is now sitting.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have not seen any statements of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, but I will communicate with the Australian Minister for Trade and Customs, who is now in this country.

    New Hebrides Convention.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, after the signing of the New Hebrides Convention, Australian shippers engaged in the island trade immediately at the

    33
    request of the Imperial authorities observed its commercial restrictions, and that as a consequence French and German vessels have absorbed the trade in firearms and spirits, to the detriment of British trade generally; and whether he will take steps to obtain the immediate proclamation of the Convention, or the prohibition of the traffic in arms and spirits by France.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): Representations have been made to the French Government with a view to the suppression of the traffic in arms and spirits in the New Hebrides. These representations are receiving the careful consideration of the French authorities, but my right hon. friend has not yet received their reply. Some time must of necessity elapse before the proclamation of the Convention can take place.

    The Hague Conference.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the delegates representing Great Britain at the Hague Conference have any power to bind this country in respect of the size or character of its armaments.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is not at present in a position to add anything to the reply returned to a similar Question put by the hon, Member on March 13th last, to the effect that he could not say anything yet about the instructions to be given to the delegates.

    Paddington Borough Council.
    DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Borough Council of Paddington has refused to take the legal proceeding advised by its Public Health Committee against local traders who had failed to supply the names and addresses of home workers in their service; and whether the Local Government Board has power to take legal action.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon.
    34
    friend. I am in communication with the borough council in regard to the matter referred to in the Question, and shall be happy in due course to inform my hon. friend of the result.

    Imports of Arms and Ammunition.
    MR.MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what proportion of the imports of arms and ammunition for the year 1905, Cd. 3092, page 124, Class N, were military or naval stores.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): Military and naval stores are not separately distinguished from other arms and ammunition imported, nor is there a complete account of the imports of such stores, as military and naval stores brought into the country on Government vessels are not recorded in the import Returns. My hon. friend will find some details as to the nature of the articles included under this heading in Vol. I. of the "Annual Statement of Trade."

    Classification of Imports.
    MR. MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that Class N, page 124, [Cd. 3092], contains such articles as linseed cake, cotton seed cake, and paraffin wax; and whether he can see his way to have such items transferred to Class 2, namely, raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured.
    1 bog also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the classification on page 123, [Cd. 3092], Class 3, Sub-section J; and whether, in view of the fact that this class contains articles like brimstone, saltpetre, opium, indigo, dyewoods, and similar products which are mainly unmanufactured and the raw materials for industries in the United Kingdom, he can see his way to have these articles transferred to Class 2, namely, raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured.
    I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that in the classification of imports, on page 119 of [Cd. 3092], Class B, practically the entire

    35
    imports of metals, namely, in an unmanufactured condition, such as tin in blocks, ingots, etc., pig lead, zinc, crude, etc., are included as articles wholly or mainly manufactured; and whether, in view of the fact that these articles are practically unmanufactured and form the raw material of industries in this country, he can see his way in future to have them included in Class 2 of articles mainly unmanufactured.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will answer all these three questions together. The division between raw materials and manufactured articles must necessarily be of a somewhat arbitrary character and only a small proportion of the articles classed as "wholly or mainly manufactured" represents articles completely manufactured and ready for the consumer. The existing classification is the result of considerable discussion between the Board of Trade and the Customs, and was only brought into operation at the beginning of 1903. The principles on which it is based and the difficulties of classification were fully explained in Cd. 2337 of 1904. The point of greatest importance is to preserve continuity for purposes of comparison. I am accordingly not prepared to alter the system at present, as any advantage gained would not compensate for the confusion introduced by constant changes of classification.
    MR. MYERasked whether for statistical purposes the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to institute a new column showing imports which were used for giving employment to the working classes.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it desirable to disturb the present arrangement. Any change should be a general one and it should be an alteration which would remain in force some years or else the returns would be valueless for the purposes of comparison.
    MR. MYER.: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an enormous quantity of semi-manufactured material comes into this question and it is very important to have more details?
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Question has been answered already.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYdrew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the system of classification adopted in the United States.

    Foreign Trusts and the British Meat Trade.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to protect the meat trade of the country from the attacks of a foreign trust, and to prevent meat unfit for food being marketed here by the representatives of the meat packers of the United States.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would: remind the hon. Member that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board has already introduced a Bill providing for the making of regulations in respect of the importation, preparation, storage and distribution of articles of food in the interest of public health. I am not aware that there is a case for any further action at the present time, but the matter is being carefully watched.

    The Wreck of the "Jebba."
    MR. MILDMA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the recent operations in connection with the saving of the passengers and crew of the wrecked steamship "Jebba," the awards of the Board of Trade were apportioned in amounts of £15 10s. each for the ten coastguards whose good work in saving thirty-eight lives is recognised, while the rewards to the fishermen who saved 117 lives at the peril of their own amounted to £1 each, and in the case of Henry Hurrel to nothing; and whether, in view of the help rendered by these fishermen, some further recompense may be forthcoming.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that Isaac Jarvis and John Argent, in connection with the wreck of the s.s. "Jebba," descended a precipitous cliff at the risk of their lives and threw a line on board, and, having thus effected communication with the ship, hauled a number of passengers ashore in a boatswain's chair, whether he will consider the advisability

    37
    of awarding them recompense more nearly equal to that of the coastguards, who worked the rocket apparatus and received£15 10s., than the sum of £1 which the two men named received.
    I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the services rendered by Mr. W. J. Day, His Majesty's Customs Officer at Salcombe, in the rescue work at the wreck of the steamship "Jebba;" and whether any reward has been or will be granted to him.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to include in my reply the three Questions the hon. Member has on the paper with regard to the wreck of the "Jebba." Since the awards for services rendered at the wreck were announced, fresh information has reached the Board of Trade, and the matter is receiving careful reconsideration. I will inform the hon. Member of the result in the course of the next few days. I hope something may be done in the direction he wishes.

    Irish Lights Board.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the action of the Local Government Board auditor in disallowing a small expenditure by the guardians of the South Dublin Union for luncheons, he will apply a similar principle to Boards nominated by Government, such as the Irish Lights Board; and whether he can state the cost for the last financial year of the weekly luncheons of the Irish Lights Board, distinguishing the same from the expenditure for refreshments for the sub-committee making the annual sail of inspection around Ireland.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Irish Lights Board is not nominated by the Government, but is a statutory body. Their expenditure, which is defrayed out of the General Lighthouse Fund, requires the sanction of the Board of Trade. The cost of their weekly luncheons for the last financial year was £225 6s. 4d. and that of the refreshments of their Inspection Committee £174 3s. 5d. These amounts are charged against the annual sum—limited to £400—which is allowed by the Board of Trade to meet the housekeeping expenses of the Commissioners. The Commissioners do a
    38
    large amount of public work without remuneration, and I am not disposed to interfere with their luncheons which, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, are usually provided at the public expense for members of Royal Commissions and similar bodies.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the value of the wine stock in the cellars of the Irish Lights Board?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is an inquiry going on at the present moment.
    MR. FLAVIN: Are the members of this Board teetotalers?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must allow the hon. Member to draw his own inference from the figures I have given.

    Housing of the Working Classes.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is proposed to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Amendment Bill to transfer the administration of the Public Health and Housing Law from the rural district councils to the county councils; if so, whether he is aware that the withdrawal of such functions from such rural district councils is regarded as a retrograde measure, opposed to the principles of local self-government; and whether he will call for Reports from rural district councils before acting upon such recommendation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The recommendation of the Committee is of course receiving my consideration in connection with the Bill I propose to introduce in relation to the Housing of the Working Classes, but pending the introduction of the Bill, I cannot give any intimation of the course I think should be taken with regard to this matter. I may, however, state that a considerable number of rural district councils have made representations to me against the recommendation, and that the Executive Committee of the Rural District Councils Association are collecting information from the rural councils, some of which they have already laid before me.
    MR. REES: In drafting his Bill will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the transfer should not be made contingent on the efficiency or inefficiency of the rural district council in each case.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I will consider that suggestion.

    Halsall Charity.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the trustees of the Halsall Charity have applied for a new scheme for the management of the charity; whether the Board have prepared such a scheme; and, if so, when it will be published.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The trustees have applied for a new scheme; such a scheme is now in course of preparation by the Board, but I cannot at present fix a date for its publication.
    SIR G.KEKEWICHpointed to the delay which had occurred since the application was first made.
    MR. LOUGH: No time will be lost in issuing the scheme.
    LORD BALCARRESasked when the trustees submitted their scheme.
    MR. LOUGH: I cannot give the exact date without notice.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, according to a decision of the Charity Commissioners, the endowment of the Halsall Charity is intended for the benefit of the children of the poor of Great Crosby; and, if so, whether the Board of Education will prevent the trustees from applying the income of the charity or the accumulations of capital in their hands to any other purpose.
    MR. LOUGH: The Charity Commissioners formerly expressed the opinion that this endowment should be applied so as to confer upon the children of the poor some special educational benefit which they would not otherwise obtain. With this view the Board of Education
    40
    concur. Pending the establishment of the new scheme, they cannot interfere to prevent the trustees from applying the income or any accumulations of income in their hands in any manner which is justified by the existing trusts.
    SIR G. KEKEWICHasked if it was intended to preserve this endowment for the benefit of the poor.
    MR. LOUGHreplied that he could answer no further Question without notice.
    LORD BALCARRESasked whether there vas any ground for the allegation that the original intention of the founder of the charity was being ignored.
    MR. LOUGH: I must ask for notice.

    National Physical Laboratory.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the business carried on by the National Physical Laboratory has developed in directions expressly excluded by the Report of the Treasury Committee of 1898, the Treasury will amend the terms of reference to the Committee recently appointed by deleting the instructions to the Committee to report on what lines any further development of its, the laboratory's, business should proceed, and substitute an instruction to report on what lines any restriction or development of its business should proceed; and, if not, what grounds the Treasury has for limiting the instruction to the Committee to reporting only in the sense of further development.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I think the hon. Member will find that the terms of reference allow the Committee full scope to consider the point suggested in his Question. He has only quoted the concluding words.

    Crown Lands
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Messrs. Clutton and Messrs. Smiths and Gore have resigned their appointments as Crown receivers of the agricultural land belonging to the Crown, or whether they have been dismissed; and, if so, whether he can state the ground of their dismissal.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The engagements of Messrs. Clutton and Messrs. Smiths and Gore as Crown receivers have been terminated so far as concerns the agricultural estates of the Crown, which have been transferred to the management of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The Government's policy of developing the use of this property for small holdings involved such a complete departure from the methods hitherto adopted that my noble friend considered that a change of agents was essential in order to secure that those who would be largely responsible for carrying out this policy should be not only in full sympathy with it, but also should have had some experience of the special kind of work that it involves.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Shepherds Bush Property.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Crewe, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether the lessee of some eight-four acres of land at Shepherds Bush, of which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are the owners, has successfully applied to the justices for licences to sell beer, wine and spirits thereon; if so, can he say to what extent facilities for obtaining such liquors will be afforded in consequence; whether the lease contained any restrictive or prohibitive covenant with regard to such sale; if so, upon what grounds the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have refrained from prohibiting this sale; if not, upon what grounds this customary clause was omitted; and whether the Commissioners will, if possible, reconsider their decision with a view to preventing such sale from taking place after the current year.
    MR. TOMKINSON: The Commissioners understand that the licensing justices have granted a provisional licence for the sale of beer, wine and spirits in buildings to be erected on about 126 acres of land at Hammersmith held from the Commissioners for the purposes of an exhibition, as to forty-two acres on a short tenancy only. The licence is for a period of nine months only in the year 1908. It will be for the
    42
    licensing justices to determine what restrictions they will place upon facilities for sale. The agreements under which the land is held from the Commissioners contained no restriction or prohibition of the sale of wine, beer and spirits, so long as the land is used for exhibition purposes. The Commissioners did not consider it practicable to prohibit any application by the lessee for a licence and would not regard the insertion of a prohibitory clause as customary in lettings for such purposes as proposed. The Commissioners have no power to vary the terms upon which the lettings have been effected. It will rest with the licensing authorities to determine whether a fresh licence shall be granted after the expiration of the temporary licence provisionally approved by them.

    Beith Academy, Ayrshire.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Beith Academy, Ayrshire, has been deprived of its status as an intermediary and secondary school owing to the Report of Mr. A. R. Andrew, chief inspector for the western division of Scotland; whether the regulations permit this to be done; whether the inspector can so order it to be done on his own belief that there is overlapping in this matter as between the Beith Academy and a local endowed private school; and whether inquiries will be made and instructions given to prevent this action in view of the effect upon the working-class population of Beith.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): It is not the case that the Beith Academy, Ayrshire, has been deprived of any status as a secondary or intermediate school which it has ever had, and it is accordingly unnecessary to deal with the other points raised in the Question of the hon. Member.

    Scottish Appeals to the House of Lords.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that it is proposed to alter the time within which appeals to the House of Lords from the Court of Session may be taken from two years to one year; whether he is aware that even this reduced delay

    43
    will cause loss and inconvenience to litigants; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to have the time fixed at six months or less, seeing that the time for appeals in Scotland never exceeds twenty-one days.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): The substantial reduction of the time for appeals to the House of Lords from judgments of the Court of Session has my warmest approval, and I have been for some time and still am in communication on the subject matter of this Question with the Lord Chancellor.

    Westmeath Evicted Tenants Inquiry.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state why the inspector recently sent to Westmeath to investigate the claims of evicted tenants did not give any notice to or call upon or make any inquiry regarding Edward Fagan, evicted by Colonel Smythe, of Collinstown, though he drove by Fagan's present residence; and is this Fagan to be included in the promised scheme providing for evicted tenants.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have received no application from Edward Fagan, and the inspector therefore had no reason for making any inquiry into his case.

    Colonel Smythe's Collinstown Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have asked Colonel Smythe, of Collinstown, to sell each or all of the seventeen evicted holdings now on his hands un-tenanted; and has he consented to sell any of them for the purpose of providing for evicted families.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received but seven applications for reinstatement on this estate. In one case the evicted tenant has been restored; in two cases the Commissioners have decided to take no action; one case has been investigated by an inspector but not yet dealt with by the Commissioners; and the three remaining cases have yet to be inquired into.
    MR. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the money voted by Parliament is paid to Colonel Smythe for services at the Viceregal Lodge?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot.

    Irish Charitable Foundations.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Endowed Schools Commissioners and the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland are the same persons; are all permanent charities and endowments in Ireland now under the control of these bodies; by whom are inspectors appointed over the various properties and institutions; on whose recommendation; what are the qualifications for these inspectorships; how are the inspectors paid, and paid by whom; how is performance of duty vouched; and will he grant, if moved for, a Return of all the charities and endowed institutions now under the control of these two bodies of Commissioners showing the date of foundation or acquisition, name of founder, nature of property, original and present value, annual yield, annual expenditure, and how applied.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to this Question is necessarily of considerable length, and it would be more convenient to circulate it with the Votes. With the hon. Member's permission, I will adopt that course.

    Barry Estate, Knocknagree, County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Barry estate, Umeraboy, Knocknagree, county Cork, whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the landlord offered to sell to the tenants at twenty-one and twenty-four years purchase of first and second term rents respectively, which offer they declined, whereupon the landlord a short time subsequently served the tenants which processes and writs of ejectment, and they offered to purchase at a more reasonable price; is he aware that in June, 1906, the then inspector for the Commissioners in that district visited the estate at the instance of the landlord and after inspection

    45
    raised the proposed purchase terms on five of the tenants considerably above the landlord's price; and, if so, what explanation the Commissioners have to offer to the action of their inspector in thus increasing the difficulty of land purchase on this estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners arc aware that in this case the landlord proposed to sell on terms which the tenants refused to accept. With the consent of the owner, the Commissioners had the property inspected with a view to making an offer to purchase it, provided that the tenants should agree to repurchase at their estimated price. The price as estimated by the Commissioners, including a year's arrear of rent, were in the majority of cases lower than those at which the owner offered to sell, but in some cases were slightly higher. The tenants have so far refused to purchase at the prices which the Commissioners consider fair, but negotiations are still proceeding.

    Blacklion Tenancy Dispute.
    MR. COURTHORPE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the boycott of Mr. Taylor, of Blacklion, county Cavan, has been resumed, and that he has been informed the boycott will only cease if he makes a payment in money to the representative of the original tenant of his holding; whether he has any official information showing that the Society of the Ancient Order of Hibernians is directly responsible for the boycott; and whether Mr. Crozier, justice of the peace for county Cavan, and Mr. Bracken, petty sessions clerk and postmaster at Blacklion, continue to combine their official duties with participation in these acts of exclusive dealing.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that it is not the fact that the boycotting of Mr. Taylor has been resumed. The suggestion made some time since that Mr. Taylor should give some monetary compensation to the daughter of the evicted tenant is stated to have been made in a friendly spirit by one or two persons. Seeing that there is now no boycotting in the case, the
    46
    Questions raised in the concluding paragraphs do not arise.

    Glenbeigh and Killorglin Evicted Tenants.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cases of Michael O'Sullivan, of Dooghs, Glenbeigh, and Daniel Murphy, of Dromin, Killorglin, both evicted tenants, have been inquired into by the Board's inspector; whether the persons at present in occupation of their holdings were asked to surrender, and, if so, with what result; and whether, seeing the local feeling aroused by those cases, he will endeavour to have them settled as quickly as possible.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into both of the cases mentioned. In the case of Michael O'Sullivan the owner of the property has recently died, and the Commissioners arc not at present in a position to say whether it will be possible to restore the evicted tenant to his former holding or provide him with another. In the case of Daniel Murphy the Commissioners have ascertained that Murphy was not evicted from the farm but surrendered it, and moreover the farm has since been purchased under the Land Acts by the present occupier who is not willing to give it up. In the circumstances, the Commissioners have decided to take no further action in the case.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressure put on the persons now in occupation of the farms to compel them to surrender them?
    MR. BIRRELL.No, I am not, and I do not know that the hon. Member is.

    Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications for reinstatement by evicted tenants in county Kerry have been inquired into by the inspector of the Estates Commission; how many tenants have been reinstated; and whether, in counties such as Kerry where there is comparatively little untenanted land,

    47
    steps will be taken to secure that evicted tenants shall not be asked to migrate, but in every case each to get back his old homestead.
    MR. BIRRELL: The number of applications inquired into in county Kerry is 415, and the number of evicted tenants reinstated up to 4th instant is 80. The Estates Commissioners endeavour to secure the reinstatement of an evicted tenant in his former holding whenever possible.

    Estates Commissioners' Inspectors in County Cork
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many inspectors under the Estates Commissioners are now working in the county of Cork; what are the names of the inspectors, and in what union or unions respectively are they carrying on their operations; and what are the reasons which actuate the Commissioners in changing the inspectors from districts with the circumstances of which they have become familiar, in respect to evicted tenants and untenanted land, to other districts with which they are unacquainted.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that seven of their inspectors and four assistant inspectors are at present engaged in county Cork. The Commissioners do not consider it desirable to publish the names of inspectors who may be employed in particular districts. Inspectors are sent from time to time to the districts in which they are most needed and in which the Commissioners think they will at the time be most useful.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three inspectors have successively operated in one union, and that the latest one appointed had to begin the work de novo? Cannot the Commissioners be induced to retain an inspector in his district until his work is more or less completed?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will draw the Commissioners' attention to the matter, but I do not wish to interfere with them unduly.

    Waterville Industrial Class.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the necessary site for the erection of a classroom for an industrial class at Waterville,. county Kerry, has been secured; and, if so, when will the building be commenced.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have made arrangements for securing a site for a class room at Waterville, and the legal requirements only remain to be settled. It cannot yet be stated when the building will be commenced.

    Agrarian Outrages in King's County
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether in view of the allegations that exceptional malicious injuries are inflicted in King's County, he will inquire whether it is the fact that the injuries, both malicious and accidental, caused by tramps and roving bands of vagrants have been complained of publicly at meetings of the King's County County Council; and whether he will issue instructions to the constabulary to exercise greater vigilance in the repression of this evil, and to be careful not to return injuries to property caused by vagrants as agrarian offences resulting from the propaganda of a Nationalist organisation.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that cases of malicious injury in King's County are not exceptionally numerous or grave. No recent case of injury—malicious or accidental—has been attributed to tramps or vagrants. The police are fully alive to their duties with regard to vagrants, and there are no grounds for apprehending that offences committed by such persons will be regarded as agrarian.
    MR. LONSDALE: Are injuries caused by vagrants returned as agrarian offences?
    MR. BIRRELL: The police tell me that they take great pains to avoid that.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made as to the extent of the injuries

    49
    done to property by roving bands of tramps?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

    Miss Ffrench's Monivea (Galway) Estate.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether application has been made to the Estates Commissioners to purchase the estate of Miss Kathleen Ffrench, Monivea, county Galway, and, if so, the date of the application; whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any steps in the matter, or when they intend to do so; and whether, before taking any steps, the Estates Commissioners will satisfy themselves that the tenants on the estate are in full possession of the terms of sale and the number of years purchase they will be called upon to pay for their holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: The documents relating to this estate were received by the Estates Commissioners in July, 1906, and are at present in the hands of an inspector who has been directed to estimate the price which the Commissioners may offer. Before purchasing the estate, the Commissioners will satisfy themselves that at least three-fourths of the tenants are willing to buy at their estimated price.

    Frauds on the Irish Cattle Industry.
    Mr. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some cattle dealers in England buy English strippers of a very inferior kind and sell them in other parts of the country as Irish, thereby ruining the trade in Irish strippers, and that some imitate the Government brand which is imprinted on all cattle leaving Ireland; and whether the Department of Agriculture will take steps to secure Protection for Irish dealers analogous to that afforded by the national trade mark, and the appointment of inspectors to detect fraud.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture are not aware of the practice referred to. Their attention was recently drawn to a newspaper report of the proceedings at a meeting of the South of Ireland Cattle Trade Association, at
    50
    which the matter was mentioned; and they are in communication with that Association with the view of obtaining some definite information on the subject. When such information has been received, the Department will be in a position to consider what further action can be taken.

    French Estate, North Tipperary
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if any proceedings for the sale of the French estate, in North Tipperary, are pending; is he aware that the owner of this estate is u Dublin money lender, and that nine tenants in Drinagh, Ballyduft', and Sharrow, all in the parish of Dorha, arc being harassed by this man; will he say what terms this landlord has offered;. and will he see that the untenanted land on this estate is secured for those tenants on the estate whose holdings are uneconomic.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify any proceedings for the sale of this estate as having been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of the circumstances of the estate.
    MR. HOGAN: asked whether the landlord who was in the hands of the Dublin) money-lender had not on his lands stock belonging to the tenants, and if Protection would be afforded to the tenants against the seizure of it.
    MR. BIRRELLrepeated that he knew nothing of the estate.

    Knocklong Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have been made to the Local Government Board of the unsatisfactory manner in which the representations; for labourers' cottages in the Knocklong electoral division of the Kilmaliock union have been dealt with by certain members of the district council; has it been alleged on the part of the applicants for these cottages that particular district councillors have, through motives of personal hostility or otherwise, caused the rejection of representations or the

    51
    alteration of sites to unsuitable places; have any steps been taken to investigate these complaints; and what right of appeal, if any, have the labourers in these cases.
    MR. BIRRELL: The reply to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have informed the persons who have complained that the Labourers Acts do not require a district council to adhere to the sites which may be suggested in the representations made to them, and that it is open to any labourer who may feel aggrieved by the action of a district council to appear at the inquiry and lay his complaint before the inspector.

    Land Purchase in county Wexford.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about two-thirds of the land of the county Wexford has been sold out, and that most of the agreements have been lodged before 1905; that both landlords and tenants are affected by the inspections not being made, the landlords having to do without their money and the tenants having to pay 4 per cent. and 3 ½ per cent. instead of 3 ¼ per cent.; and whether he will say if an inspector could be appointed to Wexford county, and stay there until the present block is removed.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that a considerable part of the land in county Wexford has been sold under the Land Acts. All estates in the county in regard to which purchase agreements were lodged before 1905 have been inspected, and the advances have been made in all such cases except three. Under the regulations the Estates Commissioners deal with estates in order of priority of application, and it would not be practicable, nor indeed would it be fair to other counties, that Wexford cases should be taken out of their proper turn.

    Irish University Scheme.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a memorial signed by more than 1,000 of the most representative Catholic laymen of Ireland, and to
    52
    the subsequent declaration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, offering the most cordial support to the scheme of university education outlined by his predecessor, Mr. Bryce; and whether he will introduce his University Bill at the earliest opportunity during the present session of Parliament.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have seen both the memorial and the declaration referred to in the Question. In the present state of the business of the House, I should not be justified in making any statement in reply to the latter part of the Question.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the University authorities of the United Kingdom have manifested themselves in opposition to Mr. Bryce's view?
    MR. BIRRELL: I could name one or two academic authorities who have not communicated with me.
    MR. LONSDALE: How many protests have been received against it?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have received n good many as to particular aspects.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to adopt the scheme of Mr. Bryce?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that is a Question which should be put to me at this juncture. I am anxious to see this Question brought to a successful issue.
    MR. KETTLEasked whether these academic authorities were in any way representative of Irish opinion.
    MR. BIRRELLwas understood to say that they were English and Scottish.

    Fay's Cavan and Meath Estates.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estates of Thomas Francis Fay, at Clonmowley, Longwood, county Meath, and in the county of Cavan, have been in the Court of Bankruptcy for the past twenty years; whether the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896 applies to these estates; and, if so, will he explain why no steps have been taken to

    53
    apply this section to them; and if he will give directions to have the matter brought before the Courts without farther delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the estate in question has been in the Court of Bankruptcy for the past twenty years. The bankrupt has a life interest only in the estate. The assignees receive the rents and divide the proceeds among the creditors. No proceedings for the sale of the estate have been instituted in the Land Judge's Court, and therefore the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896 does not apply to the case.

    Tongalee Farm Dispute.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in June, 1906, Mr. John Beirne, of Ballinasloe, bought at public auction the interest in the farm at Tongalee, county Roscommon; that shortly afterwards he was called upon by the Kilbride branch of the United Irish League to surrender the farm for distribution among members of the league; that he offered to sell if he were paid £100 above the price he had given for the farm; that on this offer being refused he proceeded to stock the farm; that on 7th November, 1006, his cattle were dispersed by a mob of persons and cruelly beaten; that nine persons concerned in this act were identified by the police and prosecuted at the Sligo winter assizes; that the jury who tried the case disagreed; that they were tried again on 11th March at Roscommon and acquitted, although no evidence was offered for the defence, and Mr. Justice Kenny declared that there was no question of the prisoners' guilt; that on 20th January Mr. Beirne announced his surrender to the United Irish League, and offered to accept from the Estates Commissioners the full value of his land; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners have furnished the funds for the purchase of this property.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. It was reported to the police that a resolution was passed by a local branch of the United Irish League calling upon Mr. Beirne to surrender the farm for distribution, but the police have
    54
    no evidence that the resolution was passed. On 2nd February last Mr. Beirne offered the farm for sale to the Estates Commissioners, and has since lodged the necessary documents. The Commissioners have referred the matter to one of their inspectors, and upon the receipt of his Report they will consider the question of purchase in the ordinary-course.

    Irish Department of Agriculture Inquiry.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the importance of the evidence given in the course of the inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and its possible bearing on future legislation, he will arrange for the immediate presentation to the House of the official minutes of evidence taken before the committee of inquiry.
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by the presentation of the evidence without the Report. I have already stated, on the authority of the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, that the Report will be presented at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. LONSDALE: About when?
    MR. BIRRELL: I hope by the end of this month.

    Edenderry Union Tenders—Boycott of English Firms
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, when advertising for tenders for the supply of medicines and surgical appliances, the guardians of the Edenderry union stipulated that the envelopes should be marked on the outside from Irish firms; that out of many tenders sent in only four were marked as directed, and only those four were opened and considered; whether this device was resorted to because the guardians had been warned by the Local Government Board that recoupment would not be made in any case where the guardians did not accept the lowest tender received by them; and whether, having regard to the fact that

    55
    the practice of the Edenderry guardians is being recommended for adoption by other boards with the avowed object of boycotting English firms, the Local Government Board propose taking any action in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The facts are correctly stated in the first two parts of the Question. The regulations provide that recoupment from the local taxation account will not be allowed in any case in which the guardians accept a tender other than the lowest, without the approval of the Local Government Board. The Board do not consider that the contracts in this case have been entered into in accordance with the regulations, and they intend, therefore, to disallow recoupment to the guardians in respect of the cost of any medicines or appliances obtained under such contracts.

    Bagot Estate, County Galway.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants upon the Bagot estate, Ballygar, county Galway, have signed agreements to purchase their holdings over two years ago; and, in view of the fact that there are about 300 of them under £5 valuation and about 1,200 acres of untenanted land upon the estate, can he state when sale may be completed.
    MR. BIRRELL: Proceedings in this case have been somewhat delayed owing to the efforts of the Estates Commissioners to obtain more than the 1,200 acres of untenanted land mentioned, in order to relieve the extensive congestion which prevails on the estate. The Commissioners hope shortly to make a formal offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the property, but if their offer should be accepted the completion of the sale will necessarily be delayed by the preparation of a scheme for the rearrangement and enlargement of holdings. The estate is an extensive one.

    Irish Council Bill
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the promised Bill for the establishment of an Irish Council will be introduced before Whitsuntide; and, if so, on what date.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers will be introduced before Whitsuntide, and, subject to possible alteration, I hope to introduce it on Tuesday, the 7th of May.
    MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that it will have two days to discuss the introduction of this important Bill?
    MR. BIRRELL: I think the experience of the House is that until a Bill is in print and hon. Members have an. opportunity of seeing it one day is ample.

    Killarney Lake Boats.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Lake of Killarney at the present time boats are used that are not certified as seaworthy, and that the persons in charge are without a licence; and if the recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant, made in 1903, after a boating accident on the lake, when thirteen lives were lost, namely, that all such boats should be certified, will be carried out.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that all the boats in use on the Lake of Killarney have been certified as seaworthy, and that no single instance of the use of an unseaworthy boat for the conveyance of passengers has come to their knowledge in recent years. The boatowners are not required, to be licensed.

    Irish Land Purchase Finance.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the £1,635,207 available by the Estates Commissioners on the 16th February last to meet sales under the Irish Land Act of 1903 has been paid out in part settlement of the £31,033,776 estimated as being required to meet sales in hand on that date; whether the balance, if any,. is bearing interest; and, if so, what rate.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the amount remaining available for advances on 20th instant was estimated to be £371,628. The investment of balances is a matter for the National' Debt Commissioners, and I understand.

    57
    that my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury has answered Questions on the subject within the past day or two.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that, with so many estates wanting settlement, so large a balance is retained in hand?
    MR. BIRRELL: I should like notice of that.

    Irish Trade Statistics.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the list of Irish exports and imports for the year 1905 is now ready for publication; and can he say when it will be issued, and whether it will contain the various references made to Irish trade by the Consular Reports of that year.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is expected that the Report on Irish exports and imports in 1905 will be ready for presentation to Parliament towards the end of next month. The various references to Irish trade contained in the Consular Reports for that year will be included in an appendix to the Report.

    Cooscroum Slip, Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he now state what action the Congested Districts Board are prepared to take in the matter of the proposed slip at Cooscroum, county Kerry.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have again had the matter before them and have determined to adhere to the decision of which I have; already informed the hon. Member, namely, that they will not consider the question of works at Cooscroum until it has been decided what, if any, contribution they will have to make for works at Reenard Point.

    Evidence on Brand for Irish Cured Fish.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the evidence taken on the subject of the proposed brand for Irish-cured fish will be published.
    MR. BIRRELL: The evidence is being printed and will be on sale in the course of a week or two.

    Irish Land Purchase Delays.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the estates for sale which are now actually being dealt with by the Estates Commissioners were lodged; what were the names of the last three estates which went through and the counties where situate; how many estates have been entered for sale since the last estates referred to above were received; and what is the amount of the purchase money which the latter estates represent.
    MR. BIRRELL: Advances are at present being made for the purchase of estates in respect of which the purchase agreements were lodged in February, 1905. The number of estates finally dealt with ranges from ten to twenty each week, and the advances are made according as the cases become ripe, irrespective of the counties in which the estates are situate. Since February, 1905, the Estates Commissioners have received purchase agreements for 2,899 estates, the purchase money of which amounts to £26,091,877.

    Labourers Cottage Scheme Appeals.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will say, seeing that under Section 6 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1906 the labourers whose representations have been rejected by the district council can be heard, and their claims for cottages and plots be put forward at the inquiry, if their claims as above are favourably entertained and reported on, they will be included in the scheme.
    MR. BIRRELL: Any person whose application for a Cottage has been rejected by a district council may appear before the Local Government Board's inspector at the local inquiry and state his complaint. The Labourers Acts do not empower the inspector to authorise the acquisition of land for cottages and plots in excess of the number proposed in the district council's scheme. The

    59
    inspector would, however, probably report the facts brought forward at the inquiry in regard to representations rejected by the district council, and it would be open to the council to consider the propriety of amending the existing scheme or of including in a separate scheme any additional cases favourably reported on.

    Crannagh Farm, Roscommon.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the result of his further inquiries into the state of affairs on the Crannagh farm, county Roscommon; whether he is aware that twelve tenants, under stress of the boycott, have served notice to surrender their holdings; and, seeing that at a meeting held on Easter Sunday it was decided to pursue the campaign of boycotting until the remaining tenants were forced into submission, whether he will state what action he proposes to take.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police have been informed that all the tenants of the Crannagh Farm except one have served notice of their intention to surrender their holdings. I have already distinctly informed the hon. Member, on the authority of the local police, that these men have not been boycotted. It seems, however, that strong local feeling was manifested in favour of the division of the farm among neighbouring small occupiers, and the tenants would appear to have been influenced by that feeling. I am aware that a statement to the effect mentioned in the latter part of the Question has appeared in a Dublin newspaper, but the police inform me that no language bearing any such interpretation was used at the meeting referred to. I do not propose to take any special action in the matter. I have already stated that the police will afford full Protection to all persons in the exercise of their legal rights.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people have been forced to surrender their farms by the United Irish League?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
    MR. FLAVIN: Was not the spirit which promoted the passing of the Land
    60
    Act of 1903 based on the understanding that these grass lands should be broken up?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Ballina Medical Officer.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what action has been taken by the Local Government Board in regard to the appointment of Dr. Clarke as temporary medical officer to the local dispensary district, having regard to the fact that the Ballina Board of Guardians made it a condition of his appointment that he should use his influence to induce his uncle to relinquish his tenancy on the Crannagh farm.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have sanctioned Dr. Clarke's— appointment as temporary medical officer of the Ballina dispensary district. No—facts came to the knowledge of the Board which would justify them in withholding their sanction.

    Ballymoney Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. GLENDINNING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Alexander Thompson, of Canfinton, Rasharkin, applied for a labourer's Cottage about three years ago, and the same was passed by the rural council of Ballymoney and inserted in the scheme, and that the rural council had agreed with. the 'tenant as to the compensation and possession of the lands; and seeing that the Local Government Board and the landlord of the holding have between them blocked the matter, he will grant an inquiry into the reason of the delay why this Cottage should not now be erected, while other cottages in the same scheme are being built.
    MR. BIRRELL: By a Provisional Order dated 14th July last, the Local Government Board authorised the Ballymoney Rural District Council to acquire a site by agreement for the erection of a labourer's Cottage in this case. The Order became absolute on the 2nd September, and since then the matter has been entirely in the hands of the rural district council. It appears from the evidence taken at the local inquiry that the occupier of the site is now the owner

    61
    of it, and if it be the fact, as stated in the Question, the rural district council have agreed with him as to the compensation to be paid for the site, the council should have no difficulty in acquiring the site and in proceeding with the erection of the cottage.

    Sarsfield Estate (Cork) Evicted Tenants.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners with a view to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants upon the Sarsfield estate, Carrigane, Carrigtwohill, county Cork; and what is the cause of the delay that has occurred in concluding a settlement.
    MR. BIERELL: The Estates Commissioners have made a provisional offer for the purchase of the estate in question, but the owner has so far not accepted it. In the circumstances, the Commissioners are not yet able to deal with the case of the evicted tenants.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is only a sample ease? Will he satisfy himself as to the need for immediate legislation conferring compulsory powers?
    MR. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is receiving consideration.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—Income
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the further figures recently published, he can now state precisely the total amount received by the Department of Agriculture since its establishment, from Parliamentary grants, endowment, and all other sources, with the rate per head of the present population, and the total amount expended.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total amount received by the Department of Agriculture since its establishment is £2,507,646, including £185,000 paid over to the Congested Districts Board. Excluding the latter sum, the amount is equivalent to an annual rate of Is. 6d. per head of the present population of Ireland. The unexpended balances of the Parliamentary
    62
    Vote surrendered to the Exchequer during the seven years amounted to £33,510 approximately. The unexpended, balance of the Endowment Fund on 31st ultimo was £383,054, of which £125,124 is earmarked for the purposes specified under Section 15 (c) and Section 16 (1) (a) to (f) of the Agriculture and Technical. Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899. The balance has been allocated by the Agricultural Board for agricultural purposes under the terms of Section 16 (g) of the same Act. The amount actually expended, excluding the sum paid over to the Congested Districts Board, was £1,916,082.

    Dowra (Cavan) Disturbances.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a police report to the effect that Mr. Johnston, of Bawnboy House, when about to visit his property near Dowra, county Cavan, on 19th February last, was met by a crowd with drums and horns and was prevented from proceeding; whether the bench of magistrates at Dowra petty sessions decided that the assembly was unlawful; and why the accused were forthwith discharged.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police summoned several persons for unlawful assembly on the occasion referred to in the Question. The case was heard on 10th instant, when the magistrates held that the offence was proved, and that the facts would have justified them in binding the defendants to keep the peace. Having regard, however, to the previous good character of the defendants, and to the fact that there had been no renewal of the disorder, the magistrates did not think it necessary to require bail.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in March last a postman was assaulted at this place in the execution of his duty.? Will he see that the magistrates do enforce the law?
    MR. BIRRELLhoped the magistrates did so in all parts of Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDYinquired if Mr. Johnston was deputy-lieutenant of the county, grand master of the Orangemen, and a Poor Law guardian, and if he

    63
    did not hold several other similar public appointments in the locality; and would the Chief Secretary save him from the pain caused by the suggestion that he was unpopular amongst his supposed friends.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Mr. Michael Murphy's Macroom Estate.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Michael Murphy, J.P., the Demesne, Cloyne, landlord of a property at Inchinasingane, near Macroom, county Cork, has served certain of his tenants with debtors' summonses in the Bankruptcy Court recently for arrears of rent; can he state whether negotiations for the purchase of this estate were proceeding for some time, and that the landlord agreed to leave a settlement of the question to arbitration, but subsequently receded from this agreement; will he say whether it is customary for landlords to use the procedure of the Bankruptcy Courts for the recovery of their rents; and can he give the number of cases in which landlords took proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court against their tenants since the passing of the Land Act of 1903.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Registrar of the Cork local Court of Bankrupcy informs me that in February last debtors' summonses at the suit of Mr. Murphy were served on three tenants for sums of £65, £65, and £55 respectively, being the amounts of judgments of the King's Bench Division in respect of which the Sheriff had made a return of no goods. The Registrar informs me that it is not unusual for landlords to take proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court for the recovery of rent, when the ordinary mode of procedure has failed. I have no information of the number of cases in which such proceedings have been taken in the chief and local Courts of Bankruptcy. The question of sale has not come before the Estates Commissioners and they have no knowledge of any negotiations which may have taken place between the landlord and tenant.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right,hon. Gentleman aware that this is merely
    64
    a family dispute and that the tenants referred to are the landlord's brothers?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    North Antrim Income-tax Appeals
    MR. GLENDINNING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Income-Tax Commissioners to hear appeals from assessments in North Antrim sit in Coleraine; if he is aware of the inconvenience it is to North Antrim residents to have to go to Coleraine; and whether he could arrange that a one-day sitting each year should be held in Ballymoney, the most central place for residents in North Antrim.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The special Commissioners state that they were not aware of any North Antrim appellants having hitherto found it inconvenient to attend the place of meeting selected as being nearest to their residences, but they will gladly bear in mind the suggestion that they should hold a one-day sitting at Ballymoney in addition to the sitting to be held at Coleraine.

    Irish Land Purchase Acts.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the recent disclosure of losses under the Irish Land Purchase Acts and the consequent dissatisfaction in Ireland, the Treasury will reconsider favourably the suggestion to appoint a small and independent Committee of financial experts, with suitable actuarial assistance, to examine and report upon all the financial methods and practices under those Acts; and, if so, will at least one member be placed upon the Committee in whom the tenant-purchasers will have confidence.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I understand that opportunity is desired for a discussion in this House on the financial working of the Land Purchase Acts. I am not aware of any necessity for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.

    Irish Laud Purchase Fund.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the maximum amount not bearing interest to the credit of the Irish Land Purchase Fund

    65
    in the Bank of England at any time since the account was opened; whether any amount, and, if so, the maximum, at any period has boon lying in the Bank of Ireland without interest; whether any effort has been made to procure interest from the Bank of England; and whether any negotiations have been carried on with the Irish banks as to the terms that might be procured from them for the use of this money.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The largest balances on the Land Purchase Fund Account occur when considerable sums have been paid up in respect of an issue of stock, which are not immediately required for advances and can only gradually be invested. The maximum balance to the credit of the fund in the Bank of England at any time since the account was opened was £2,385,310 on the 9th April, 1904, which in great part was due to instalments being paid up under discount in respect of the first issue of guaranteed 2 ¾ per cent. Stock. Of this sum £1,500,000 was invested by the 15th April. The balance at the Bank of Ireland, except to meet the weekly advance to the Irish Land Commissioners, seldom exceeds £1,000. The balances on the accounts of the Commissioners, whether in the Bank of England or in the Bank of Ireland, do not bear interest. No attempt has been made to obtain from the Bank of England an allowance of interest on the balance of this account, as it would be contrary to the rules of the bank. The balance is invested as closely as possible in securities according to Section 34 (2) of the Act. No negotiations such as the hon. Member suggests have been carried on with the Irish Joint Stock Banks.
    MR. HAYDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the banks in Ireland allow the county councils interest upon the credit balances of the current accounts, and will he consider the desirability of directing the attention of the National Debt Commissioners to the system of finance adopted by the county councils in Ireland with the view of having it adopted in this country?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am quite aware of that. The question of which bank should be dealt with is a very much larger question.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask is it necessary at all to have a single penny lying in any bank? There are £30,000,000 worth of estates waiting to be dealt with.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but it must be remembered that you cannot work a large account of this kind without having a balance in the bank to carry on transactions.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not a fact that for three or four months past £30,000,000 of estates has been in the hands of the Estates Commissioners, and might the hon. Gentleman not discover by consultation with the Chief Secretary whether there is any necessity to have any balance at all lying in the bank?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I would like to ask whether, if the Bank of Ireland allows interest on a current account, why so large an amount was left in the Bank of England?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member wishes to know why we did not hold a large balance at the Bank of Ireland. It was due to representations which were made to us from Ireland, and very largely from the benches opposite.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman explain that Answer? Those representations were a complaint that the Government were dealing solely with the Bank of Ireland, and no other Irish banks. Was there any representation made to use the Bank of England against the Bank of Ireland or any other bank?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the question was only with reference to the Bank of Ireland.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: The hon. Gentleman's reply was that representations were made from these benches in favour of the account being kept in the Bank of England. There is not a shadow of foundation for that statement.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I said that representations were made about the account being kept in the Bank of Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: In view of the misunderstanding that seems to exist in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, will he have the amount lying to credit in the Bank of England removed to the Bank of Ireland?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No. There is no misunderstanding in my mind, and no inference may be drawn from the same.
    Later:
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: On Monday last, when a number of Questions were asked about the breakdown of the financial system of the Land Act, 1903, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would afford us an opportunity for a discussion of the matter, the importance of which he and the House generally quite realised. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that it was a proper matter to be discussed, and suggested that we might discuss it on an Irish Vote I wish to ask him whether he is aware that the authorities of the House whom I have consulted, say that i would be quite out of order to have such a discussion as we contemplated on any of the Votes, whether English or Irish; and whether, in view of this situation and in view of the urgency of the question—for until we have that discussion we cannot properly discuss Irish legislation which has gone upstairs— he can see his way to promise an opportunity for discussing the matter.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN,): I understand that it is as the hon. Member has said, and that what I suggested the other day cannot be done. I have only heard of it, and have not had time to consider what alternative proposal I can make, but we will at once look into the matter and meet the hon. Member's wishes as far as possible.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask whether any arrangements can be made to prevent the discussion of the Bill which has gone upstairs beginning until we have had a discussion on the matter which has arisen?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: This has come to me quite without notice. At first
    68
    blush the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman seems reasonable. I understand he suggests that the discussion on the Irish Land Bill in Committee might be prejudiced by the fact that this great question had not been discussed. I confess I agree with that. I do not see how it is possible for us to have a satisfactory discussion in Grand Committee of the proposed Irish Land legislation until we have discussed the new grant question which has arisen. 1 therefore view with approval the suggestion of the Loader of the Opposition.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is an element in the case which will be considered and looked into.

    Westmeath. Death Duty Grant.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a deduction has been made by the Treasury from the amount payable to the Westmeath County Council in respect of the Death Duty Grant for the year ended 31st March, 1907 if he can state the amount of the deduction and on what account it has been deducted; whether the amount deducted is entirely lost to the council; and if such deductions arc likely to continue or occur in the future, or if this is merely a temporary deduction of the money, which will be paid to the council at a future date.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The amount deducted in 1907 from the Death Duty Grant of county Westmeath was £2,393 9s. 0d. of which £179 0s. 6d. was the net amount required from the county by the Irish Land Commission towards balancing the Land Purchase Account under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and £214: 8s. 6d. represented the net amount chargeable to the county under the Irish Land Act, 1903. This last sum includes £254 in respect of arrears of annuities, and £1,960 on account of the deficiency of the Income Account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund. Approximately, £750 may be taken as a merely temporary deduction, and the balance as in part a final charge on the county, and in part a charge ultimately to be recouped when the final instalments of purchase annuity are paid. For an explanation of the general Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the Question

    69
    of the hon. Member for Waterford on the 22nd April, 1907. †

    New York Peace Congress.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Peace Congress recently held in New York had any international basis; whether Great Britain was represented thereat by any authorised agent or agents; and whether the resolutions adopted in respect of the Hague Conference have any authority, other than such as they may derive from the character of those who adopted such resolutions.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The National Arbitration and Peace Congress at New York has no international character, and is understood to be a meeting of private societies interested in the question of settling disputes between countries by arbitration. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington and His Excellency the Governor - General of Canada were invited to attend the dinner which closed the congress on the 17th instant. As to the latter part of the Question the Answer is in the negative.

    Standing Orders and Blocking Motions.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what progress, if any, has been made with regard to the Standing Order dealing with blocking Bills and Motions.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government quite realise the importance of this matter and they are giving it their attention, but it is one of those; questions which can only finally be settled by general consent of the House. It appears to me, therefore, to be undesirable to be in too great a hurry to arrive at a solution.

    London Traffic.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the attention of the Government had been called to the detrimental effect of the competition existing between the transport authorities of the metropolis; and whether, having regard to the probability of private enterprise in transport being unable to compete with transport enterprise carried on the security of
    † See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1425, et seg.
    70
    the rates, the Government will, as recommended by the Royal Commission on London Traffic, appoint a traffic board, with power to regulate and supervise the various transport services of the metropolis.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The question of London Traffic is engaging the careful attention of the Government, but I am unable to hold out any hope of legislation during the present session. I must not be understood to admit the suggestion in the hon. Member's Question as to the detrimental effect of the competition to which he refers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Have any steps been taken to regulate the tearing up of the roads by an enormous number of different authorities?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is another question.
    MR. BOWERMAN: Is it not a fact that the action of the London County Council in providing rapid and cheap transit from the crowded areas into the healthier areas has been the means of reducing lunacy, and thereby conferring a benefit on the community at large?
    [No Answer was given.]

    Government Valuation Bills.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Valuation Bills, of which he spoke at the Holborn Restaurant, will provide the basis of rating reform in rural as well as in urban areas and if not, why it is proposed to exclude rural areas from the benefits of this reform.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is unusual to disclose the character of a Bill before its introduction, and my hon. friend will see, I think, that this is a rule which cannot be broken in the present case.

    The Land Policy of the Government —The Prime Minister and the Demand for Land.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what official information he has relied in making the statement that

    71
    in one district after another the demand for land for the purposes of use and labour is met with blank denial; and whether he can lay such information before the House, giving the names of the districts to which he referred.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman puts me in a position of some difficulty. If I were to refer him, in detail, to the evidence on which the passage that he selects from my speech was based I might seem to be accusing him of ignorance of the official testimony gathered, sifted, and reported on for the most part by his own political friends. And besides, I should be guilty of making an inordinate demand upon the time of the House on account of the abundance of the testimony. If, on the other hand, I were to give him only general references I might be accused of shirking what appears to be a perfectly sincere demand for information. I think perhaps the best course for me to follow will be this. I have with me a sort of catalogue, extending to the dimensions almost of a pamphlet, of the testimony on which this extract was based, and if an educational purpose would be served I should be glad to circulate it with the Votes. † There are, as no doubt he knows, various Returns and Reports bearing on the subject of small holdings and cottages. There is, for instance, the Report of the Select Committee of 1890 which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and there is the recent Reports of Lord Onslow's Committee and the Select Committee on Rural Housing. But, as I have said, I will endeavour to provide him with samples, so that his researches may be rendered as little arduous as possible. Apart from the official evidence on the subject, it is, I imagine, within the knowledge of every Member of this House who is at all acquainted with rural life, that in very many parts of the country it is impossible to secure either sites for cottages or land for the purpose of small holdings.

    Welsh Church Commission.
    MR. D. A. THEMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Welsh Church Commission
    † See Col. 10.
    72
    postponed the sitting intended to have been held on Saturday because of the number of resignations that have occurred among its Members, and what steps, if any, have been taken to fill such vacancies; and whether the Chairman has been kept officially informed from time to time of the tender of resignation by any member or consulted as to the filling up of any vacancy on the Commission.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Chairman of the Commission has been kept fully informed of every step which has been taken by the Government in connection with the recent vacancies which have occurred. The names of Sir David Brynmor Jones, the Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon, and Mr. John Herbert Davies, Registrar of University College,. Aberystwith, have been submitted to the King for approval as Members of the Commission.

NEW BILL.
  MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL.
  " To amend the Law in regard to the Mortgaging of Premises containing trade machinery," presented by Mr. Joseph Walton; supported by" Sir William Holland, Mr. Crombie, and Mr. Parkes to be read a second time upon Monday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

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

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    INCOME TAX.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the 6th day of April, 1907, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. HICKS BEACHexpressed regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no reference to the valuable evidence given before the Income-Tax Committee, which showed very clearly that the incidence of

    73
    the estate duty now had a very considerable effect in differentiating between earned and unearned incomes. If the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the differentiation which now existed, surely it would be a fair and simple plan, both from the point of view of the Board of Inland Revenue and from that of the taxpayer, to slightly readjust the estate duties. He could not help thinking that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would create very great irritation among certain classes of income-tax payers and that the loss the Exchequer would suffer in revenue would be very much more than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated at the present time. Undoubtedly there would be a very serious grievance felt by those people whose incomes were on the border of £2,000 a year. No doubt a great many of them would make perfectly honest returns, but there would be a last proportion who would do one of two things: either they would return the earned portion of their income but not the whole of the unearned portion, so as to bring the total below £2,000; and with the present staff it would be almost impossible for the Inland Revenue Authorities adequately to check the returns; or they would divide a certain portion of their capital among members of their family and thus bring their personal incomes under £2,000. In that manner they would escape the net of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a perfectly legitimate way. There was another section of income-tax payers who would feel a sore grievance, and those were the men whose incomes were the result of hard work and thrift in early life and who had invested their savings to produce, say, £700 a year. They would feel that they were being penalised on their savings to the extent of 3d. in the £ for the purpose of granting old-age pensions to those who would make no provision for the future, and no doubt many of them would so frame their return as to avoid the tax in a way which had not been done before. Was it not better, instead of penalising the man who had made the savings, to penalise the person who succeeded to them? In his opinion it would be much fairer to everybody, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered more carefully the bearing of the death duties on the question of differentiation he surely would have slightly readjusted their scale rather
    74
    than have adopted his present proposal. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated a loss of £1,250,000 on the income-tax, and he proposed to make it up by a change in the death duties. People who were not millionaires had little sympathy with those who were, and looked very calmly on any proposal to increase the taxation upon them. But he was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare the other day that the predictions made at the time the death duties were instituted had been absolutely falsified, and that no country houses had been shut up in consequence of them. If the right hon. Gentleman took a tour of the country districts he would not find a single county in which some house had not been shut up simply because of the incidence of these duties, or cases where people whose families had lived in the same house for generations had been compelled to let it to strangers, and the servants employed about them had had to be turned adrift. He did not profess to possess expert financial knowledge, and would not therefore offer an opinion as to the extent that capital would be driven out of the country in consequence of the increased duties, but it seemed to him that in inflicting extra penalties on this class of people, they were imposing them on the persons most able to avoid them if they desired to do so. The question of raising death duties should also be examined from another point of view, and that was the bearing it would have on the receipts coming into the Exchequer. Since they had been instituted, many persons, in view of the burden that would be inflicted on their successors, had divided up their estate among their family during their lifetime and thus escaped the duty, and he ventured to think that the result of putting a further burden on the large estates would be to encourage that practice. The consequence of that would be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suffer the loss of a very considerable amount of revenue, and he very much doubted that he would be able to come down to the House on introducing his next Budget, and tell them that he had a large-sum at his disposal for old-age pensions and so forth. The President of the Board of Education had told them the other day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid off more debt during

    75
    the time he had been in office than any of his predecessors, while he had reduced taxation as well. Nobody quarrelled with the amount of debt which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid off, and he thought that all sides of the House recognised that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a most courageous course in doing so; but as regarded the actual taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remitted he did not feel so much impressed with the excellence of his action as did the President of the Board of Education. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer took 1d. off the tea duty, which he persuaded the House would confer considerable benefit upon the poor consumer. Some of them had doubted that last year, and he was rather surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say this year that he was perfectly satisfied that any further attempt to deal with the tea duty in the way of taking a further 1d. off would be of no real benefit to the consumer of tea. That was directly contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's argument last year, and he would like to know what material facts had arisen to induce him to change his view. The other tax which the right hon. Gentleman had remitted was the coal duty. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor of the Exchequer and not as Member for East Fife, must be looking about for sums of revenue for proposed social reforms, and that he must regret the loss of the coal tax, because the amount it had produced to the Exchequer had not been decreasing but increasing annually. The total export of coal from this country had increased from 58,405,000 tons in 1900 to 67,783,000 tons in 1906; while the proportion of the exports to the total produced had increased from 25 per cent. in 1900 to 30·per cent. in 1906. When they remembered that the direct result of the remission of the tax had been to raise the price of coal to the home consumer, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that in taking off this tax he had lost a very valuable source of revenue, and had conferred, not a benefit on the consumers of coal, but an additional burden, which he was not justified in imposing upon them. With regard to the
    76
    other parts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, he thought that in doing away with the system of assigned revenue to the local taxation account the right hon. Gentleman had taken a wise step, and one which the county councils of the country would accept, provided that it was clearly understood that they would not suffer in any way by the action which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken. The right hon. Gentleman next year no doubt would be in a position, having control of the imposition of duties upon licences and upon motor cars, to take some steps for the raising of these various duties; but he very much doubted whether the brewing trade at the present moment was so flourishing that it could bear any material increase in taxation; though no doubt it might be possible to readjust some of their burdens in a more equitable manner. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed next year to increase the tax on motor cars, he hoped he would remember that the people who really ought to derive some benefit from the increase were these country ratepayers who now had to pay so heavily towards the upkeep of the roads of the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, had claimed the support of former free trade Unionist Chancellors of the Exchequer for keeping up the cocoa duty, although slightly protective in character. Everyone of these free trade Unionists had predicted that owing to the increase of normal expenditure of the country it would be absolutely necessary to broaden in some way or other the basis of our taxation; and he very much doubted whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to find money for various social reforms without carrying out their prediction.
    MR. SNOWDENsaid that no Budget had been looked forward to with so much expectation as that which was now before the Committee, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever had such a magnificent opportunity as the present occupant of that office. From the point of view of these with whom he was associated, no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever more dismally disappointed expectations; none had

    77
    ever failed more miserably in using his opportunity. There was one statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which they fully agreed, that if ever a Government had been returned to office under the expectancy that it would deal with questions of social reform, it was this Government. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this Government was expected to find a way and to provide the means for carrying out schemes of social reform. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated further that the words "social reform" seemed indefinite, but their idea of social reform was a more equitable distribution of national wealth. If they took the question of housing the poor, the condition of labour, the want of educational opportunities, indeed everything which they understood by the social problem, they recognised that the root-fault was in the unequal and unjust distribution of wealth. They did not say that by the Budget it was possible to deal completely with this question. The subject was not so simple as that, but they did believe that a courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer could do a great deal towards palliating consequences and conditions which could only be changed by legislation. In regard to social reform, what they required was that the Government should be determined to deal with the fact that 43 per cent. of the hardest working part of our population, however hard they might labour, however thrifty they might be, were not able to command incomes sufficient to provide themselves with the necessaries of decent subsistence. They saw every year the productive power of their labour increasing. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House in his last Budget speech that the capital wealth of the country was increasing by about £200,000,000 a year. The income tax returns told the same tale. Was the condition of these who were producing that wealth improving? They were told from the Treasury Bench a few months ago that in each one of the five years before last year the wages of the workers had been going down, and in each of these five years the cost of living had been going up. He knew there were hon. Members opposite who would answer that statement by
    78
    saying they were the consequences of the War. But they were not due to the War. The Board of Trade Return showed an increased production in each succeeding year. The income-tax returns showed increasing profits every year. Therefore, the social problem as it. presented itself from their point of view was that the House should devise some means by which this increasing wealth should not continue to go into the possession of a small section of the community, the section who, largely, did nothing whatever to produce it. The Legislature should devise some means on behalf of these who, by the sweat of their brow, or the ingenuity of their brains, contributed to this increasing aggregate wealth of the country. What had the Chancellor of the Exchequer done? The Government were to find the way and provide the means for redressing these unjust conditions between poverty and wealth. The mass of the people gained nothing whatever from any proposal put forward in the Budget. The only people who received consideration were these with incomes which raised them very considerably above the comfortable standard of living. £160 a year was at least sufficient to provide food enough, clothing enough, and decent shelter. But nearly one half of the working class population had not incomes which would provide; them with decent shelter, sufficient food, and warm clothing. There were 2,000.000 families in this country whose income was below £1 week, and the problem was how the husband, wife, and three or four children were to be kept on that amount. The cost of food for one person alone in the workhouse was 3s. a week, though the food was bought at wholesale prices; and if a family of five was to be maintained on the standard of the workhouse subsistence, of the £1, 15s. would have to be spent on food alone. That was a problem which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not solve. Working class families had to do it, or at least they were trying to do it, but in fact they did not do it. They were living below the standard of workhouse subsistence, and that was why they were hearing so much about the physical deterioration of the people. The heavy taxation which that class had to bear aggravated

    79
    their condition. And the way in which taxation was laid upon them made them largely unconscious of the fact that they were paying taxes. He was quite sure that if the mass of the people of this country were conscious of the amount they were paying in taxation they would present a demand to the Government, a demand stronger than the appeal to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open, namely, the piteous cry of the distressed income-tax payer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there were £20,000,000 of war taxation remaining. He found that of this £20.000,000 of war taxation, £11,000,000 was derived from indirect taxation, and four-fifths, probably tenelevenths, of that indirect taxation was paid by the working classes, whose average income did not come, to 25s. a week. There was no redress in this Budget. The only thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to them was an indefinite promise of old-age pensions, but at their own expense. It was important to make that point clear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, and of that surplus £1,250,000 was to be devoted to relieving incomes over £160 per annum. The rest of the surplus was paid by poor people through indirect taxation. It was important to emphasise that fact, and the Government might depend upon it that they would use the opportunities they had outside the House to tell the people of the country that the remission of the taxation was on incomes of £40 a week, that the benefit was being given by this social reform Government to that class at the expense of families with incomes of less than £1 a week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that every class of the community must pay for social reform. But the justification of old-age pensions was that these who were to receive them were too poor during their active life to provide their own old-age pensions. If it were not so, there would be no justification for advocating a scheme of old-age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, proposed to make the working people pay for their own old-age pensions, though the capacity of the mass of the people to bear taxation was less to-day that it had been at any time during
    80
    the last six or seven years. But what of the capacity of the other class about whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so solicitous? He found from the income-tax return that in the first ten years of the twenty years preceding last year the amount of the income brought under review of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, increased by £47,000,000 a year. He found that in the last ten years of the twenty years the increase was, not £47,000,000, but £235,000,000 a year. That was to say, that in the last ten years the wealth of the people to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred as being liable to income-tax, had been increasing seven times more rapidly than in the preceding ten years. Yet that was the class who were to receive consideration at the hands of this social reform Government. They were not unfavourable to differentiation between earned and unearned income. They had repeatedly admitted that to tax at the same rate as unearned incomes these incomes which were arduously earned was a hardship upon these workers whose incomes were just above the taxable limit. A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they would heartily support the removal of such a hardship and injustice. But he submitted that this was not a favourable opportunity, and that that class could well afford to wait until the more urgent claims of the poorer people had been considered and dealt with. Then they had another complaint to make, he was going to say of the action, but rather the want of action on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in leaving untouched incomes above £2,000 a year. That class of income was increasing, and the people with incomes of over £2,000 a year usually did not earn them. [" Oh! "J The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that practically himself, namely, that incomes above £2,000 a year were unearned. These incomes would escape with the moderate tax of Is. in the £. If they looked at the question of the super-tax the same thing applied It depended on the point of view from which they looked at it. It was the wrong point of view to regard what was taken from a man by the tax. The point of view from which to look at it was to see what remained of the income.

    81
    £6000 a year paid £300 a year in income tax. £300 looked a big sum, but there remained of the private income £5,700 — an income which in nine cases out of ten was not earned by the individual who had it, and who belonged to a class which was largely increasing and discharged no useful or necessary social service. And there was a social aspect as well as an economic aspect of this question. It was not good for an individual that he should have command of a large income like that without doing honest and useful work. Now, here was a vast field for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exploit by means of a super-tax. He could have raised sufficient by a super-tax on incomes above £2,000 a year to have started an adequate scheme of old-age pensions. How far would £1,500,000 go to provide a scheme of old-age pensions? The Departmental Committee which inquired into the subject reported that £3,000,000 a year would be required to pay 5s. a week at the age of seventy-five years. £1,500,000 would provide l5d. a week at the age of seventy-five. Why, at the age of seventy-five poor people were not thinking about old-age pensions but funeral expenses. It was an insult to poverty and to the old folk of this country to suggest the beginning of a scheme of old-age pensions with so miserably inadequate a sum as £1,500,000. They were hearing a great, deal just now about making a beginning, no matter how moderate. He said that at a time like the present an appeal like that was a traitorous appeal. He would be perfectly willing to have a moderate beginning if that moderate beginning were the only thing they could do. But it was not so in this matter. The income of the community was increasing every year by a sum sufficient to give pensions of 5s. a week at sixty-five years of age to everybody ten times over. When they had a state of things like that, it was a traitorous appeal to ask them to be satisfied with a pension of 15d. a week at seventy-five years of age. The most painful thing to him in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the indication of how little he appreciated the social reform spirit of the country. That spirit was
    82
    not going to be satisfied with homœopathic doses of social reform. The people were beginning to recognise every day more clearly what was the cause of poverty. They were beginning to see the fact that a few people by the power of law were able to appropriate to themselves, without necessarily rendering any useful service whatever, this continual increase of the wealth of the country, and they were quite determined that a social reform Government of the future should deal with this question. They knew that money would be required, and they did not expect it, like the Israelitish manna, to fall from the heavens. But they knew that the money could be found. Earnest social reformers knew where the money could be found, and no Government would continue long to receive their support which was not determined in the most courageous manner to deal with these questions of poverty and social reform, and they were not going to be content to have the spectacle which appeared almost every day in the newspaper of men of whom they had never before heard dying and leaving fortunes amounting to millions of pounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer by the death duties was going to raise a small sum a year. It was a curious fact that a moderate increase of the percentage on the death duties brought in a very small increase of revenue. They would have to put on a very much heavier percentage if they were going to increase the revenue by any considerable amount. Again he asked the House to look on that question from a practical point of view. If they took £300,000 from a fortune of £3,000,000, there still remained the sum of £2,700,000, a sum far more than necessary to keep these who had the good fortune to inherit it from any fear of the workhouse. Quite inadequately he had put before the House their idea of social reform, and they were going to be satisfied with nothing less. They knew where the money could be found, and he ventured to hope that before the tenure of office of this Government had run out it would take its courage into its two hands and determine to tackle this question boldly, and certain it was, that if the Government did not do this it would meet the fate of every preceding Liberal Government

    83
    when it had next to appeal to the country.
    MR. S. T. EVANSsaid the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was a lecture on social reform rather than a criticism of the Budget, and so it would be regarded by Members of the House. He had listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member to see whether or not he had anything practical to suggest. He was quite sure that the hon. Member with the magnanimity which he possessed would confess that there was on the Ministerial side of the House as well as upon the other side below the gangway, a sincere desire for the better condition of the people. The hon. Member demanded that the Budget should bring about an even distribution of weal h. But so far as he understood it, the consideration of the Budget of the year dealt with the equitable adjustment of taxation, and was not the occasion to preach doctrines with regard to the equal division of wealth and of property. They were dealing now with taxes, and not with wealth; and the only part of the speech of the hon. Member which was of a practical character was that in which he suggested that a greater burden of taxation should be placed, as stated by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education, on the shoulders best able to bear that burden. General criticism was made by the hon. Member of the taxation of the food of the people—indirect taxation. He himself held the opinion, as the hon. Member did, that too much was being taken from the pockets of the people by means of indirect taxation, but at the same time they ought to remember that it was only by means of indirect taxation that the working classes contributed to the expenses of carrying on the affairs of the country. He thought it would be an evil day if such expenditure as was caused in reference to the war in South Africa could be incurred without being felt by the working classes. They knew perfectly well that the men for whom in a special sense the hon. Member assumed to speak were in large measure, in very large proportion, in favour of the war. For his own part, looking at the general interests of the country, looking to the import
    84
    ance of the country's keeping at peace with the whole world, he thought it would be an evil day when a war could be lightly embarked upon without some of the consequences being directly felt by all classes in the nation. With regard to the taking away, as he supposed the hon. Member suggested, of some of the taxes now imposed, on tea and sugar—for he did not suppose that the hon. Member in his proposal of social reform meant to take away the taxes on beer, spirits, or articles of that kind—personally he would have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen his way to take a penny off the tea duty, and to diminish in some respects the tax on sugar. But, after all, they must in this matter give some confidence to these whose duty it was to look after the affairs of the country, and who made promises— not "indefinite promises," who made appeals—not "traitorous appeals," but who gave definite pledges that a large sum of money which would be got this year out of the increased taxes, together with n ore money which would be got next year, would be devoted towards a scheme for old-age pensions. The criticism of the hon. Member opposite, if he might without offence say so, would have been better if it had been less exaggerated and less venomous. After all it was really time for hon. Members opposite to cease thinking or saying that all the evil was to be found in the Liberal Party, and that all the good was in their own. Whatever good measures were passed were claimed as the work of the Independent Labour Party. The hon. Member for Leicester, at Cardiff on Sunday last, had boasted that the Trades Disputes Act of last session was, for sooth, the great achievement of the Independent Labour Party. To all these who were in the last Parliament as well as in this Parliament, such language as was used by the hon. Member with regard to the Liberal Party and their promises, their pledges, and performances seemed hardly compatible with the intelligence they knew the hon. Gentleman possessed. What was the use of saying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had produced a courageous Budget, who had increased in some measure, not so far as the hon. Member wished or as he himself wished, the

    85
    burden of these best able to bear it, that he was making a traitorous appeal, that the Budget was a dismal disappointment and a miserable failure? Let them come to close quarters and see what was done. First of all. Did the hon. Member object, to that portion of the Budget which dealt with what might be called paying their way? It was as important for a country to pay its way as for individuals. For his part he regarded it as part of social reform, and whenever he had the opportunity to speak to the working classes, he impressed upon them the importance of keeping free from debt. If they could get rid of the credit system in this country they would go a long way to improve the conditions of which the hon. Member complained. Did the hon. Member complain of that part of the Budget which raised new taxation so far as it went? The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer followed in some important respects the recommendations of the Income-Tax Committee last year, before which the hon. Member for Blackburn gave interesting and valuable evidence. That Committee had been very successful and had achieved a great deal. It first of all prevailed on the officials of the Inland Revenue to modify their view, it was perfectly well known that the attitude of the Inland Revenue Department had been like a hard wall against which if was no use knocking their heads. The officials of the Inland Revenue Department had induced the former Government and Chancellor of the Exchequer when considering the question of the income-tax to refuse to bring within the purview of such a Committee the consideration in any form at all of the graduation or differentiation of the tax. One of the things which last year's Committee then succeeded in doing was to modify, if not completely to alter, the views of some of the head officials in that Department. They did more than that, they convinced their Chairman, who came to the Committee not at all convinced in favour of differentiation, and greatly doubting the practicability of graduation. They also convinced the President of the Board of Education, who came to the Committee as "hidebound" as am of the officials against the suggested changes. It was pleasant to hear his right hon. friend defend-
    86
    ing the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to many of which he certainly would not have agreed when the Committee began to sit. Moreover, the Committee in a short space of time carried conviction to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that were necessary. How far had the Chancellor of the Exchequer gone in dealing with that question? The Committee should be reminded of the number of people with the smaller incomes who would be relieved by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the income-tax standing at. Is. in the £ under the abatement system, an income of £200 a year paid. now at the rate of 2 ½d. in the £; £300. 5½ £400, 7½ £500, 8½ £600, 9½ £700, 10— 8 · or nearly 11d. in the £. Everything above £700 was Is. in the £. In respect of all these incomes which would be earned the tax would this year be again reduced to 25 per cent.; and of course above £700 and up to £2,000 all earned incomes would also have the tax reduced by 3d. in the £. He would give the figures of earned incomes up to £2,000 a year—the incomes affected by the new tax. As far as the Returns showed the incomes under £2,000 a year dealt with under Schedule D, (and it represented only earned incomes), numbered 453,351 separate assessments in Great Britain and 20,501 in Ireland. To that number must be added firms —he did not mean limited companies— and he reckoned that on an average which lie thought was very small then were 2 ½ members to each firm. In that way firms whose incomes were under £2,000 represented 113,647 taxpayers in Great Britain and 4,377 in Ireland. There were other firms whose income was over £2,000, but whose individual members had incomes under £2,000— who would be affected by this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He reckoned these at about — 1,000. Then we had under Schedule E. which represented earned incomes derived from public offices and so forth under £2,000, in Great Britain, 370,477, and in Ireland, 14,875. The total of these figures showed that about 981,228 persons, or nearly a million of taxpayers who paid income— tax on earned incomes up to £2,000 would be relieved by the changes

    87
    and reductions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These interested in the reform of the income-tax would be glad to find that these on whom the burden had pressed most heavily were, relieved in such numbers as indicated. The £2,000 limit had been criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. His own opinion as a politician was that it was a fair figure, but he could have wished that for the purpose of the better working of the scheme there had been an easier gradation when the figure was approached than the one proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cases might be put showing that under the scheme as proposed, hardship would arise by reason of the way in which the earned and unearned portions of incomes near the figure of £2,000 were to be dealt with. A man who earned £1,600 and who had an unearned income of £400 (representing a capital of £10,000) and whose income was therefore £2,000 a year, would pay £80 tax: whereas his neighbour who had an income of 2,000 guineas, all of which he earned, and who had no capital would pay £105 tax. He hoped that means would be devised to make the gradation more easy. The other day an hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the application of the principle of differentiation, as between earned and unearned incomes, and not as between precarious and permanent ones. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in saying that the Committee considered this matter very carefully from every point of view. The Committee had considered the question of permanent and precarious incomes, and they came to the conclusion that the best words to express their view and the best principle to be adopted were "earned" and "unearned." He agreed entirely that that was the proper distinction to make. He very much regretted, however, that the Government had stopped at differentiation; because the proposals of the Committee were quite as strongly in favour of graduation as of differentiation. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able this year to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee in that direction, but he noted the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not shut the door against the principle of graduation. He did not know that the Chancellor of the Ex-
    88
    chequer was as enthusiastically in favour of it as he should like, but he was in hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman would espouse the principle of graduation and place a very much heavier tax on the higher incomes. In order to enforce his observations, he would quote the following words of the Committee—
    "Graduation of the income tax by an extension of the existing system of abatements is practicable."
    That had not been done. They stopped at £700. The Committee also said—
    "If it be desired to levy a much higher rate of tax upon large incomes (say of £5,000 and upwards) than has hitherto been charged, a super-tax based on personal declaration would re a practical method."
    He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet such difficulties as were anticipated if he proposed to have the declaration made compulsory in the case of every individual. On this head the recommendation of the Committee was as follows—
    " A compulsory personal declaration from each individual of total not, income in respect of which tax is payable is expedient, and would do much to prevent the evasion and avoidance of income— tax which at resent prevails."
    There might be some difficulty in arranging with the Inland Revenue officials for adapting the means now at their disposal to the compelling of personal declarations from everybody this year; but it could not be repeated too often that to demand from 800,000 people or more a personal declaration as they did now, and at the same time to exempt from the making of a personal declaration people who wore at the top of the scale, was a thing which could not be defended. Why should they call upon the two-thirds of the income-tax payers who were at the lower end of the scale to make a personal declaration and allow the other one-third at the upper end of the scale to go free? These people with small incomes had to make a declaration if they wanted an abatement. If it was right to extract from them by this kind of pressure a personal declaration it was equally right to compel everybody to declare his income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now going to compel all employers to make returns of the incomes of their employees. Everybody in receipt of a taxable salary would be included in the list the employer

    89
    was bound to make. Why under these circumstances should the employer himself be exempted from revealing his income? He was so strong a believer in the principle of graduation of the income-tax that he would go into the lobby in favour of it, not for the purpose of creating a difficulty for the Government, but for the purpose of bringing some pressure to bear upon them to go forward. Large incomes between £2,000 and £50,000 a year were now taxed only at Is. in the £. It was unfair and was flying in the face of commonsense and justice to say that very high incomes should be only taxed on the same basis as smaller incomes. Graduation of the estate duties did not, he contended, sufficiently meet what he wanted by the graduation of the income-tax. Death duties only came in once in a generation; but a generation might count anything from five to thirty or more years, and they were fixed once and for all, whereas income-tax varied and might vary annually. What had the Chancellor of the Exchequer done in regard to the death duties? He regarded the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a courageous man, but in this matter he had either shown a great timidity or a supersensitive regard for the posthumous feelings of the millionaires. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not begin at a lower figure than £150,000? And why so mild with estates of over a million? The additional rate above £10 per cent. on estates of more than £1,000,000 only attached to the surplus above the million, so that only estates of £2,000,000 were taxed at the rate, of 11 per cent.; £2,500,000 estates at 11⅘ per cent.; £3,000,000 at 12⅔per cent.; £3,500,000 at 13 4/7 per cent.;, £4,000,000 at 13¾ per cent.; and £5,000,000 at 14 per cent. only. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer get rid of his fears of the ghosts of departed millionaires and dig in this gold mine to alleviate the condition of the people and start old-age I pensions on a large scale. Subject to these criticisms he was in favour of the Budget, and he regarded the pledge of the Chancellor as a definite pledge in favour of old— age pensions, He looked upon the right hon. Gentleman's proposals as the minimum, and the
    90
    Chancellor could not go further and faster forward in the direction in which he had started than he wished him to travel.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that he would not follow the hon. Gentleman who had lectured the House on social reform or the hon. Gentleman who had lectured his predecessor not only on political policy but on Parliamentary decorum. He confessed that the account of the achievements of the Income-Tax Committee, which the hon. and learned Member for Monmouthshire had given, had filled him with a considerable amount of surprise and some amusement. The hon. and learned Gentleman claimed, amongst other things, that the Committee had succeeded in convincing the permanent officials of the Inland Revenue Department that a super-tax was desirable. That he could not understand when he found in the memorandum of Sir Henry Primrose on 23rd July last that that gentleman stated that—
    '' Having regard to all these objections"
    —that was to the super— tax—
    " it would seem clear that the super-tax ought not to be attempted unless it offered a prospect of an increase of revenue and a really substantial amount sufficient to out-weigh its many manifest drawbacks, I am unable myself to see any such prospect."
    Even if the Committee were to rid themselves of that memorandum which had been issued by Sir Henry Primrose, after having heard the other evidence he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would find any substantial argument in favour of a graduation of the income-tax. One of the difficulties they had to meet all the way through that Select Committee was that, with the best intentions in the world, they were unable to attach the same identical meaning to similar expressions. For instance, at the commencement of the sittings there was considerable discussion as to whether it was practical and expedient that something should be done or as to whether there was any particular rooted objection to the proposal made. It was certainly in the former sense that hon. Members on that side of the House supported certain of the recommendations which were made by the right hon. Baronet the

    91
    Member for Forest of Dean. The members of the Committee supported his proposals for reforms by using the word "practical" in a very limited sense. They never suggested that these changes were expedient in themselves or desirable from the point of view of the general taxpayer or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The hon. Gentleman had said that they had succeeded in convincing the Chairman of the Committee. Most certainly they owed a debt of gratitude to the Chairman for the trouble he took and for the courteous manner in which he conducted the whole affairs of the Committee. But so far as the Committee itself was concerned, the only point on which they were unanimously agreed was that they were unable to accept the (hairman's draft report; and if the right hon. Gentleman was subsequently convinced it was a form of conviction that he did not think would be particularly agreeable to any chairman. He did not rise for the purpose of criticising to any extent the actual proposals which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but only to follow out the prospect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had partially opened to the House and the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very clearly told them that ho had budgeted, not so much for the present year, as in contemplation of the changes which he might make next year and in the year following. He thought the prospect which they were permitted to see—and after all it was very little of a definite nature they were able to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was by no manner of means either a. satisfactory or a cheerful one. The more one looked at the prospect the more doubtful one became as. to the future. Where there was doubt there must be gloom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had most clearly intimated to the country that the reserve which he was how proposing to deal with during the current year was not sufficient for him to make even a start with some of these social reforms to which, he had committed himself. The right hon. Gentleman in his arrangement of remissions and taxation generally had contemplated, not that he would be able to give further remissions, but rather that next year the expenditure of the country
    92
    would be considerably increased. That was the only clear and definite matter as regarded the future that he was able to see. Thus, however much the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pledged to schemes of far-reaching social reform, he could not hold out any prospect whatever of any reduction of either indirect or direct taxation. But more than that, he had: certainly made some changes which would, in all probability, as time went on considerably reduce the income that he could hope to receive. He had estimated a net reduction of £50,000 for the dual operation of the income-tax and the death duties. Whatever the death duties might bring in in this future, he thought there was every prospect of the remission he had already made in the income-tax leading to considerable demands for remissions of other kinds. The moment they interfered with the very delicate machinery of the income-tax they opened up a very large field for operations, and it was impossible, if they attempted to draw arbitrary lines such as these proposed, to escape inflicting innumerable cases of hardship and difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly one of the qualifications, among many, for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a finance Minister, no one could accuse him of being tender-hearted, and he possessed as great a faculty as any of his predece sors for returning an emphatic "No" to the most pressing demands for expenditure. He believed that differentiation between the two classes of income would inevitably lead to demands for further differentiation. He thought that on the whole the prospect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opened out with regard to the income-tax would probably mean that the field would be increased and that we should have to look forward to a less revenue than was even now to be obtained from that source. The right hon. Gentleman had also held out the prospect that, by taking back the power over that money which was now intercepted and went to local authorities, he would be able to turn his attention to other sources of income. He would leave the criticism of anything he might do in respect to motor cars until the proposal was placed before the House. But there were other

    93
    suggestions, he could hardly call them proposals, in regard to which he thought there was a certain amount of doubt in the minds of many of them as to what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions were. in considering the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one had also to take into view the policy of his supporters. On the first night of the Budget some of his supporters made extremely clear what they considered to be the duty and obligations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regarded the question of licensing reform. They were distinctly told that the impression had gone forth that the Government had dropped or did not intend to proceed with their licensing proposals this year. That was said to be a. matter of very great disappointment to many of the right hon. Gentlemen's supporters, and they strongly urged him that he should keep hold of his power over licences that he might by the imposition of heavy burdens be able to carry into effect, save for anything which might be done in another place, the vanishing proposals which would have for their effect the diminution of the; liquor traffic in this country. How far the imposition of duties for the purposes of carrying out licensing reform came within the strictest definition of a pure free trader he did not know, although he was justified in asking the question; but undoubtedly if the desires which the right hon. Gentleman's supporters pressed upon him were carried into effect it would mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to look forward to so large a revenue from the liquor traffic as he had been able to do in the past, and there would on that contemplated change at any rate be a still further drop in the income with which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a start in social reform. During the present session they were threatened, although they were not yet in possession of the nature of the proposals, with changes which would have a very considerable effect upon land, upon the government of Ireland, and upon the Army. Everyone of these proposals must, he imagined, operate so as certainly not to produce further income to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but inevitably to entail further expenditure upon the Imperial Exchequer. Possibly it was not
    94
    fair in some senses to press the right hon. Gentleman to disclose absolutely the financial proposals which would be contained in all these measures, but as the right hon. Gentleman had explained to them that he was unable to give estimates of taxation he hoped he would let them know what would really be the ultimate financial effect of some of these proposals. He asked the other day a question of the Secretary of State for War as to what would be the effect of the financial proposals contained in the Territorial Forces Bill. The right lion. Gentleman did not, however, deal with the amounts in question, and the points were clearly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the House of Commons had a right to ask that when money was voted for a particular object there should be definitely and clearly laid down the form and method by which the House of Commons was to be asked to Vote the money. In addition to the proposals about the Army he might refer to a proposal made last year to set up a council for the administration of Welsh Education. So far as they were able to extract information that was to be financed by aid grants or block grants voted by the House without any very complete explanation of the purposes for which the money was required, and with very imperfect provision for Parliamentary control, and the audit of the; money when expended. The proposals contained in the Army Bill were open to similar objections. Large sums of money were to be voted by aid grants and block grants, which necessarily from the nature of the case could not be properly presented to the House of Commons in a particular form and therefore Parliamentary control would be reduced to a minimum. So far as he could understand the proposal, a sum of money would be needed for these county associations, and the only check which the Comptroller and Auditor-General would have would be the receipt from these officials that the money had been handed over. There was certainly a provision for audit, but it was not such an audit as was understood by the House. It might be termed a Committee audit. When the right hon. Gentleman was addressing weighty words to the House with reference to control and the demands made upon the Chancellor of

    95
    the Exchequer by the House he could not help thinking that many of his remarks were strictly intended for the consumption of the Treasury Bench. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bring to the mind of the Secretary of State for War the enormous importance of seeing that the control of the House over the administration of this new Army system should be as complete and thorough as possible. With regard to the interception of the money which went to the local authorities and which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to take, he understood that some equivalent grants were to be made to the local authorities. As some doubt had arisen as to what exactly was meant by equivalent grants, he would like to know whether if the revenue from licences increased, an increased contribution would go to the local authorities, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a grant equivalent to what they now received and retain the increase himself.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said that under the new system the local authorities would receive exactly the same sum as if the law had not been changed. But one of the objects of the change was to leave the way free to deal with licences. He had announced that this change was to come into effect at the beginning of the next financial year; but he found that there were some technical difficulties in the way, and when the Finance Bill was introduced it would be found that the change would apply to subsequent years only.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHearnestly pressed the right hon. Gentleman to use all the influence he possessed with the Prime Minister to allow the Public Accounts Committee a day for the discussion of their Report. His right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition when Leader of the House in the last Administration gladly gave a day. He did not ask it in order to glorify the Public Accounts Committee, but because it would undoubtedly be of great assistance to the Committee in the future if an opportunity was given to hive the work which they did to the best of their ability, and he hoped
    96
    thoroughly, discussed by a Committee of the House.
    MR. ASQUITHthought it was most important that a day should be given every session for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. It was really remarkable that a business-like Assembly should hitherto have provided no opportunity for the consideration of the work of a, Committee that was rendering such invaluable service both to the taxpayers and to the Departments. He was sure the Prime Minister would agree that there could be no more important reform than regularly to devote a day to the consideration of that Report.
    MR. McCRAEsaid he could not share the fears expressed by the ex- Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the proposals of the present Budget. These proposals to his mind were the beginning of a very great reform. The criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite had all through been reasonable, but ineffective. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire when speaking on the last occasion must have felt he was beating the air, and the statement of the hon. Member for Blackburn was nothing but a travesty of what the proposals really were. To say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only made very indefinite proposals with regard to old-age pensions, and that he was providing for a pension of Is. 3d. a week was beyond the region of reasonable discussion, and he was astonished that the hon. Member should speak in such a way of serious proposals and in the face of the definite statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He shared the disappointment of the hon. Member as to the shape the Budget had taken. He had looked forward to this Budget as one which would give scope for great financial ability and great schemes. But if the right hon. Gentleman had refused to take advantage to the full of his opportunity it was because he intended next year to lay the foundation for a more ambitious structure. It was the Budget of a strong Chancellor of the Exchequer, conscious of his strength. and holding it in reserve; it was the

    97
    Budget of a strong Government with no fear of dissolution before it; a Government which, having comparative fixity of tenure, could afford to look forward to laving before the House schemes of far-reaching reform. The right hon. Gentleman was favoured: by a combination of circumstances which rarely fell to the lot of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was favoured by an increasing revenue, and a decreasing I expenditure. It might be conceded that a stable and strong Government exercising economy in national finance was the sort of Government which made for national prosperity. The result of last year's finance was that although in the Estimates his right hon. friend had made provision for the largest contribution to the sinking fund for the redemption of Debt that had ever been made he had been better than his word. But it would be as well to; point out that while the right hon. Gentleman's surplus last year amounted to £5,300,000, that surplus was due to the accident of miscalculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year somewhat adversely criticised the result of his predecessor's Budget, pointing out that both sides of the account had falsified the estimate to an unprecedented degree. His right hon. friend had broken the record and he would be the first to admit that that was not good finance. So far as expenditure was concerned the right hon. Gentleman was not wholly responsible for the Estimates, but where savings had been made by economy it was entirely to his credit. But the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for estimating revenue, and it had been pointed out by himself at the time that the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman was a very conservative one. He thought that events had justified him, and that Parliament had been very wise in putting it out of the power of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to gamble for a surplus, by saying that the realised surplus should go to the reduction of Debt. So far as the present Budget was concerned there was no difference in the incidence of taxation, and therefore the arguments used from that point of view were not fair. Neither was there any reduction in taxation in the gross, the remission under income-tax being practically
    98
    balanced by increase in the death duties. As to the proposals with regard to income-tax, all these who sat upon the Committee must admit that his right hon. friend had made a fair proposal. He had given the maximum of relief with the minimum of cost to the revenue, and was to be commended for the courageous way in which he had gone against the views and traditions of his Department in this matter. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had adversely criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing Mr. Gladstone to his aid in this matter. But Mr. Gladstone, although he was much impressed with the difficulties of differentiation, always conceded its justice. The matter was so important that he would venture to road an extract from Mr. Gladstone's great Budget speech of 1853 in which he said—
    " What we understand to be the sentiment of the country, and what we ourselves are disposed to defer to and share in, is that under our present financial arrangements the income-tax bears, on the whole, too hard upon intelligence and skill, and not hard enough upon property as compared with intelligence and skill."
    Mr. Gladstone went further and indicated that if the income— tax was to be permanent it could only be maintained by removing the inequality which he had pointed out. It was only fair to say that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Budget introduced in 1852 proposed a differentiation of the income-tax. At that time the tax was 7d. in the £, and Mr. Disraeli proposed that earned or precarious incomes should have a rebate. The last Government which was always so sympathetic to the income-taxpayer had that opportunity. He remembered moving an Amendment to two of the Budgets introduced by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that differentiation should be made exactly on the lines now proposed. He was confident that the present proposal would give considerable relief and that to the extent of £1,250,000 per annum to a class who were very hardly hit by war taxation. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed certain reforms in the machinery of collection. In the first place, he was going to insist upon compulsory returns from everybody

    99
    served with a notice. He was sure that would produce a great increase in the yield of the income-tax. Then there was the reform of insisting upon employers furnishing a return of the salaries paid to their employees. In that connection he was amazed to hear the late Chancellor of the Exchequer practically defending the evasion of the income-tax. This was not a new proposal far an increased burden. All that was being done was simply to provide for a more efficient collection of the income-tax, and the only persons who would be hit by it were these who were dishonestly evading taxation at the present time. He thought the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been the last man in the House to invite any class of income-taxpayers to evade their responsibilities. The third proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a unification of the system of collection so as to assimilate the system in England to that in Scotland. A return of the collection of income-tax was issued last week, and it showed that by 28th February this year in Scotland practically the whole of the income-tax was paid, whilst in England there was outstanding at that time the large sum of £11,500,000 sterling. If his right hon. friend could accelerate the collection in this part of the country they would at once sec how much larger the yield would be; they would get within the financial year a larger sum, and there would be a considerable saving in interest. If these proposals were put into operation he was confident that the fear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his proposals with regard to differentiation would delay collection, and that he would lose this year £750,000, would not be justified by the result. He did not think there would be any loss to the revenue, and the efficiency of collection would almost counterbalance any remissions that had to be made. They had heard a great deal about a compulsory declaration of the whole income, but that was a reform which was bound to come. The old system was a survival in a most objectionable form of class legislation. Incomes at the present time of £700 and under were legally and justly entitled to pay at a lower rate. They exacted the declaration and a full detailed
    100
    statement of income from all sources. At the present moment 700,000 income-taxpayers out of 1.100.000 actually made that declaration. That amounted to 65 per cent. of the whole, and therefore, where vas the hardship in asking tie remaining 35 per cent. to conform to the same system?He had failed to discover that there was any sanctity attaching to the rich man's income. The disclosure of details was quite as embarrassing to the struggling tradesman and the man of moderate means as it was to the rich man. It was only by a compulsory declaration of income that they could levy a fair and just income-tax. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched the principle of graduation, but after the ceremony which had taken place downstairs that day t he thought the example of our Colonies might give his right hon. friend a lead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was proceeding on the step by step policy. He had not made any change inconsistent with, or which did not lend up to the larger policy, and for that all taxation reformers were very thankful. He was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for leaving the abatements at their present limit, and in this respect he flattered himself that the right hon. Gentleman was closely following the lines of his draft report to the Income-Tax Committee. His opinion was that the whole system of abatements ought to go. They ought to have a direct tax at a reduced rate on the whole income. The system of abatements was clumsy, complicated, and expensive, and if his right hon. friend had not followed the example of Mr. Gladstone in 1853 and taken a wide survey of the whole field of finance, it was only because he bad postponed taking action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking forward to his Budget of next year, and looking to the estimates of an increasing revenue. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was engaged in piling up debt, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was piling up surpluses. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer would go down to history as the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a year of peace, added to the National Debt. In two years he had added £14,000,000 to the
    † Parliamentary Luncheon to the Colonial Premiers, held in Westminster Hall

    101
    Loan Capital Expenditure, and in 1905, after using up the Sinking Fund contribution, he made an actual addition to our aggregate liabilities of £2,000.000 sterling. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be commended upon all sides for considering that it was his first duty to provide for the reduction of our large indebtedness. If they looked to the Estimates of expenditure for the present year, and to the moderate estimates of revenue and reasonable economy in administration, he thought the right hon. Gentleman bade fair to start next year with a surplus of at least £7,000,000 for old— age pensions. While he had very great sympathy with these who complained that old-age pensions had not been started this year, he must say that anyone who looked into the question and took a reasonable view ought to see that there was wisdom in delay. The cost of starting a small scheme and its administration would be out of proportion to the relief given. He commended the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making in two years a net reduction of £23,250,000 in the National Debt. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer took office he had a very difficult task before him, because the National Debt stood at £796,000,000. The last Government swept away the savings of nearly forty years and brought back the National Debt to the figure it stood at in 1868. That was brought about by war expenditure which was the result of reckless diplomacy, and also by extravagant expenditure, on the ordinary services of the country which had increased the annual expenditure by £50,000,000 apart from war expenditure. That increase in the ordinary expenditure apart from war expenditure would have provided old-age pensions twice over. They were looking forward to a year of abounding revenue, of reduced expenditure, and a large surplus at the end of it which would enable his right hon. friend to produce the Budget which they were all looking forward to, and was well within his reach.
    MR. J. F. MASONsaid he had no great fault to find with the Budget as a whole. He most heartily approved of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for endeavouring
    102
    to improve the national credit and also of the principle of differentiation between earned and unearned incomes, although he fully realised the difficulty with regard to limitation and Definition. If some form of differentiation had been carried into practice as between real and personal estates, he thought one of the principal objections to an increase in the death duties would have been met. The Chancellor of the Ex-chequer, in his Budget speech, had referred to the war taxes and described them as being taxes put on not simply to meet expenses during the operation of the war but to meet the extra burden put upon the country by waging the war. Consequently the war taxes still remained and amounted to something like £20,000,000 upon a war debt of £138,000,000. The interest on the war debt amounted to something like £4,000,000, leaving £16,000,000 of war taxes still in existence. He would like to know whether it was proposed that the whole of this £16,000,000 should be applied as a special sinking fund for the war debt irrespective of the ordinary finking fund. There was no suggestion of the kind, and therefore he held that a large proportion of these war taxes which still existed to the tune of £20,000,000 would not be applied in any way to reducing the debt, but to meeting the ordinary expenditure of the country, and therefore that the existence of the war debt was no adequate reason for maintaining these so-called war taxes. They had had a declaration from the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer that in his opinion the proportion of direct and indirect taxation should be maintained, and in a further statement that in his view the expenditure of the country could not be expected to be materially reduced in the immediate future. He did not think there would be any doubt upon that subject when they took into consideration the expenditure which would be necessary for carrying out the social reforms which had been promised. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was necessary to budget for the next two or three years, and in view of that statement he thought he would be justified in referring not only to this year but to subsequent years in regard to taxation. It was evident that no material saving could be

    103
    effected in the existing system of expenditure with the exception of the items of defence, for the Army and the Navy. He did not think it had ever been suggested that any large saving could be effected except upon these two items. He did not think anyone would anticipate that any further large savings could be made in these items. It was also evident that the Civil Service expenditure could not be materially reduced; that education was tending towards greater expenditure; and they had a direct promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that next year he would introduce a scheme of old-age pensions. He thought it would be admitted that no scheme of old-age pensions would be satisfactory, or would satisfy the country, that was not a fairly comprehensive one, and he did not think that any scheme of that kind could be effected for less than £20,000,000 a, year. If he was correct in that estimate they were face to lace with the practical, certainty that during the lifetime of the present Government, unless it should prematurely commit suicide, they would reach a national expenditure of from £160,000,000 to £170,000,000 per annum. If that happened how, upon the present basis of taxation, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer meet that expenditure? They had a general admission that the proportion between direct and indirect taxation was to be maintained, and therefore he would like: to know how it would be possible to raise another £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 from each of these sources. With regard to direct taxation, he did not suppose that it would be proposed in time of peace to raise the income— tax higher than Is. in the £, and he doubted whether any possible increase in the death duties, or any scheme of graduation which could be proposed, would provide the £10,000,000 or the £15,000,000 required from the side of direct taxation. Even if that part of the sum were provided they would be still left with £10.000,000 or £15,000,000 to be raised by indirect taxation. What was there on the side of indirect taxation capable of producing that very great increase in the revenue? By the alterations which were proposed in regard to local taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer might place himself in possession of some £200,000 a year derived from
    104
    a tax upon motor-cars, and he might derive considerable sums from the licence trade; but he thought that if he was to derive anything like the enormous sum of money required to carry out an old-age pension scheme, there would be no escape whatever from enormously increasing the existing taxes on the food of the people, which were already higher than the food taxes of any other country in the world.
    MR. SEARSasked for the indulgence of the Committee while for the first time he took a small part in the deliberations of the House. He desired to refer to the statements contained in the Budget speech which indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce very important changes, not merely in the incidence of taxation, but also in the machinery and the administration. He welcomed the statement that the right lion. Gentleman intended to level up the English machinery of assessment and collection so that it might equal in efficiency the admirable machinery at work in Scotland. That was a reform which had been long delayed, and which, he ventured to say, would have far reaching consequences. Not only would that reform make for economy and expedite the collection of revenue, but it would play an important part in the prevention of evasion and secure a far more satisfactory return of revenue. Most of the Scottish machinery for collection and assessments was undoubtedly modern and up to date, but there was still in it some of that old-fashioned type which ought to be scrapped. The system in Scotland still needed to be perfected, and the improved machinery ought to be extended to the whole country. In Scotland the work of collection and assessment was very largely done by trained responsible officers of the Crown. The collectors throughout Scotland were Government officials, and the assessors in twenty-five counties were also Government officials. In three counties, however, the parochial officials still remained, and in six counties two systems prevailed. He asked whether the new machinery to be set up in England was to be modelled on the machinery which was the rule in Scotland and not on that which was the exception. The success of the Scottish system was due to

    105
    the fact that the irresponsible local official had been almost entirely eliminated. The system in use in England had been condemned again and again by the Board of Inland Revenue. That Board in one of its Reports said—
    " It will be in your Lordships' recollection that we have, for many years, been urging the abolition of a system of collection and assessment of a branch of the revenue through persons unconnected with the executive Government. We have pointed out that, for the most part, they were utterly indifferent to the interests of the exchequer, that they have sometimes been openly opposed to its interests, and engaged in doing their best to defeat the intentions of legislation."
    As a friend of his own had said, these officials acted as a kind of buffer between the taxpayer and the exchequer. He wished to know whether the assessment and collection of taxes in England in the future would be placed in the hands of trained and responsible officers of the Crown, and whether that system if adopted would be uniform throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. There were other changes suggested which he welcomed. One was that the claim for exemption and abatements should be presented with the return of the income. Abatements ought to be dealt with at the time of assessment as part of the same transaction. If that were done they would get rid of the cumbersome system of repayment which now existed or at least reduce the repayments branch to reasonable dimensions. He was glad to see that the alarming increase in the staff of the estate duty office had been stopped, and that, on the other hand, there was a proposal to strengthen the outdoor staff, which was responsible for a satisfactory return of incomes. These reforms, whilst reducing expenditure, would have the effect of securing a better return of revenue. There was one other reform very urgently called for, namely, the re-organisation of the Inland Revenue Department upon sound business principles. They had before them in the Budget a great scheme, and he wished it success; but if complete success was to be secured he felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be supported by men who had had practical experience, who were capable administrators, and who had organising abilities. It was important that the heads of departments should be
    106
    in sympathetic touch with the out door staff. There was at the present moment a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest throughout the Department. That was destructive of efficiency. If that unrest could be removed, the result would be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have loyal and whole-hearted co-operation from the highest to the humblest Member In his view this was a very great problem and he desired to see it settled. To the carrying out of these reforms then? would no doubt be considerable opposition, but he hoped that that opposition would be met in a way which would be satisfactory to the Inland Revenue service as a whole and to the public.
    MR. BOWLESsaid that hon. Members who had taken part in the debate had confined their remarks almost entirely to the very important proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the income tax. But, after all, these proposals were only part of a very comprehensive and far-reaching scheme. He desired to deal with the Budget as a whole, beginning with a few words as to the year that was past. He was rather surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the revenue figures for the year did not exhibit any great elasticity, and that in some respects they were distinctly disappointing. He did not know on what ground the right hon. Gentleman based that opinion, because this much was certain, that however much last year's revenue might have fallen below the private estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, it had exceeded by over £2,000,000 the Budget estimate which he had himself given to the House. He thought himself that the variations of the revenue from the Budget of the previous year were of a very striking character. Far the greatest variation was that in the death duties, which showed an increase of £1,430,000 over 1905–6. The revenue from that source was over £1,000,000 beyond what the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. That was an enormous addition to the revenue, and a striking testimony to the fact that in this country a few rich men did as a matter of fact contribute large sums in relief of the burdens of

    107
    their poorer countrymen. He hoped that would give hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and particularly hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, cause to reflect that if, as they appeared to consider, a rich man was always and necessarily a public enemy when alive, he was, at any rate, always and necessarily a public benefactor when he was dead. That which was very striking about the revenue last year was the extraordinary way in which the revenue from Customs and Excise yielded up to and above the Budget estimates. The cessation during part of the year of the coal tax, and the reduction of the tea duty, led the right hon. Gentleman to estimate that from Customs and Excise there would be a reduction of £2,275,000. The actual decrease was only £1,425,000, showing that in spite of the dullness of the Stock Exchange, and so forth, the purchasing power of the people of this country—he supposed that after all that was the final test by which to judge our material prosperity—had been not only maintained, but even increased beyond anything that the Inland Revenue had expected. As to the expenditure of the year, the right hon. Gentleman had a surplus of £3,386,000. There were two things which ought to be said in regard to that. The right hon. Gentleman had told them most truly that any congratulation which might have been directed to him in respect of that surplus was really entirely misplaced. That was very true. For, financially speaking, a surplus was not only an error but, as the Committee was aware, a more serious error than a deficit. In the case of a deficit, the attention of Parliament was called to it at once by the necessity for a new grant, and Parliament could then deal with the matter as it chose. But, in the case of a surplus like the present, over £3,000,000 had been withdrawn from the people without necessity, Parliament and the country had been misled to that large extent and no remedy existed. And, secondly, it ought to be pointed out that all these Budget statements of past expenditure were entirely unreal and illusory. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee he had spent £139,500,000; but that was not really the whole expenditure on the national services. A further £20,000,000 had
    108
    been spent which had never got into the Exchequer, but had been intercepted on its way, and did not come within the purview of the statement. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had appended to his printed financial statement a note purporting to show the entire expenditure for which the State was responsible in 1906— 7; and had here mentioned the £10,222,000, intercepted for the Local Taxation Account. But the even larger sum of £10,468,861 intercepted and spent during the year as Appropriations— in— Aid was nowhere referred to. He hoped that next year the latter sum would be included. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would be really informing the House what the entire expenditure was. As to the proposals for this year, he thought the main principles of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget were absolutely sound. For much the right hon. Gentleman had done he would receive the gratitude of this House and the country. But he was even more grateful for what the Budget did not do than for what it did. It did not commit the House or the country to old-age pensions, and it did not ease up one halfpenny of revenue at the expense of the Debt. Everyone would admit that the right hon. Gentleman had done well in placing £1500,000 to the Debt. That was a very great advance made on any previous payment made in one year to the re-establishment of our national credit, and everyone must admit that the right hon. Gentleman had done well in that respect. Though that repayment was large, it was by no means too large. If this matter was considered from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite who were continually urging the adoption of business principles, it appeared to him that it was the minimum which the House had a right to expect in a time of profound peace. The National Debt at 31st March last was: funded £631,929,000, and unfunded £143,347,210, making together £775,276,210. In addition there were contingent liabilities amounting to £570,000,000, making the national liabilities of all kinds £1,345,276,210. Let him examine the situation in the light of the most elementary business principles. The total income of the country was at least £1,800,000,000 a

    109
    year. The total expenditure at the outside lumping everything together, was £170,000,000. The country had therefore in hand, after paying the whole expense of Government every year, at least £1,630,000,000. What would be thought of an individual who, with an income of £1,800, a necessary expenditure of £170, liabilities of £1,345 and an absolute debt of £775, should pay off only £15 of that debt in one year? It was only about 2 per cent. of the absolute Debt; and he took leave to say that if the credit of the country was to be established in that position it ought to be, it should be regarded as a rule that, at least in times of peace, not less than 2 per cent of the Debt should be paid off annually. The right hon. Gentleman added £1,500,000 to the new Sinking Fund, so that the total fixed charge now amounted to £29.500,000. But the right hon. Gentleman regarded that £1,500,000 as an investment only; it was earmarked for old-age pensions. He did not understand what exactly the right hon. Gentleman meant by that. If this money was to be added to the fixed charge for debt, how was it to be free and ear— marked for old-age pensions?
    MR. ASQUITH: For this year only.
    MR. BOWLESsaid that then this money was ear-marked not for old-age pensions, but for the reduction of Debt. He thought that everyone must agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal in regard to sweeping away root and branch the system by which the proceeds of certain duties were intercepted on their way to the Exchequer. From his youth upwards he had been taught to dislike and to distrust the whole system of interception; and he was glad to see any portion of it swept away, not because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, its abolition would free his hands, but because, so far as £10,000,000 were concerned, the hands of Parliament would be freed, and the control of the House would be reassumed. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to make equivalent grants to the local authorities. There were a great many charges on this fund. There were the agricultural rates. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with them
    110
    when he said that he was going to put the local authorities in the same position as they were now in, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the equivalent grant was to be made for this year, or for the future. The Local Taxation Account, however, did not represent the whole of the money which was intercepted. As he had shown, a larger sum was annually intercepted in the form of appropriations-in-aid. These large sums were granted not by the House of Commons but by the Treasury; and the House of Commons could not touch, reduce, or even discuss them. If interception was wrong in one case it was wrong in the other; and he earnestly pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability and necessity of making a clean sweep of the whole of this obnoxious system, and of reverting to the great and simple rule of Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1866, that all public moneys should be instantly sent to the Exchequer, and that all issues for public services should be made through the Exchequer and not otherwise. So far he entirely agreed with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman; but he came now to the right hon. Gentleman's modification of existing taxes. Therein he thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown extremely doubtful wisdom. The income-tax, with all its faults, was the most admirable instrument of extortion ever designed. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the income-tax "must now be regarded as an integral and permanent part of our financial system." It might be regarded as anything they pleased; but he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would inevitably force him or his successors, to abandon either the present proposals or the tax altogether. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up a system of differentiation, and he founded himself on the Report of the Select Committee. He did not know whether the right lion. Gentleman's studies had led him to the Appendices of the Report of that Select Committee, in which it was shown that thee existed at this moment differentiation amounting to 100 per cent. in favour of earned incomes as compared with unearned incomes. To that the right hon. Gentleman added another 25 per

    111
    cent., on the lower incomes; so that an; advantage of 125 per cent was given to the man who, instead of saving and providing for the future, spent his earnings. That was inconsistent with sound policy. It seemed to him that this distinction attempted to be drawn between earned and unearned incomes could not in practice be maintained. There were hundreds of thousands of men in this country who after a life of long labour had saved enough to live on. How could it be said that the income of such men was unearned? His belief was that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would involve a quarrel between the Inland Revenue and these whose income was under £2,000, who constituted the bulk of the people who paid income-tax. The system involved a direct and full assessment of all these whose incomes were under £2,000. Hitherto a full disclosure of their exact financial position was only demanded from men whose income was under £700; but they were now going to include also men with incomes between £700 and £2,000. He represented as many of these persons as any Member in this House, and he was assured that they were the very people who would most resent the proposal to compel: them to make a full disclosure of their financial position. The tax would no: longer be an income-tax, but a notion— tax. What would be taxed henceforward would be not income at all, but the notion as to the character of that income held by the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. The provision for a compulsory return which amounted to forcing everybody to give a legal opinion on a point of extreme difficulty, viz., what was not his real but his statutory income would provoke extraordinary dislike and resistance. So also with the increased penalties, the lengthened time in which proceedings would be taken, and the compulsory return which employers must make of the incomes of their employees. And what did the right hon. Gentleman expect to get in return? Did he expect to receive the gratitude or affection of what were called the middle classes by his proposals? The middle classes were not for sale, and if they were their price would be a good deal
    112
    higher than the right hon. Gentleman was willing or able to offer. The right hon. Gentleman would not get their gratitude, and he would lose £2,000,000 of revenue. He thought the income-tax proposals of the right hon. Gentlemen were really foolish proposals, which would defeat themselves, and might go far to smash the tax altogether. The death duties were an admirable form of duty if they were equitably applied, but to increase the unjust and foolish graduation of the Act of 1894 was a very great blunder which, in his opinion, would result not in an increase of revenue, but in an increase of evasion. Taking all the estate duties together, there was on some estates a possible tax of 19 per cent. Now there would be a possible tax of over 20 per cent. A few weeks ago a large estate passed twice within six weeks, and under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, such an estate might be nearly halved in that short time. Such duties offered an enormous temptation to evasion and to the very persons most able to evade them. He did not think the right lion. Gentleman would, by means of his new proposals, obtain £1,200,000 a year. He felt, however, that they all owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the main lines upon which he had proceeded, but he thought that in his genuine desire to meet what were felt to be injustices and grievances in regard to the income-tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had merely introduced new and more obvious injustices and grievances which, without any conceivable advantage to the revenue, might go far to smash the tax altogether. The income-tax and estate duty proposals were dangerous and quite unnecssary blemishes on an otherwise sound and courageous budget.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid the hon. Member for Norwood had drawn a lurid and terrifying picture of the financial position of the nation, and he should really like to reassure him. The hon. Member had said that our expenditure was £170,000,000, but he had included in that sum the whole of the £17,000,000 which represented the outgoings of the Post Office, which, of course, were counterbalanced by revenue

    113
    on the other side, to say nothing of £5,000,000 profit into the bargain." If his hon. friend would go into the figures he would find that our expenditure was £125,000,000, and even if he added the local taxation account lie could not make it up to more than £135,000,000. Then the hon. Member had said that the liabilities of the country were £1.345,000,000. Where did the hon. Gentleman get that figure? He got it by adding to the National Debt, properly so called, which represented the money sunk in past wars, and which had not against it any tangible assets whatever, the hundreds of millions of pounds more which were borrowed by municipalities, and which were represented at this moment by tangible assets, such as waterworks, gasworks, and many other valuable undertakings. In the case of Warrington it was stated at a council meeting the other day that Warrington's undertakings could be sold out for something like 26s. 8d. in the £of the borrowed capital. What was true of Warrington was true of many other places, and if municipal undertakings were in the market there was not the slightest doubt that they would be at once bid for by company promoters at many times the figure which the hon. Gentleman had been good enough to add to our National Debt.
    MR. BOWLESsaid the question of whether a good or bad use was made of borrowed money did not alter the fact that it had been borrowed.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that it was equally true that joint stock companies borrowed their capital. Would the right hon. Gentleman on that account add the railway capitals to our National Debt? However, he would not pursue the point further at that late period of the debate, but would address himself to the actual proposals of the Budget. He congratulated his right hon. friend as heartily and fully as the hon. Gentleman had done on his reduction of the National Debt, and there was only one caveat that he wanted to enter 'in regard to it. He had for years, in speaking to working-class audiences, represented to them that it was to their interest that the real debt
    114
    resting on the people of this country should be paid off as soon as possible I but, when we were raising the money which was to pay off that debt, ought we not to have regard to the means o: these who paid the money? The mean; of the taxpayer entered fully as much into every million we raised to pay of debt as it did in regard to every million we used for any other purpose and, it seemed to him that, while many excellent and sound principles were recognised in the Budget, and while they were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done, still he thought the Budget did not take sufficient account of the arguments he was advancing, and of the Resolution which was unanimously accepted by the House before the Easter recess to the effect that, having regard to the wealth and the distribution of the wealth of the United Kingdom, it was their duty to readjust taxation in order to provide for necessary social reforms. What he had to say was chiefly directed to that head, to which he would address himself very briefly. According to his calculations—he would not give the details there, but would go over them, in private with any hon. Member who would have the patience to hear what he had to say— according to the figures lie had got out, when they had reckoned up the whole of the various sums paid in the way of taxation by various classes of this country, the people with incomes of over £5,000 a year paid, treating it all as income-tax, a tax but a few pence higher than the tax which was paid by the manual labourer. The manual labourer paid, if all taxes were reduced to an income-tax, an average of Is. 5d. in the £, while rich people of over £5,000 a year income paid Is. 7d., or say only 2d. more. His right hon. friend had not, he thought, paid sufficient, attention to that, and he did not think he sufficiently recognised the fact that not only the manual labourers but the black coated working men were paying too much, especially if regard was paid to the case of the average clerk with a small salary, the average traveller, the average journalist, the average shopkeeper, or the average schoolmaster. The last— named, for instance, began at £70 to £80, and if he reached his maximum, he only got £200 a year.

    115
    That was a class of income-tax payer to which this Budget did not do sufficient justice. Why was that? Because his right hon. friend had had regard to the minor and not to the major injustice. That was to say, as to the man who had earned £200 and the man who received £200 which he had not earned, it was obviously unjust to tax them alike. Then again, to tax a man with £200 a year income earned or unearned and the man with £5,000 a year at the same rate was to do a great injustice. His right hon. friend had had regard to one injustice but not to the other, and if regard had been had to the main injustice the middle classes would have had more relief than they had received. Under the present proposals a man with £200 a year would gain relief to the extent of 10s. a year, but supposing the sugar duty had been repealed he would have gained 16s. a year. He would therefore have gained more by the repeal of the sugar duty than he did by the reduction of the income-tax on incomes below £2,000. Again, when they examined the details of the Budget proposals and asked themselves who were the people who, after all, gained most, they found that the nearer a man approached towards the top of that arbitrary line of £2,000 the greater advantage he got. By the reduction in the income-tax the man with £2,000 a year gained £25 while the man with £200 a year gained only 10s. That he was sure his right hon. friend would agree did not leave the incidence of our taxation in a satisfactory position. He was glad to hear that his right hon. friend had no intention of permanently continuing the sugar tax. By his remarks in introducing the Budget some people thought that the sugar tax was to be kept and that a part or the whole of it was to be devoted to old-age pensions, a proposition which should be resisted. Reverting to the income-tax he pointed out that most extraordinary injustice was created by the £2,000 a year limit. The man with £2,000 a year paid £75, while the man with £2,200 paid £110, or a difference of £35. That was the natural result of drawing arbitrary lines. He would be the last to criticise the Budget merely on hard cases, but he pointed out that so long as arbitrary lines were drawn they would have these hard cases arising. He
    116
    thought the way out of it would ultimately be found to lie in a properly graduated income-tax, graduated by sufficient steps to enable justice to be done between man and man, while it would not induce people to make false declarations to get under a large step in the scale. Let them take the step as between £700 and £2,000 a year. It was obvious, human nature being what it was, the man with £2,200 would be sorely tempted to declare his income at £2,000 a year in order to get within that step. They all thought the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer made a false point when he said that it would be a hardship upon the working men, who had so far evaded the income-tax, if new regulations were made which would bring them within it. He was the first to agree that such working men who had the good fortune to earn over £160 a year ought to be brought within it, and he knew a number of them who paid income-tax. Why did they pay it? Because they were in the employ of limited liability companies who had to make a return of the wages of their employees; but how unfair it was that a man in such an employ should have to pay income-tax, while the man who worked for a private employer did not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had only just missed making a very good point in that connection. He said that without intention of discourtesy. If a man had a mixed income (an income from a business returned under Schedule D. and an income from Consols or other securities) amounting to £10,000 a year, he had not to declare his whole income. That of course prevented him being taxed justly. But that man was to sit down and disclose the secrets of his employees and say that Tom Smith received £300 a year and John Jones £500, and so on. That point entirely disposed of the argument frequently used against personal declaration of all incomes—the argument that they only obtained disclosure of incomes by offering the abatements as art advantage. No advantage was offered, because the employers would have to sit down and declare the total income of their employees. But what they had to do for their employees they had not to do for themselves. Nearly 1000,000 out of 1,100,000 income-taxpayers had to declare their income in one way or another, while the other 100,000, the rich, were to

    117
    be left out of account. The question of a graduated income-tax was surely settled as to its practical applicability by the example of Prussia. Prussia had a population about equal to the population of this country, though its wealth was not so great. It was a great industrial country and had its great landlords and great industrial corporations and possessors of incomes from many sources just as we had. Prussia found it necessary to take its income-tax down to incomes as low as £45 a year. That was because the standard of living was not so high and the wages and profits were lower. But on the other hand they carried their graduation up to incomes of £5,000, an income analagous to £10,000 a year in this country. It followed that if we adopted the same principle of graduation of income-tax as that in force in Prussia we should graduate up to incomes of £10,000 or £15,000, in which case the ends of justice would be substantially served. If such a system were adopted there would also be an end of the silly talk about a "shilling "or "ninepenny" income-tax which in practice did not exist. Few people had been paying a "shilling" at all, but a "shilling" tax was felt as though it existed. It must be borne in mind that in politics sentimental grievances were quite as important and had just as much to be taken into account as real grievances. By adopting a graduated income-tax not only would real grievances but also purely imaginary ones be remedied. The income-tax in this country was Is. in the £ or 5 per cent. In Prussia it was 5 per cent., in addition to which there was a property tax of 1¼per cent. which gave 6¼per cent. for Imperial purposes; he commended that to hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that if we had Protection we should have no income-tax. In Prussia a limited company was allowed to deduct 3½per cent. from its profits, and then had to pay income-tax upon the remainder, and when these profits were distributed the individuals who received them had to pay income-tax all over again. Did hon. Gentlemen who talked about capital being driven out of this country by Is. income-tax suggest that capital was being driven out of Germany by these taxes? If so, where did that capital go? All the experience of death
    118
    duties and the high income-tax during the war went to show that reasonable taxation such as was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not drive capital out of the country. If we adopted a system of graduation a form for personal declaration might be adopted as simple as that in force in Prussia. With regard to the increased death duties he appealed to his right hon. friend to revise the scale which he had set up. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a fortune of £2,000,000 would pay 10 per cent. on the first £1,000,000 and 12 per cent. on the second. That was 11 percent, on the whole, then why not say so, or better still why not raise the duty to the higher of the two percentages and say that a fortune of £2,000,000 should pay 11 per cent. and a fortune of £3,000,000 and over 12 per cent. and so on. He now came to the "nucleus" for old-age pensions. In the first place that nucleus was a problematical sum which could only be realised if good trade continued into the financial year ending 31st March, 1909. They must not forget that. Against that, on the other hand, they must remember that, if trade held good, the nucleus might be much larger. Undoubtedly the administrative income tax reforms were likely to yield much new revenue. He would not be surprised to find 100,000 more income-tax payers brought to light by these proposals. Therefore the nucleus might be much larger than £2,000,000.At the same time he ventured to urge that the sugar tax must go. It was not for them to come to the House to support proposals for the continuation of the sugar tax, and they wanted a definite statement from the Government that it was not to be made permanent. The Board of Trade returns shewed that the consumption of sugar before this tax came into operation was 90 lbs. per head of the population, and that in 1905 it was only 76 lbs. per head. That was a very serious fact. It might to some extent be attributable to lowlwages, but it could not be denied that it was also attributable to this tax. Then again they were to have old-age pensions: he wished to know what sort of pensions they were to be, and who were the people to have them. He did not think they ought to be satisfied to lay down their work in the

    119
    House and go to the country unless they granted pensions to persons of sixty-five years of age and upwards and not seventy years. The lower age would involve a very large sum of money. How were they to get? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, sought to get it by taxing our imports, raising the price of the food of the people, and endangering the supply of raw materials. But the revenue could not be raised by such means without endangering the very sources of our prosperity. He submitted that the only sensible solution was to be found in a graduated income-tax. In view of the fact that this country had, above the income-tax line, an income, which probably reached about £1,000,000,000, in 1907 we certainly ought not to deny succour to the aged poor merely because it would cost £20,000,000 or £25,000,000. Our means were ample. There was something even more important than old-age pensions, and that was the care of the child, which had been so eloquently referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He submitted that if we spent more on the education and nurture of the child there would be less need for old-age pensions. In conclusion he ventured to disagree with his right hon. friend when he uttered that mournful epigram that he believed in the right of every man to make less than the best of himself. Surely if evasion of taxation was denounced in that House, evasion of work should be warmly condemned. The man who refused to contribute to the national dividend made other men work for him.
    SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he had no intention of occupying the time of the Committee at any length. He desired to put one question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the exemption and abatement on incomes of married persons. He thought the time had come when some relief from income-tax should be given to married persons who each had a small income. A man and a woman with incomes of £400 a year got a rebate of £160 each when single, but if these two married, their incomes were put together and they were not allowed to claim any abatement. Yet two sisters or two brothers who had similar incomes and lived together could each claim abate-
    120
    ment. If the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to admit the principle of giving the whole abatement in such cases he might have allowed three-fourths. So strongly did he feel on the subject that he moved as an Amendment, that a further penny be taken off the income-tax.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the words 'one shilling,' and insert the words' eleven pence,"—(Sir William Bull.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
    MR. ASQUITHhoped the hon. Gentleman would not insist on the Amendment, at any rate at this stage. He thought himself that it would be the height of absurdity to reduce the income-tax by a penny for the whole population in order to deal with what, after all, could only be a grievance in the case of a very limited class. If married people were entitled to exemptions the matter could be dealt with quite well in Committee on the Bill. The Government could not possibly accept the Amendment. He would be prepared to discuss the Amendment with the hon. Gentleman when the fit occasion arose, but the loss to the revenue would be far greater than he probably had any conception of. It had been considered by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and rejected on that ground. On the other hand, a large concession was made a few years ago by which when the joint earned incomes did not exceed £500 they could be treated as separate.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he desired to deal with one point which had been referred to by the hon. Member for North Paddington. The only consolation given by the hon. Member to the House was that we had a national income of £1,000,000,000, per annum. The hon. Member seemed to regard that fact as satisfactory without having regard to the distribution of that income. He did not explain how in the face of this flourishing state of things there was such wide-spread destitution in the country, not among the very poorest classes only, but among the

    121
    labouring classes as well, through lack of employment. The one point which he wished to deal with was the statement in which the hon. Member ridiculed the assertion that capital was being driven out of of the country. He would like to put one concrete and deplorable case—that of a firm of manufacturers in Birmingham, who dealt in goods connected with the trade in weighing machines, who a few months ago were reluctantly compelled to transfer a large section of their works to the United States because so high a tariff had been raised against their goods. The Chairman in a most affecting speech said the shareholders would not suffer, that their dividends would probably be increased, because they would be able to supply not only America but England as well; but what concerned him more than he could say was the fact that they would be obliged to dismiss large numbers of men who had worked for the company for many years and employ American labour. He asked the hon. Member and the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that was not taking capital out of the country. It could not be denied, nor could it be denied that that was a typical case of what had been going on for years. He saw before him hon. Members who knew of numbers of firms who had had to transfer, or partially transfer, their trading concerns to other countries. In all cases the shareholders got an increase in their incomes from the same concern. When capital was transferred
    in this manner to foreign countries each case meant the discharge of a large number of workmen. Therefore, he hoped it would not be asserted again that there was no transfer of capital from this country on account of the system which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in spite of everything, would call free trade. The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he did that we had not got and never had had such a thing as free trade Whilst this country had been giving every facility foreign countries had been closing their markets to us, and if the right hon. Gentleman called that free trade he had a very peculiar idea of what free trade meant. He seemed to be
    MR. BOTTOMLEYupon a point of order, asked whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hammersmith was still before the Chair, or had it been withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has not been withdrawn, and the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley is not really in order on the Amendment, so it would be better to divide on the Amendment and dispose of it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 81. (Division List, No. 141.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Bethell, Sir, J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd

    Cameron, Robert

    Agnew, George William

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Billson, Alfred

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Ambrose, Robert

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Armitage, R.

    Boland, John

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Cleland, J. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clough, William

    Astbury, John Meir

    Brace, William

    Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

    Branch, James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brigg, John

    Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barker, John

    Brooke, Stopford

    Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Barlow. John Emott (Somerset

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J.T(Chesh.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cox, Harold

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Crean, Eugene

    Beauchamp, E.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Bell, Richard

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cairns, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shauhgnessy, P. J.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Shee, James John

    Dillon, John

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duffy, William J.

    Kelley, George D.

    Partington, Oswald

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Kettle, Thomas Michael

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pollard, Dr.

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Erskine, David C.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lambert, George

    Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Lament, Norman

    Pullar, Sir Robert

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Langley, Batty

    Radford, G. H.

    Faber, C. H. (Boston)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Leese. Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Levy, Maurice

    Reddy, M.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Lough, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lundon, W.

    Rees, J. D.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Gilhooly, James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Gill, A. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

    Glover, Thomas

    Lynch, H. B.

    Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, A.

    Grant, Corrie

    Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Gulland, John W.

    MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down,S.)

    Robinson, S.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    M'Crae, George

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Hall, Frederick

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Runciman. Walter

    Halpin, J.

    M'Kean, John

    Russell. T. W.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc.)

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Scarisbrick. T. T. L.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Harwood, George

    Maddison, Frederick

    Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Sears, J. E.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Hazelton, Richard

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Shackleton. David James

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Massie, J.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehy, David

    Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

    Menzies, Walter

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Mond, A.

    Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Snowden, P.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Montagu, E. S.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Mooney. J. J.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Hodge, John

    Morell,' Philip

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hogan, Michael

    Merton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Murnaghan, George

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Murphy, John

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

    Murray, James

    Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Myer, Horatio

    Stuart, James: (Sunderland)

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Napier, T. B.

    Summerbell, T.

    Hudson, Walter

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Nichols, George

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nolan. Joseph

    Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Tillett, Louis John

    Jackson, R. S.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Tomkinson. James

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ure, Alexander

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    O'Grady, J.

    Vivian, Henry

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Hare Patrick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Kelly. James (Roscommon. N.

    Walton. Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    124

    125

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pandas, S.)

    Waring, Walter

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Young, Samuel

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Wedgwood, Josiah C

    Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Pease

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

    Nield, Herbert

    Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Balcarres, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York

    Pease. Herbort Pike (Darlingt'n

    Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

    Faber, Capt. W V. (Hants, W.)

    Percy, Earl

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Banner, John S. Harmwood-

    Fell, Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring. Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George R.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hunt, Rowland

    Starkey, John R.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn. Col. W.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Liddell, Henry

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.- Col A.R.

    Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Wor.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B.(Stuart-

    Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Cochran-Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, George

    Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

    Meyscy-Thompson, E. C.

    Corbett, T. I,. (Down, North)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Viscount Valentia.

    Cross, Alexander

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Question put. and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. SMEATONsaid he wished to raise a question which while of comparatively small importance to the Treasury was of great importance to a large and very deserving body of His Majesty's subjects, namely pensioners. He did not refer only to Government pensioners, but to all who drew pensions from whatever source, public or private. The question was raised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the Member for East Worcestershire, who asked what the position of a pensioner would be under the scheme of differentiation between "earned" and "unearned" incomes. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had an open mind on the subject, and would be glad to hear the argument on both sides. He (Mr. Smeaton) desired briefly to state the case for the pensioners, and, in doing so, thought he could not do better than
    126
    quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in contresting the condition of two classes of income-tax payers, represented by A and B. He would call the attention of the Committee to the following quotation. The right hon. Gentleman on Thursday last said—
    " The income-tax is really a two-fold tax, it is a tax on property and a tax on earnings. I start with this proposition, and a most important proposition it is, that it must now be regarded as an integral and permanent part of our financial system. It that proposition is once enunciated and admitted, it makes it impossible to justify, if there be any practical way of escape, the present incidence of the income tax. After you have reached the limit of abatement, which is now £700, the State taxes all incomes at the same rate, whatever may be their character or source. Just compare two cases. You have here A, a man who derives, we will say, £1,000 a year from a perfectly safe investment in the funds, perhaps accumulated and left to him by his father; on the other hand you have B, a man making the same nominal sum by personal labour in the pursuit of some arduous and perhaps precarious profession or some form of business. The one

    127
    is under no necessity to make provision either for his children or for old age—the income will go on being automatically received as long as the investment remains; the other, if a man of ordinary prudence, is bound, his work being carried on subject to risks to health and all the other vicissitudes of fortune, year by year to deduct from his nominal income and set aside a sufficient sum to make provision for contingencies in the future. To say that these two people are, from the point of view of the State, to be taxed in the same way is, to my mind, flying in the face of justice and common sense."
    He considered, and believed the Committee would agree with him, that the case of B was exactly the case of the pensioner. Pensions, whether in business or in Government service, were all on the same footing. They wore simply the balance of salary for work done— paid to the worker when his busy life was over, and when, as so often happened, he had a very short time left to enjoy it. The Committee knew how precarious was the life of men who came home after a long term of service abroad, and how urgent was the necessity imposed on them to stint and save from their pension for the sake of their families. Pensions were of two kinds, contributory and non-contributory. Non-contributory pensions were simple deferred pay. Contributory pensions were doubly deferred pay. Now to return to the Chancellor's illustration of A and B. The investments of A remained after his death, while the pension of the pensioner vanished at his death. It seemed to him that the case of the contributory pension was even stronger than that of the non-contributory pension; because at the death of the pensioners not only did the pension vanish, but also the entire contribution of a lifetime. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, when he came to define "earned" incomes for the purposes of differentiation include in "earned" incomes all pensions, whether contributory or otherwise.
    MR. HUNTsaid that an hon. Member below the (Tang way on the other side had said that it was very difficult to drive capital out of this country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had claimed this as one of the advantages of free trade, but they had the authority of the present
    128
    secretary of the Cobden Club for the statement that during the last fifty years the capital and plant of this country had been steadily flowing abroad, so that we now owned thousands of manufactures in all parts of the world. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that this was another of the advantages of free trade? In his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "We are a free trade Government in a free trade country."
    Were we? He did not think we were even a bad imitation of a free trade country. At all events some of the necessaries and most of the luxuries of the working classes were heavily taxed, and so were our exports by which the working classes got their work and wages. He could not see where freedom of trade came in in our case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself that all the money produced by the present import taxes on the necessaries and luxuries of the poor went straight into the exchequer, but he quite forgot to state also that all the money on these necessaries and luxuries of the poor came straight out of the pockets of the poor, because there was no competition with an un-taxed supply. We appeared to be ruled to a great extent by catch words in this country, and the word "free-trade" was one of them. We had not got anything approaching free-trade in this country. If it were not for the word "free" which was stuck in very wrongly in regard to our trade, he did not believe that the working classes would be taken in by the present absurd system of taxation. He did not believe that they would believe it very long. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech told the House that free trade was the breath of life to us. With all due respect he hardly thought that anybody except an English Cobdenite lawyer could have made such an absurd statement. On the 1st of March last the Minister of the Interior in the German Parliament said he would like to know who invented the fairy tale that Great Britain was a free trade, country. He (the German Minister) said that he found as the result of careful calculation that he had established the fact that the import duties per head of the population in Great Britain

    129
    were 16s. 8½d.; in America, 14s. 11½ and in Germany only 10s. 6d. Moreover that this was not all, for while in Great Britain the duties were imposed mainly on the necessaries of the poor, in Germany they were levied to a very great extent on manufactured goods which were not in any sense necessaries of life to the poor. In 1894, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that English trade in these days carried on its operations under great formidable and increasing difficulties and that the tariff walls which excluded us from foreign market; were every day getting higher. Another great authority, the Secretary for India, in a speech at Manchester in 1903 stated that it was a matter of life and death to us to persuade other nation. to rally to the free trade flag and com: round to the open door. If it was a matter of life and death to us we had not been doing very well lately, because other nations had been getting further and further away from what the right hon. Gentleman called the free trade flag. Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer called this a free trade country he imposed a 30 per cent. tax on sugar which he said was a necessity and food for working people; he imposed 25 per cent. on coffee, Id. on raw cocoa, 2d. practically on manufactured cocoa, and 75 per cent. on tea, all these things being really necessities of the poor. Besides, there was the heavy taxation on beer and tobacco. Yet the wonderful Liberal Party were allowed to go about the country shouting that a possible tax of part of half a farthing on the four-pound loaf would bring starvation on the people. It seemed to him that this system of taxation was so arranged that the poor paid all the taxes on the things which they used and that they paid all in the increased prices because there was no competition with the untaxed supplies. That was what hon. Gentlemen opposite called free trade. Our system of taxation was so framed that it taxed the poor very heavily, while to a great extent it prevented the working classes of the country from earning the wages which they ought to earn in manufacturing the luxuries which rich people used in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he could not
    130
    tax motor-cars. He did not think, however, that it would have required a very desperate effort to have put about 12 per cent. on foreign motor-cars. That would have been about equal to the rates and taxes which the manufacturers paid in this country for the motor-cars they made, and the right hon. Gentleman might have had all the money he got from it for old-age pensions.
    MR. ASQUITHasked how much this would come to.
    MR. HUNTsaid that the importation last year was about £4,000,000 worth, and he left it to the right hon. Gentleman to reckon up what the yield of the tax would be, as he was no doubt better at arithmetic It seemed to him that as long as the right hon. Gentleman stuck to the system which he was pleased to call free trade and refused to tax the luxuries of the rich and the manufactured goods which we could make in this country it was; perfectly absurd for him to pretend that he would be able to give old-age pensions to the working people of the country. It appeared to him that they were ruled by a Ministry of lawyers, and that their ideas of economy and their policy were ending in the driving out of home and work thousands of honest working men at Woolwich and other places who for many years had served their country well, while on the other hand they received with open arms all the diseased and indigent riff-raff of the Continent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is now saying has no reference to the question before Committee.
    MR. HUNTsaid he was sorry if he was out of order, but he thought the fact that aliens came in here did affect the question of taxation. It appeared that hon and right hon. and earned Gentlemen on the front Government Bench were full of old-fashioned out-of-date Cobdenite theories which were repudiated by all the rest of the civilised nations of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: Except Turkey.] He did not know that Turkey was counted. They were so full, too, of legalities and technicalities that their undoubtedly

    131
    great Drams had no room for even a little bit of ordinary common sense. He was only sorry that he could not tell them in the House of Commons in downright strong Anglo-Saxon what he thought of the absurdity and even cruelty of their policy toward the working classes of the country.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLORhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fully considered the difficulties of distinguishing between earned and unearned income in business. He would take the case of three brothers in partnership earning, say, £1.000 a year each. For purposes of their own they turned their business into a limited liability company. If they took £1,000 a year each as salary their income was earned. If they took £200 a year in salary they had to pay on £800 a year as unearned income. It seemed to him that there was need for very careful; study of this matter. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in spite of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Ludlow, had a little room left in his brain to think out this problem. It was not so easy as it looked. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division had said that firms who formed themselves into limited liability companies ought to pay on their dividends as unearned income. That depended, of course, upon the motives which these firms had in forming themselves into limited liability companies. It was to the interest of the community to encourage employers to give shares out of profits to their employees. He had gone in for that plan and had found it was a good one for both sides. It was not a motive contrary to: but in favour of the public interest. He would take his own company. That company at its formation paid toll to the State on its capital. Was it right and was it in the public interest that these of its members with incomes between £160 and £2,000 a year should be further fined because the concern had been made a company? He thought that some consideration should be given to firms whose motive, at all events, were quite clearly in line with public, interest in forming their concerns into limited liability companies. He hoped it
    132
    would be his lot to be always above the sum that would not have any advantage. It had not always been so in the past. But there were several men in his concern which this matter would affect, and it was in the public interest, he maintained, to encourage employers, not only to give a share of their profits to their employees, but to go further, and, as was done in some cases in France, and as he did himself, give that share of profits in the shape of shares in the company itself. They ought to increase the motive that would cause employers to do this kind of thing and not diminish it. He wished to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget. He had never hoard before such a doctrine as that expressed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he condemned the present Chancellor for demanding from employers a list of salaries paid to their employees, and approved of the evasion of the tax that had been practised in the past. If they had laws let them carry them out. He was glad to say his firm — though not compelled to give particulars—had done so in the past, because neither his firm nor the employees desired to evade what he believed was the most just tax in principle, though it did not always work out to be the most equitable tax in practice. As to the sugar tax he did not agree with the Chancellor that it could not have conveniently been halved. He was very sorry it was not at least reduced. The only excuse for leaving it on was the near prospect of old age pensions. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on carrying still further the death duties, and he would ask these who represented labour not to be too suspicious of the Government, because, after all, they could catch more flies with treacle than with vinegar. He believed in the genuineness of this Government's promises to the House of Commons that they would make a real beginning with old-age pensions. He looked upon them with trust and hope and a firm conviction that they meant what they said, and that they believed they would do far better to wait a little until they could make a real substantial beginning. He did not believe in individuals or in Governments that made too many promises; but he did believe

    133
    that this Budget was a stop towards a great advantage to the aged poor next year; and for that reason he supported it.
    MR. MARKHAMsaid lie wanted to show that the tax was evaded in the case of foreign bonds and coupons the interest on which was paid in New York, Paris or London.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that it was absolutely necessary that this Resolution

    Where the Principal Value of the Estate

    Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

    Instead of

    Exceeds—

    £

    £

    150,000 and does not exceed

    250,000

    Seven pounds

    Six pounds ten shillings

    250,000 and does not exceed

    500,000

    Eight pounds

    Seven pounds

    500,000 and does not exceed

    750,000

    Nine pounds

    Seven pounds ten shillings

    750,000 and does not exceed

    1,000,000

    Ten pounds

    Seven pounds ten shillings

    1000,000 and does not exceed

    1,500,000

    Ten pounds on one million and eleven pounds on the remainder

    Eight pounds

    1 500,000 and does not exceed

    2,000,000

    Ten pounds on one million and twelve pounds on the remainder

    Eight pounds

    2,000,000 and does not exceed

    2,500,000

    Ten pounds on one million and thirteen pounds on the remainder

    Eight pounds

    2,500,000 and does not exceed

    3,000,000

    Ten pounds on one million and fourteen pounds on the remainder

    Eight pounds

    3,000,000

    Ten pounds on one million and fifteen pounds on the remainder

    Eight pounds

    —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

    Income-tax(Inclusion of all Offices and Employments in Schedule E).
    3. Resolved, That the income-tax charged on offices or employments of profit, whether public or not, be charged
    should be carried to-night, and he asked if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to postpone his observations.
    Estate Duty.
    2. Resolved, That in the ease of persons dying on or after the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, the rates of estate duty under section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1894. be amended so that—
    under Schedule E in the Income-tax Act, 1853.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Income—tax (Limitation on the Aggregate Amount of Deductions or Repayments for Wear and Tear).
    4. Resolved, That no deduction or re payment be allowed in any year in respect of the diminished value, by reason of wear and tear, of any machinery or plant which, when added to the deductions or repayments allowed on that account in previous years, will make the aggregate amount of the deductions or repayments exceed the actual cost of the machinery or plant.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Income-tax (Abolition of Repayments in respect of Assessment on Average Income).
    5. Resolved, That any abatement, relief, or repayment of income-tax under section one hundred and thirty-three of the Income-tax Act, 1842, as amended by section six of the Revenue Act, 1865, shall cease.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Income Tax (Assessment on Trades, etc., recently commenced).
    6. Resolved, That income-tax charged under Schedule D in the Income-tax Act, 1853. on professions, trades, or vocations shall, in the case of professions, trades, or vocations which have been set up or commenced within the three years on which the average income is to be computed under the Income-tax Acts or within the year of assessment, be charged with reference to the actual profits or gains arising in the year of assessment.— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LOCAL TAXATION GRANTS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient that the following grants to Local Taxation Accounts, namely—

  (1)The Estate Duty grants paid under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1894; and

  (2)The Agricultural Rates grant paid under Section 2 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896; and

  136

  (3)The Scottish Agricultural Rates grant paid under Section 3 of the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896,

  instead of being paid out of the revenues out of which they are payable under the present law, be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but in the case of the grants which are payable during the continuance of any temporary Act, only so long as that Act is continued, and that where under the present law the proceeds of any duties are paid to any local taxation account, a sum equal to the proceeds of these duties at their present rates be paid to that account out of the Consolidated Fund, and the actual proceeds of the duties be paid into the Exchequer.—(Mr. Runciman.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SIR HORACE PLUNKETT.
  MR. MURPHYrose to call attention to the position of Sir Horace Plunkett as Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and to move the following Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tipperary:—"That the position of Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland was intended by Parliament to be and in fact is a Ministerial and Parliamentary office, properly vacated upon a change of Government, and that the retention of that office by a political opponent of the Government of the day is undesirable as a permanent arrangement." The hon. Member said that all his colleagues regretted the illness of the hon. Member for South Tipperary who was to have proposed this Motion. In consequence he had to take it up at very short notice, but while it was a subject on which much could be said, very little ought to be necessary in the present House of Commons. The Motion dealt with the occupation of a purely Ministerial and political office in Ireland by an ex-Unionist Member of Parliament, and they asked the Government to deal with the question constitutionally and without further delay. In the year 1899 an Act was passed by the Tory Government creating a Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland. With that Department and its work this debate had nothing

  137
  to do. Some people would say the work was good and the results satisfactory. Many others would say that the work was great only as far as the expenditure of £500,000 a year was concerned, but that the grass grew no greener or thicker nor did the hens lay more largely or more quickly in consequence. With these different views, however, the Motion did not deal; it referred to the occupation of a political and Parliamentary office by Sir Horace Plunkett— the Vice-President of the Department. Who was Sir Horace Plunkett? He hid written a book for the advantage of these who wished to criticise him, in which he told the people of Ireland all about their lack of moral courage, independence and self-reliance, their excessive and extravagant church building, and their anti-economic religion; but these things could be passed "by to-day as he had no desire to say anything to injure the literary skill that was strong enough to inspire the Rev. James O'Donovan, from London, W. to fill the Daily Chronicle of yesterday with his recollections of Loughrea—though in part only. Sir Horace Plunkett was a Unionist Member of the House of Commons from 1892 to 1900. He was still a Unionist, and it was not his fault that he was not a Member also. He was defeated in South Dublin, in 1900, as a Unionist candidate, and a few years later even the ancient city of Gal way, so varying in the character of its political affections, would live nothing to do with the philanthropic Unionist, and elected a gentleman, who, if he had acted more consistently, might now be in the running for a position in Ireland that had already been secured by his confederate General Botha in the Transvaal. Anyhow, with all the power of the Department behind him, and used by him, with his way paved with good intentions, smoothed by the attentions of the uncles and friends of his staff, and guarded by Scottish professors, he remained without a seat in Parliament when the present Government came into office in 1906. He was then a Unionist and was still a Unionist. He subscribed to the funds of the Unionist candidate for South Dublin. No doubt he still thought of the way to make the Irish people cease to dream of Home Rule, and
  138
  within the last few days the mischief-makers of the daily press—the Daily Mail, the Globe, the Pall Mall Gazette — had all joined their voices with the Tory Belfast Chamber of Commerce, the Ulster Liberal Unionist Alliance, the Sien Fein newspaper in Ireland, and the Rev. James O'Donovan, now in society and no longer of Loughrea, to keep the Unionist politician in a Ministerial office in a Liberal Government. In the absolutely united opinion of the Irish Nationalist Members the Liberal Government had kept him there too long. He often heard it said at home that whatever Government was in office in this country, the Tories were in power in Ireland. This transaction and some others gave colour to that statement. When Sir Horace Plunkett accepted the position of Vice-President in 1899, Mr. Gerald Balfour and everybody else down to the London Times declared that it was a Ministerial office. Sir Horace Plunkett himself, in his speech after the defeat in South Dublin and also in his book, declared the office to be a political and Ministerial one. He should have gone therefore with the Tory Government in 1906; and the mysterious correspondence with Mr. Bryce, the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry that nobody asked for, and the introduction on it of Mr. Dryden from Canada, outside the jurisdiction, as Mr. Birrell had said some time ago, were all acts of a most objectionable kind to retain a Tory politician in a Liberal Government. What would the Liberal Party think of an arrangement to retain Lord Halsbury in office on the ground that his work for his family was not yet completed, or that a Committee of Inquiry was sitting to inquire into the intellectual capacity of his successor? They would not stand it, and the Liberal Member for Bow and Bromley would never dream of putting on the Notice Paper, as he had done on this matter, a defence of Lord Halsbury. When on March 13th, 1906, Mr. Bryce was asked about the retention of Sir Horace Plunkett he stated that the arrangement was a purely provisional one, and he hoped to give it some thought within the next few months. While Mr. Bryce was thinking he asked Sir Horace Plunkett to be silent in the expression of his political opinions;

  139
  but when six months had gone by, Mr. Bryce changed his ground somewhat, and in reply to a Question stated that no decision had yet been arrived at and the whole question was under the consideration of the Committee of Inquiry. The question could never be under the consideration of a Committee of Inquiry, and when Mr. Bryce sailed away over the waters of the broad Atlantic he trimmed his sails peculiarly and left behind him a variety of Commissions, a pious opinion about the Irish language, a plan for a University, and a Unionist politician in the person of Sir Horace Plunkett in a Ministerial office, to which no claim or title could possibly be made lot him. The Prime Minister, who was always can did and courteous upon Irish; matters, said at the end of last year that there never was any intention of converting an office of one character into an office of another character. The present Chief Secretary quoted this approvingly in the discussion raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo the other day, and he added that the Committee of Inquiry had nothing to do with the matter whatever. What Irish Nationalists wanted to know was when was it to be disposed of? Sir Horace Plunkett might be all that his; devoted admirers and most expectant followers claimed him to be, but he was as much a Unionist as the Member for North Armagh or Trinity College; he had only a different style. Technical education, co-operation, agricultural organisation, and all these other things were very nice sounding, but they could proceed on wrong lines. They lost much of their attractiveness for Irishmen when they saw that public money was used in connection with them, professedly not to drain the Bann or the Harrow, but to drain the national sentiment of the people. They knew, of course, that that was impossible, but they took their stand on the principle that the industrial revival could only go hand in hand with the national movement. It might be very fine to fall up from different parts of Ireland a large council, but they wanted them when they were called to I engage in some better work than when their day was occupied by Professor Campbell, at the suggestion of Sir Horace Plunkett on a recent occasion, lecturing
  140
  them on "The Abstract Merits of Tillage and Grass." If money was to be spent on education the Irish people we reclaiming that the primary system should be first dealt with before they could have the proper ground work for technical training;. But that evening they asserted, and it could not be contradicted, that Sir Horace Plunkett was a Unionist ex-Member of Parliament, and the occupant of a Parliamentary and Ministerial office in a Liberal Government, and they asked with a united voice and with some feeling, how long was this anomaly to be continued They expected and they demanded a definite statement from the Chief Secretary to the Motion which he begged to move.
  MR. MOONEY:in seconding, said that the Motion was put dawn by the Irish National Party and could in no way be taken as a personal attack on Sir Horace Plunkett. What; they were attacking was the retention of his present office by Sir Horace Plunkett. Since the Motion had. been placed upon the Paper they had noticed with curiosity but without surprise a very carefully engineered newspaper campaign on behalf of the present occupant of the office of Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. There was a curious similarity about the articles, and they were all careful and skilful pieces of special pleading. They were all most eulogistic defences of Sir Horace Plunkett and his policy., with which the Motion had nothing to do. The Motion made a clear and definite statement that this was a Parliamentary office. The answer that appeared in most of these newspaper articles was that it was not a Parliamentary office and that the gentleman who now occupied it was not a. Minister of the Crown. It was not often that Irishmen relied on such authorities as he would presently quote, but in this case he thought they must be regarded at all events by the official opposition as standard authorities. The first authority was The Times., and the second the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City. The origin of the position now held by Sir Horace Plunkett was to be found in the Report of what was called

  141
  the Recess Committee, which recommended that this department should consist of a Board with a Minister of Agriculture and Industries responsible to Parliament at its head, assisted by a Council. On that recommendation Mr. Gerald Balfour brought in the Irish Agricultural and Technical Industries Bill. That Bill distinctly exempted the Minister appointed to this position from seeking re-election if he were a Member of the House, clearly showing that this was to be a Ministerial appointment. And. so it was considered by Sir Horace Plunkett, who on the result of the South Dublin election made a speech in which he admitted, and in fact stated distinctly, that his political career as regarded that constituency was at an end as well as his public career as head of a public department. The next day The Times, commenting on the election wrote—
  Mr. Plunkett's position as Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture is not one which can well be held permanently by one who is not a Member of Parliament."
  During the Parliament of l900–l960 the position of Sir Horace Plunkett was vigorously assailed by Trish Members, not of the Party to which he had the honour to belong. There seemed to be some doubt as to whether Sir Horace Plunkett was or was not a person who ought to go out with a change of Government, and the lion. Member for South Donegal put a long question on the Paper asking for a definition of Sir Horace Plunkett's position. The first Question asked was whether the Vice-President would go out if the Ministry retired, and the answer was in the affirmative. It was undoubtedly the desire of the Government that the Vice-President should be a Member of the House, and he thought that it would be more convenient that it should be so, seeing that the late Government had undoubtedly recognised what they had maintained all along, that the moment that the late Government went out of office Sir Horace Plunkett, ipso facto, ceased to be a Member of the Government. That also proved that he was a Minister of the Crown. And there was another person who recognised it, and that was Sir Horace Plunkett himself. The Government went out of office in December last, and Sir Horace
  142
  Plunkett issued a letter to the officials of his department stating that in consequence of the retirement from office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, he would meet the officials of the department on a certain day and say "good-bye," as he would have to vacate his position. Shortly afterwards they learned with some astonishment that Sir Horace Plunkett had been reappointed to the position of Vice-President. Questions were asked in the House about what his actual position was. Sir Horace Plunkett was not a Minister nor was he an ordinary civil servant, and what they wanted to know was how it came about that a statutory office had been turned into a non-statutory office, and how a Minister of the Crown became a permanent official who yet was not a civil servant. They had been asked, "why bring forward the Motion? "The answer was very simple. In 1900 Sir Horace Plunkett intimated to the Government that he recognised that he had to resign. Hut that was shortly after the passing of the Act in 1899, and Sir Horace added that, owing to the confusion which would exist in the change he was quite willing to help the Government—it was the Government of his own Party—to take them temporarily out of the difficulty. He took them out of that difficulty for six years. Then a Liberal Government came into power, and they were told that Sir Horace Plunkett had resumed office to take the Liberal Government out of a temporary difficulty. And the suggestion was now made, alter the Government had been in office for a year, and had on the stocky a Bill dealing with Irish Government, by which it was quite possible that the Department over which Sir Horace Plunkett presided might be abolished, that he was going to retain his position temporarily until the Irish Bill was introduced. When were these temporary appointments going to be made permanent, or when were the permanent appointments going to be made temporary? This had now been going for seven years, and each time there was a change a new reason was put forward by somebody why the office, should be held temporarily. The next point, was that Sir Horace Plunkett, from the nature of his office, ought to be in that House. The Agriculture Department was not a small

  143
  one; its ramifications in every division of Irish life were extraordinary. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had yet had time to become acquainted with all the numerous Boards of which he was the head, but when they asked questions about the Department of Agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman was merely, he did not use the word offensively, the gramophone of some clerk in a back office in Dublin. They were entitled to have before them, as was intended by the Act of Parliament, the Government representative of the Department sitting on the Treasury Bench to respond to questions. Sir Horace Plunkett, if he chose, might seek a seat in that House, if he could find a constituency. He was perfectly certain that Sir Horace Plunkett was now and would remain a politician and a strong opponent of the present Government. Sir Horace Plunkett could seek election, and if returned there were two courses open to him. He could sit on the Treasury bench and answer questions as a Member of the Government, and make speeches attacking the Liberal Party. As a Unionist, he could, as a responsible Member of the Government, rise in his place beside his colleagues and denounce their policy. He could sit on the front Opposition bench, between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin and the right hon. Gentleman the member for Dublin University, and from there answer questions on behalf of the Government. He did not think that such a situation of things was ever contemplated; it would be ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt in his reply would refer to articles and Resolutions with reference to Sir Horace Plunkett. The articles were principally in such papers as the Daily Mail, the Globe, and the Spectator, and the Resolutions in his favour came from such strictly non-Party organisations as the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, who were non-political in the sense of the Tariff Reform League, and the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association. He wondered if the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about that association, or had ever seen a representative of that august body. He understood that this representative body consisted of about half a dozen gentlemen, eminently respectable, who met together for lun-
  144
  cheon, and when they had finished it, had their coffee and cigars in the smoke room and, suffused by a feeling of general good-will towards all men, drafted their resolutions and spoke as the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association. The only other point was that unless something was done at once they were afraid that this office, intended by Parliament to be a Parliamentary position, would become merely another of these Irish Boards out of which they could get no information, and from which the Chief Secretary was not able to get any adequate explanation. They feared that instead of having a Department identified with the whole country and responsible to that House, there would simply be added another to that large number of costly and extravagant Boards at work in Ireland, responsible to nobody, and over whom nobody had any real control. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the position of Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland was intended by Parliament to be and in fact is a Ministerial and Parliamentary office, properly vacated upon a change of Government, and that the retention of that office by a political opponent of the Government of the day is undesirable as a permanent arrangement."—(Mr. Murphy.)
  MR. BROOKEmoved as an Amendment "That, in view of the continued confidence expressed in the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett by the Council of Agriculture, two-thirds of whose members are directly appointed by the county councils of Ireland, it is inadvisable, before the House has had an opportunity of considering carefully the Report of the committee of inquiry into the organisation and working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, to make any change in Sir Horace Plunkett's tenure of the Vice-Presidency. "He said that he did not bring this Amendment forward in any spirit of hostility to hon. Members sitting on the Nationalist Benches. He had been a Home Ruler longer than many hon. Members opposite, and although the mover of the Resolution seemed to think it was somewhat extraordinary

  145
  that a Liberal Member should have a conviction different from that of the general body of Nationalists, he would not be at all surprised if the Nationalist Members upon some Subjects held an opinion different from that of the general body of Liberals. Therefore he thought he had a right to express his own convictions. He congratulated both the mover and seconder upon the moderation with which they had stated their case, and he hoped to state his views with equal moderation. He opposed this Resolution on two grounds. The first was that Members of Parliament, whether Unionist, Labour or Liberal, were being asked to pledge themselves to a certain course of action before a Committee which was inquiring into the subject had reported to the House. There had been a change since his Amendment in the form of words put forward in the Resolution, and instead of being asked to agree to a speedy termination of Sir Horace Plunkett's present tenure of office they were only asked to pledge themselves that it should not be a permanent arrangement. Why should all Members of Parliament be asked to pledge themselves to a definite conclusion on this question now? Why should they not be allowed to consider the Report first? He always understood that Blue-books were meant to be read and were intended to influence the minds of these who read them. Why should they not be allowed even to read this Blue-book which would go into the whole j question of the working and organisation of the Department of Agriculture, before they came to a definite conclusion? He thought that proceeding was a little high-handed. Sir Horace Plunkett was no more figure head, for he permeated the whole Department, and though the Report on his great work would be issued in a very short time, this Motion had been brought forward now. He protested against such action. He would protest against it even if Sir Horace Plunkett was out of the question, or even if a Liberal Government brought forward such a Motion when a Blue-book dealing with the subject of their Motion was ready to be issued. Under other circumstances; he was sure Nationalist Members would make the same protest. After listening
  146
  to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Resolution he failed to comprehend why hon. Members opposite were in such an extreme hurry to deprive the House of the right of fair and free consideration of this question. No one denied that the Act of 1899 provided that the Vice-President should not be incapable of sitting as a Member of Parliament. But to say that he might sit was not the same as saying that he must. And, whatever the intentions of the framers of the Act were, they had certainly exercised no compulsion on either the present or the late Government. Both had transgressed their intentions lightly for nearly seven years. Was it not a little odd that a Party, which had fought so often against British Acts, should now be displaying such unwonted zeal for this Act — or rather its declared intentions? After all, Acts were often modified in practice and by special circumstances. His second objection to the Motion was that the county councils of Ireland to whose representatives on the Irish Council of Agriculture Sir Horace Plunkett was responsible, had never asked for his dismissal from his post. These councils were ardently Nationalist, yet they seemed satisfied with the position of the head of the Department. Why, then, should Liberals do what the county councils had never asked should be done? The Resolution proposed that they should get rid of him as a political opponent of the present Government. That was scarcely a proposition that should commend itself to Liberals. The county councils were represented on the Council of Agriculture in the proportion of sixty-eight to thirty-four nominated members, thus outnumbering the nominated members by two to one. So that, if this widespread dissatisfaction really existed, the Council of Agriculture could make it plain whenever they pleased. As the county council representatives had never asked him to resign, he assumed that they had not looked upon this as a political appointment, but they regarded it as a business appointment, and looked upon him as, on the whole, the right man in the right place. On a recent occasion, when there was a desire on the part of Sir Horace to embark more fully on the co-operative principle, his policy had been strikingly confirmed. At that

  147
  meeting in November last there was an opportunity for the Council of Agriculture to Vote against Sir Horace Plunkett and his whole administration if they had wished to do so. They had a majority of two to one over the nominated members. The policy had been declared six months before, during which time they could have consulted every county council and taken instructions and could then have come back in November to overwhelm Sir Horace Plunkett and the nominated members together. What was the result? The result was the triumph of his policy by a Vote of fifty-two to twenty-five. He was told that that triumph would still have taken place if not one of the nominated members had voted on the Resolution. The Council of Agriculture had not asked for the dismissal of Sir Horace Plunkett for political or any other reasons. That was a. matter which this House should take into consideration. He was one of these Liberals who were very jealous of the rights of local authorities. He thought they were restricted and hampered by the Imperial Parliament far too much. He was in favour of Home Rule for Ireland and also Home Rule for the local authorities. Therefore, he did not think the House should be rushed to declare itself in a matter about which the county councils had not yet spoken. Let the councils have a chance of deciding first as to Sir Horace Plunkett. They had not declared against him and his administration. Why should they, as Liberals, overpower the local authorities? Personally he regretted that this Motion had been brought forward. He thought it was obvious enough that the whole question must come up on the Devolution Bill which the Government had promised. He failed to see why the question was not left over till the Bill was brought forward. The Motion having been made. he. as one who had a warm regard for Sir Horace Plunkett and his splendid work, had nothing left for him to do but to protest against it. He begged to move.
  SIR F.CHANNING,in seconding the Amendment, acknowledged the exceedingly temperate tone of the speeches made in support of the Motion, and especially that of the lion.
  148
  Member for Newry. who based his argument on constitutional grounds. But what they had really to consider was not so much a string of political perplexities based on elaborate hypotheses, but the plain fact that this was a Motion to humiliate and practically to order the immediate resignation of. perhaps, the one man who had been the best friend of Ireland — [cheers and NATIONALIST cries of "No "]—in his endeavours to bring together the best minds of Ireland. of whatever political complexion and of whatever creed, to work for the common good of the country. He contended that a man who had done that deserved well of his country and of the House, and his fellow-countrymen should not insist on inflicting on him such an uncalled-for humiliation. Rightly or wrongly, Sir Horace Plunkett had been invited by the responsible Minister of the Crown to continue in his office, because his genius and enthusiasm had. created the office and the work it was doing, and would materially help in completing the inquiry now in progress and in helping the Government to secure the best results from that inquiry. It was impossible for any Government not to recognise the services rendered by Sir Horace Plunkett in initiating agricultural and social reforms, and the man who had shown his qualities deserved the full, kindly, and generous consideration of the House. He said that with a full heart, because a small handful of men in this country, of whom he was one, had studied Sir Horace's ideas and reforms and had endeavoured in their own way to introduce similar methods of organisation in England. They had tried also, as Sir Horace Plunkett had, to banish from the discussion of agricultural and social reforms that hateful and detestable spirit of political and Party animosity which paralysed the best energies of men for usual objects. It was plain from the faces within their knowledge that Sir Horace Plunkett's conduct was absolutely correct. He had offered and expected to withdraw, and it was in the face of these facts that Mr. Bryce in explicit terms invited, Sir Horace Plunkett to set aside the usual considerations of Party and to retain his office, and,. indeed, insisted on his. doing so, in order

  149
  that the Government might have his support and help in the completion of their work. No one could challenge his sincere and resolute support of the Irish cause. He spoke as a convinced Home Ruler whose opinions had in no way changed. He welcomed the project of a Devolution Bill with all his heart, but he hoped the Government would not assent to this Motion. He thought it would be well for them to consider that it was an ill-omened prelude to the policy of devolution, a policy which would only bring good to Ireland and the United Kingdom if it was entered upon in a spirit of mutual consideration and fair play as between the different political sections and religious creeds in Ireland. It was only by the adoption of that spirit of conciliation which Sir Horace Plunkett taught and tried to carry out that the best results could be obtained, and he thought the Government would be ill-advised when starting on their policy in joining with lion. Members opposite inflicting humiliation on a man who had initiated the principles which should govern such a policy.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from 'that,' to end and insert 'in view of the continued confidence expressed fn the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett by the council of Agriculture. Two-thirds of whose members are directly appointed by the county councils of Ireland, it is inadvisable, before the House had an opportunity of considering carefully the He port of the Committee of Inquiry into the organisation and working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, to make any change in Sir Horace Plunkett's tenure of the Vice-Presidency."—(Mr, Brooke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DILLONsaid there was no one who would not recognise the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire as a consistent and faithful friend of Ireland. When the hon. Member made such a strong appeal to the Nationalist Members to consent to the retention in office of a man who, no matter what else could be said of him, was a Minister of the Crown and yet belonged to a Party opposed to the Ministry, he would ask him to apply the same method to his own Party. The hon. Member and himself
  150
  had been colleagues in the days of strain and storm and stress, but great as was his admiration for him he slid with all respect that even he assumed the habit, somewhat irritating to Irishmen, of lecturing them from the high and lofty pinnacle of British intelligence without ever applying the same principles to himself. Conciliation no doubt was a noble principle. But on the same principle. why was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin not sitting on the Treasury Bench?He was a respect able and honourable man. They were all honourable men in this House. They were all as honourable as Sir Horace Plunkett. Why was not the hon. Member for Dulwich, if the Liberal Party carried this argument to its logical conclusion, at the Board of Trade? In spite of all the eulogies poured upon Sir Horace Plunked from the Liberal Benches, the fact remained that he had searched all over Ireland for many years and had been unable to find one constituency to accept him. He tried first as a Unionist, then as a politician of no colour at all, but it had the same result. If his services to Ireland had been so magnificent as represented, then no more ungrateful people than the Irish people could be found. He would not discuss the work of the Agricultural Department on that occasion, but he held that it had been very far indeed from being a complete success. He would go further and say that the comparative failure of the work of the Department had been in a large measure due to the personality of Sit Horace Plunkett as well as to the constitution he forced upon it. Since its foundation £2.000.000 had been spent upon it. but the amount of practical work which the Department had to show for that vast expenditure was positively ludicrous. If the Irish people controlled the management of their own affairs a Department to take care of agriculture would be of incalculable value to the Irish people. But the present Department had made a stupendous blunder in undertaking too much. In a practical administration of such a Department far grater value could be obtained for the money spent. The question was simply whether a Parliamentary pledge embodied in a statute was to be observed or

  151
  set aside in the interest of an individual, or whether Sir Horace Plunkett was to be allowed to continue to use the vast machinery of patronage at his disposal as a means of carrying on a political propaganda hostile to the national movement. They were not pleading for the observance of an English statute because it was an English statute, but for the observance of an English statute as a pledge given them at their request as a Ministerial bargain. It had been said that Sir Horace Plunkett had kept aloof from politics and that he enjoyed the confidence of the Irish people as against the confidence of the Irish Party, in proof of which it was said that he obtained a Vote of confidence from the Agricultural Council. As to the first statement, there was not a shadow of foundation for it; and no question of confidence had been submitted to the Council. The question was submitted whether a Vote of money should be given to a body called the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and out of the fifty-two who voted for it thirty were the nominees of Sir Horace Plunkett, and it was proposed and seconded by men who had a financial interest in the transaction. Of the independent men present an overwhelming majority were opposed to the grant. It would be ludicrous to accept the voice of such a body against the voice of the representatives of Ireland. It was said that Sir Horace Plunkett had never been a politician. That was an absolute falsehood. If it were true, as stated by the hon. Member opposite, that Sir H. Plunkett was a man who, apart from all political motive, had given a long life to the welfare of the unhappy people of Ireland, what ground or motive could the Nationalist Party have for making this Motion, or raising this question at all? Sir Horace Plunkett was appointed to his present post as a politician. He first met the hon. Gentleman in 1891, when he had just returned from America. Sir Horace sent him a message asking permission to call upon him. Previous to that he had never heard of the gentleman. He came and spent two hours with him; he told him that though he had been long absent from Ireland, and belonged to the landlord class, he was absolutely without political feeling, that he loved the Irish people and wished
  152
  to devote his life to them, and to keep aloof from political Parties. He told Sir Horace that to keep aloof from Irish politics was an impossible task, and that he could not expect that he could in any great degree alleviate the condition of the people of Ireland until he became a politician. He said to him that if he could keep clear of politics he would have his best wishes for his success. That was in 1891. Afterwards Sir Horace Plunkett got himself nominated by Mr. Balfour as a Member of the Congested Districts Board, as a non-politician, and obtained admission to their circles, which included Catholic priests and Nationalists, and within one short year after Sir Horace Plunkett had given him that pledge he made his famous campaign in South Dublin and stole from the Nationalist Party one of their most valued seats as an avowed Unionist. That was a memory which was not likely to fade from his mind. Sir Horace Plunkett then appeared as the Member for South Dublin and made some bitter and sneering speeches in the House against the Nationalists. In the course of his campaign he made a speech in Belfast in which he said that he was agitating for this agricultural department and declared that his mission in Ireland was to disinfect Irish life of politics, and he (Mr. Dillon) supposed of politicians too. What he meant by disinfecting Irish life of politics apparently was to disinfect it of Nationalist politics. That was indeed the only sense in which the word politics was used in Ireland. The Unionist politics were not politics apparently. Then Sir Horace Plunkett's next step—and it was a scheme which he had always admired as a politician for its extreme astuteness— was to enter into an agreement with Mr. Gerald Balfour to kill Home Rule with kindness. It had been alleged that it was in order to do that that the Department of Agriculture was placed under his control. It was also alleged on the other side of the question that at the elections he was attacked by the Orange Party and consequently lost his seat in Dublin through that attack; but that was not true, because his hon. friend the Member for Newry on that occasion did great service to his country by winning the seat for the Nationalists. There was. however some truth in the

  153
  statement that the political career of Sir Horace Plunkett was cut short by the Orange Party; but why did the Orange Party attack him? Because the Orange Party in Ireland was invariably the stupid one. They were unable on that occasion, as they always were, to recognise their true friends, and when they rejected Sir Horace Plunkett they threw away a wise Unionist statesman and one of the most formidable Unionist statesmen of the present time. It was not members who interrupted him in that House that they had to fight against, but men like Sir Horace Plunkett, who had some ideas in their heads. The Orange Party were stupid, because they failed to recognise that he was the best friend to the Unionist Party that they had had in Ireland for the last half-century. The next step in Sir Horace Plunkett's career was his attempt to get back to Parliament as the representative of Galway. On the day before he started for Galway, in an interview with the Dublin correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, he said—
  " I have in my power large patronage in Ireland; I have been attacked by the Orange Party because I gave the Nationalists a share, but I intend to pursue that course."
  That was the substance of Sir Horace Plunkett's statement. While Nationalist seats were attacked he deliberately stated that he had large patronage, and would see that the Nationalists were not left out. He had never attributed mean or sordid motive to Sir Horace Plunkett, as Father O'Donovan insinuated; he believed he was a man of large means, who spent his salary on his work. He had the greatest possible admiration for his ability—he would go further, and say for his motive, too—for he was a Unionist, and had consistently pursued for years the only policy which had a gleam of hope of defeating Nationalist policy in Ireland. But his ambition was to weaken and destroy the Nationalist Party, who stood for the Nationalist cause and liberty to Ireland. [Mr. LONSDALE: A very good work too.] A very good work, too, said the Member of Mid. Armagh. That brief speech was of value to them. Sir Horace Plunkett had been throughout his career a politician; he was a Unionist, and an implacable enemy to the Nationalist
  154
  Party and the cause they stood for. It was a scandal and disgrace, now that a Government were in power who were friendly to the cause they were fighting for, that they should retain such a man in office at the head of vast machinery in Ireland, and that he should be at liberty to maintain, as he did, a band of agents going through Ireland, paid by the taxpayers, to blackguard and abuse the Members on these benches, and to subsidise out of the taxpayers' money a scurrilous newspaper, whose chief business was to sneer at Home Rule. These were the grounds on which they objected to Sir Horace Plunkett's retention of office.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the debate began with a high constitutional argument on the part of Members below the gangway — it exhibited their love of correct Parliamentary precedent. The House was assured that the debate was to be continued on these lines—the insistence on full Parliamentary control, on which they knew the hearts of the Nationalist Party had always been set, and the observance of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, however, who had just spoken, had imported an entirely different tone into the debate; they had heard a most impassioned denunciation of the whole career of Sir Horace Plunkett. The only good word that had been said for him was that he was a man with ideas, and that he was, therefore, one of the most formidable enemies of Ireland. It would seem that he had entered into some dark conspiracy against the liberties of Ireland,. and that he was simply a bitter politician under the guise of a social reformer. The hon. Gentleman, in support of this view of Sir Horace Plunkett, pointed back to sixteen years during which he had know him. He himself had known Sir Horace Plunkett for a much longer period; he had watched his work with quite as much impartiality as the hon. Member for East Mayo, and was amazed at the description of this "bitter, sneering Unionist." Ho would not at that hour go into questions which after all were not connected with the Motion before the House, but would confine himself to the most relevant issues in a discussion which had covered so much ground. There were two

  155
  governing facts m the situation. The first was that Sir Horace Plunkett, at the express desire of the Government, still held office; and, secondly, that ho held office pending the result of an inquiry into the constitution and working of the Department instituted by the Government themselves. The Report of the Committee was expected in a few weeks. The motive, therefore, of this debate would seem to be to pledge the Government before they had seen the Report of their own Committee to a certain course of action from which they could not afterwards recede. The Government had already made a pronouncement on another matter of large policy before the evidence of their own Commission had been published, and he did not believe they would again commit so great an error. He fully admitted that the constitutional question whether the Vice-President should or should not be a Member of the House was a proper question to raise. To his mind very strong arguments could be brought both for and against. But was it not reasonable to say to the Government: "Do not pledge yourselves to-day; wait for the evidence; read the Report; review the situation in the light of that Report; and do not make a binding promise because of the Parliamentary pressure which has been put upon; you this evening?" He was perfectly free to admit that the position of the Vice-President was an anomalous position. There was no doubt that the intention of the Legislature was that the holder of the office should have a seat in Parliament. On the other hand, the words of the Act did not make it obligatory, and when the Member for Mayo spoke of the violation of the statute he did not think if he had the words before him he would have used such a phrase.
  MR. DILLON: I did not speak of violation of the statute; I spoke of the violation of the Ministerial pledge—a very different thing.
  MR. BUTCHERbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he had understood him to make both statements. However, i it was true that there had been, not indeed a Parliamentary pledge, but a Parliamentary understanding that the
  156
  office was to carry with it a seat in Parliament. But they all knew what had happened. In 1900 the Vice-President lost his seat and was retained in office by the Government of the day. He was so continued with the practical assent of all Parties in Ireland, and; after a memorial had been signed by 15,000 or 20,000 people, expressing the hope that he would not be deposed I from office. The House ought to understand that at the time Sir Horace Plunkett definitely said, and had repeated it several times during the I past six or seven years, that he would not retain office one single day after he had ceased to retain the confidence of the representative bodies through which and with which he worked. The hon. Member for East Mayo had made very light of the Agricultural Council. He (Mr. Butcher) could only say of that. Council that, like other boards with which Sir Horace Plunkett worked, two-thirds of it was composed of members who were popularly elected or represented popularly-elected bodies, and that Sir Horace had been supported by these bodies in every important matter of policy which he had brought forward. It had been said that the retention of Sir Horace Plunkett in office during the last six. years was all wrong. He maintained the very opposite. It had turned out. to be to the great public advantage of Ireland. In the first place, the office was a new one. The Department had to be created. Its work, its method, its plan of operations—everything had to be organised. No permanent officials existed; there were no precedents to follow; and it seemed advisable that during these experimental years the man in whose brain the whole idea originated should be responsible for controlling, directing, and guiding the movement. Moreover, after the initial stages there was a very great expansion of the work. All kinds of new problems arose, and it became almost necessary that the whole time and thought of the Vice-President should be devoted to his duties on the spot. It was very doubtful whether the work of the Department would not have suffered if Sir Horace's time and attention had been distracted by attendance in the House of Commons. There was a distinct gain in the titular

  157
  head during these years being also the real head of the Department. That, was one reason in favour of his retention. In the second place, everybody in Ireland, excepting the hon. Member for East Mayo, admitted that if Sir Horace Plunkett was a politician, he was of all politicians the least political. Beyond doubt he had held the scabs evenly, and very often to his own disadvantage as a party man. He had shown impartiality in the manning of his office. He had alienated the sympathy of his friends by putting in Nationalists. Throughout his administration there had been the same absence of party bias. His own party popularity had suffered, but the cause of Ireland had gained. It was to that impartiality, that marked impartiality, that the success of the Department had been in large measure due. Any taint of political favouritism would have made it impossible for him to carry on that work with all that great network of technical and other committees with which his Department was concerned. The truth was that everybody in Ireland knew that Sir Horace Plunkett had no Party or personal ends to serve —that he was detached from everything except what he believed to be the welfare of his country. In Ireland there was no lack of political speech, there was a lack of economic thought. Men there were in plenty who would talk about Ireland; hut these who were working for Ireland were but few. Sir Horace Plunkett was one of the few—the leader of the few; he was not talking, but doing, or lather he had done great work already, though it was small in comparison with the promise that lay within it of future achievement. He was teaching the people the lesson of self-help and self-reliance; the lesson that even a little which they could do for themselves was worth far more than a great deal which was done for them by Government. He had to face the opposition of various interests. He had gone on his way fearlessly and steadily, heedless of praise or blame, strong in the conviction of a true idea, and looking forward to no reward beyond the hope, of leaving his country a little better than he found it. The group of men he had gathered round him in that
  158
  work was remarkable. His office staff was composed of men of different politics, but all were inspired by the same zeal and devotion as himself. They had caught the spirit of their chief, and were animated by a common ideal. Here, then, they had one man who, not by talking but by doing, had proved himself to be eminently fitted for a particular non-political work. Was he to be made use of? Or was he to be cast aside because he was not enough of a politician? The question was not a personal question. It was one of economics and industry versus politics. Which was to prevail? That was the ultimate issue. There was in Ireland a growing body of thoughtful men who desired to build up the economic life of the people on a non-party foundation. They asked that one Department at least, whoever was in office, Sir Horace Plunkett or a successor, should be rescued from politics and conducted on broader and more hopeful lines. The reasons why he opposed this Motion and supported the Amendment were, first, that the Motion prejudged the questions now before the Committee of Inquiry. It. left no freedom to the Government. It pledged them beforehand to a certain course of action. And, secondly, it must, under existing circumstances—emphasised, moreover, by the strange speech they had heard from the Member for East Mayo—be taken as a censure, or at least a slur, on the conduct of a very distinguished public servant. If, on looking at the matter all round, and after due inquiry, the Government came to the conclusion that the Vice-President should henceforth be a party man, responsible directly to that house, many of them would profoundly regret the decision, but they would still recognise that the case had been considered on its merits. It was quite another thing to foreclose and prejudge the matter in the way now proposed. The case was too grave for that, and the interests involved were too large;. On the personal point, however, once more let it be said that Sir Horace Plunkett did not cling to office. He held office for two reasons—first, at the express desire of the Government; and, secondly, because he had had, and still could claim, the unbroken support of the Irish representative bodies with whom and through whom he worked. The more

  159
  emoluments of office he did not covet. Indeed, he gave back, he believed, to Ireland, for the purposes of his Department, every penny he received as salary. Doubtless he had been bitterly assailed, and they had had a specimen of it that night. But many quiet observers in Ireland, and many more in this country and in America, had watched Sir Horace Plunkett's work with silent admiration, and recognised him to be the most single hearted and disinterested of politicians, and the greatest public benefactor that had arisen in Ireland in our generation.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he regarded this debate as one of so serious a character that he thought it ought not to close without his saying something. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that this Motion was designed with the object of getting the Government to prejudge the issue, but the only issue raised was as to whether the post of Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture was or was not a Parliamentary office, and no such issue as that was submitted in the reference to the Committee which was now sitting. Unless something extraordinary happened— as was often the case in Irish affairs— when the Report of the Committee was issued it would be found that to this question there would be no reference whatever made by the Committee. This was not a Motion to attack Sir Horace Plunkett's work or his personality, and there was not one word in the Motion censuring him as an inefficient officer or declaring his work to be bad. The Motion raised the clear and simple issue whether this post was a Parliamentary office which ought to be vacated upon a change of Government, and whether it was expedient that an opponent of the Government should hold the office. His hon. friend the Member for East Mayo was able to speak with a freedom upon this matter which he could not claim, for this reason; he was one of these who associated themselves with Sir Horace Plunkett at the time of the formation of the Recess Committee, from whose Report the scheme of this Depment sprang, and he thought Sir Horace Plunkett himself would be the first to admit that, in all probability, that Recess Committee would never have met at all if
  160
  he and his friends hid refused to associate with him in the project. And, further, it was very probable that when the scheme came before that House for the creation of a Department of Agriculture, if he had opposed that scheme instead of supporting it, it would never have passed into law. Why did he approve of the Report of the Recess Committee and accept the measure for the creation of the Department of Agriculture? Upon certain essential conditions, the first and most essential of which was that the Minister appointed at the head of the Department was to hold a seat in that House and to be responsible for the Department as a Minister of the Crown upon the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that the Act constituting the Department used the word "may" sit in Parliament and not'' shall."
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he had not quoted' the words of the Act, but the words were these—
  "The office of Vice-President of the Department shall not render the person holding the same incapable of being elected as a Member of Parliament."
  MR. JOHN REDMENDsaid the— hon. Gentleman argued from that that there was no necessity for him to be a Member of the House. If he applied that doctrine to the gentlemen occupying the Treasury Bench at that moment it would be an absolute violation of the constitutional doctrine of the country that Ministers representing the Departments should sit in that House. He would not have assented to the passing of the Bill except on the distinct understanding that the Minister representing the Department was to have a seat in, and was to be responsible to, that House, and the continuance in office of a gentleman who had not a seat in the House was a breach of faith with these who passed the measure into law and a gross violation, as he contended, of constitutional usage. He did not ask the Government to censure Sir Horace Plunkett or to denounce his conduct in his office as inefficient. He asked them to declare that the position he now occupied was an anomalous, illogical, and untenable one, that it should be speedily changed, and that the pledges they had received from the Prime Minister

  161
  and others that this was merely a temporary arrangement should be fulfilled.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Before I say a word about the Amendment, and on the Motion, there is one thing I should like to make as plain as it is possible for words to make it, although I think it has already made itself pretty plain in the course of the debate, for, after all, fair play is a jewel in all parts of the United Kingdom. And that thing is that Sir Horace Plunkett is where he is at the present moment because, of the request of the Irish Government. It may have been a wise step on the part of the Irish Government, or it may have been a foolish step, but it was their step, and not his. Sir Horace Plunkett is, by common consent—I am glad to say we are all agreed on this—a man in whose breast no sordid idea ever takes root, and he is the last man to cling to office. He was not only prepared to go, but it is common knowledge—he has himself told me that I am at liberty to make the statement to the House—that he fully expected that he was going and he would have gone had it not been that his departure was stayed at the request of my predecessor in office. Therefore, it would be impossible for me who have ratified the former acts of my predecessor to consent to any Motion; which seemed to cast the faintest shadow of a suspicion or a doubt upon the right of Sir Horace Plunkett at the present moment to remain where he is. He is, as it were, our guest, and I would as soon think of inviting a man to dinner and then request him to leave the table before the last course was served, as I would of doing anything which would suggest that Sir Horace Plunkett was not perfectly entitled to be where he is at the present moment. Therefore, I think on that part of the case we have that satisfaction. The correspondence has been read before, but, as it is part of the case, I should like to remind the House as to what it was that Mr. Bryce wrote to Sir Horace Plunkett:—
  "I have under consideration the arrangements necessary for continuing the duties of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. I understand that, regarding your appointment as Vice-President of the Department as being of a political character, you are I desirous of retiring from it at the change of'
  162
  Ministry. On this point I have consulted the Prime Minister and with his concurrence I conceive that it may be proper to treat the matter as being one which for our immediate purposes is outside considerations of Party. I therefore hope that you will be disposed, seeing that the arrangement is one of a purely provisional character, to carry on the duties of Vice-President. It is the intention of the Government to examine fully into the organisation and working of the Department and its relations to the other branches of Irish administration, and I think your continuance in the office of Vice-President will facilitate such examination. They retain, I need hardly say, entire freedom as to their future action."
  On 21st February, 1906, the Prime Minister made the following reply to a Question—
  "My view of the case is this—that the present state of things is purely temporary and purely exceptional. There is no intention of converting an office which is of one character into an office of another character with the same official serving in it. That has never been contemplated. But as the whole matter was under review in order to place the Department in many respects on a better footing, it was thought that there was no harm in continuing Sir Horace Plunkett in the position, rather than make a new appointment which would have to be subject to any change found to be necessary."
  My predecessor was strongly of opinion that it was highly desirable to have an inquiry into into the working of the Department. His reason—he is now a long way off, and therefore one can speak of him with some freedom—was that he had in preparation a measure of what, is commonly called "devolution," and he was naturally very much attracted by the examples of successful devolution which had been carried into effect by the Act constituting this Department of Agriculture, which absorbed a considerable number of existing Boards and bodies, and created a Board and consultative Council, elected in a certain way by the Irish people, who were to exercise control over it. That is devolution, of course. That kind of devolution becomes law. Other kinds of devolution may meet with difficulties in other places. My right hon. friend was anxious to have a careful and searching inquiry into the working of the Department, partly for the reason that it would increase his knowledge and give him a good hint or two for his own measure, and also because complaints had been made in different parts of Ireland as to the working of the Department. My predecessor put upon

  163
  the Committee certain gentlemen, one of great knowledge of technical education, connected with South Kensington, and another gentleman from Canada— an agricultural country. Unfortunately for that honest man, the first thing he— said, on arriving in Ireland, was that he had derived great knowledge from Sir Horace Plunkett's interesting book, which he had been reading for information. But this Committee is a serious body, and will, no doubt, report in a short time—I hope before many days are over. They are now considering their final Report, and I protest against any suggestion that they arc holding over that Report. They are doing nothing of the kind; but in consequence of the great pressure which I have put upon them, they have hurried their work on as fast as they could, and, before many days are out, I am assured that Report will appear. Then the Government will give it their full consideration. The object for which Mr. Bryce sought to retain Sir Horace Plunkett was that he might gave evidence before the Committee and put it in possession of all the information at his command. The understanding, therefore, was that he was to remain in office pending the result of the inquiry into his Department. It is quite a mistake to suppose that in this question — which is one of administration, and therefore essentially one for the Prime Minister— my right lion, friend was ever in doubt as to the course to be taken, or that he needed advice from gentlemen from Canada or others. It is the fixed intention of the Prime Minister that this office should be a Ministerial office, held by a Gentleman in sympathy with the Party in power, sitting here on these Benches, and responsible to the House for the work of his Department. Therefore, it is a mistake to suppose that we are waiting for the Report of this Committee in order to make up our minds upon the subject, for our minds arc already completely made up and will in no way be affected, in that
  164
  matter, by the inquiry into the working of the Department itself. As to the Parliamentary bargain, no one who has listened to the two moderate, able, and conclusive speeches of the mover and seconder of the Motion can have any doubt that there is an overwhelming case in it? support, and no one can blame the Prime Minister or blame me for having determined to adhere to that Parliamentary bargain. It took its origin in the Report of the Recess Committee, which I understand is Sir Horace Plunkett's own Report. From beginning to end of that Report there is the assertion that the head of the Agricultural Department should be a Minister with a seat in the House of Commons. Sir Horace Plunkett is a man who was distinguished in this House, and everybody would be glad, apart from politics, to see him back again. And does anybody doubt that if he had been fortunate enough to retain his seat in Parliament he would, as Vice-President of the Agricultural Department, hove remained in Parliament, and would have transacted his duties us a Minister just as admirably here as well as in Ireland? I quite agree that a man cannot be in two places at the same time; but the time which Sir Horace Plunkett would have given as a Minister to Parliament would not have been lost to Ireland. After all, Sir Horace Plunkett would be the last man to suggest, as has been suggested by his friends, that he is the Department. My hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University referred to the body of able and active men Sir Horace Plunkett has gathered round him in Ireland. Quite true; and these men would have done their business all the same though their chief was absent from Ireland in Parliament for a short time. In fact, I believe that if Sir Horace Plunkett had been here during the term of office of the late Administration to answer questions affecting the Department, the Department would not be covered with that cloud of suspicion which unfortunately now envelops it. The Irish Members would have

  165
  had opportunities of conversing with him in the lobbies and in his room in the way they most cheerfully know how to exercise. My experience is that they are fair minded men, and I think he would have been able to make good his case against them, even though he might give way to them in some cases against his better judgment. If people imagine that the administration of a great Department like this, with the ramifications and operations extending throughout all agricultural Ireland, can be carried on without the head of that Department being in touch with the Nationalist Party, with Irish Members, these sitting for Ulster as well as these representing other parts of Ireland, then they are greatly mistaken. Therefore it was that Mr. Gerald Balfour, whose absence from the House I greatly deplore—the more ex-Chief Secretaries there are in the House the better pleased I am; I always look to them for sympathy at least, if not for support—Mr. Gerald Balfour contested this very point in the House with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and pointed out—I have the passage here, but I do not wish to read it—that as Chief Secretary lie was a shadow or shade of the Department, but could not undertake its work. Now Mr. Gerald Balfour has left the tradition in the Chief Secretary's Office that he was the most hard-working and conscientious Minister in matters of detail the office had ever known. I am afraid I shall not interfere with the reputation he enjoys. He declined to make himself responsible for the work of the Department, and insisted that the intention was that the Vice-President should be a Member of the House. To that decision the present Government adhere. It is all very well for my hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University, who spoke so highly of the personal qualities of Sir Horace Plunkett, irrespective of Party, to refer to him as "the least political of politicians "— was that the phrase? I did not quite catch it, but I know it means something
  166
  discreditable to politicians. I am not quite so sure that my hon. friend would be quite so satisfied with Sir Horace Plunkett's retention of office, if, instead of sharing so many of his opinions, he held a diametrically opposite opinion on one important subject. The "sweet reasonableness" of my hon. friend would scarcely swallow such a bolus as that; and he must not be surprised to find men on these Benches not quite so exalted in their views as my hon. friend, who would prefer that a great Department like this should be represented in the House by a Minister with whom other Members of the Administration have personal relations, and with whose views they sympathise. Well, the effect of it all is this. We wish it to be distinctly understood that Sir Horace Plunkett is where he is at the request of the Government, and that there is not a thought or a shadow of blame to be attached to him, for he would have gone, but for our action and interference. We are waiting for the Report, which soon we shall get; but we have definitely and determinately made up our minds that the office shall be held in accordance with the original intention with which the Act was passed, not only by a Member of the House, but by a Member of the Administration, and from that view, and that intention we do not intend in any way to depart. We have, therefore, no difficulty in supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which states the exact facts of the case. After all I would remind hon. friends behind me this is a Prime Minister's question. It is a question of administration. If he thinks his Administration will be strengthened and supported by the Parliamentary obligation being carried out, the House should wait to censure it until it has been done. We cannot support the Amendment of the hon. "Member for Bow and Bromley, but we can support the Motion of the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As one of the ex-Chief Secretaries who are the delight of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think I ought to say one word in this debate, especially as I was the ex-Chief Secretary who, in another capacity, was primarily responsible for assenting to the arrangement by which Sir Horace Plunkett continued out of Parliament the work he so admirably commenced in Parliament. This question has two aspects, an historical aspect and a personal aspect; and on the historical aspect I think there can be no dispute amongst hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House. It is perfectly true that this office was intended to be a Parliamentary appointment. It is also true, in my belief, that, as the present Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, Sir Horace Plunkett would have continued, during the tenure of office of the late Administration, his work on the Agricultural Board in this House had he succeeded in obtaining a seat in this House. He failed to obtain a seat in this House, and the question which arose and had to be decided by His Majesty's late advisers, was whether it was, or was not, for the interests of Ireland, and for the interests of the great industry of Ireland, that Sir Horace Plunkett should continue out of Parliament the functions which, no doubt, it was originally intended should be carried out by a Gentleman in this House. I believe that which is in fact the account of the historical situation given by the Chief Secretary, and I believe also by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, to be perfectly accurate. Why did the late Government decide that Sir Horace Plunkett should be asked to continue his work? They came to that decision because they were of opinion
  168
  that there was no man in Ireland of any politics—politics did not enter into this particular part of the question at all— so qualified by his knowledge, by the aspirations which had guided his life, by the ideals which he always held before him, to carry the work of the new Department to a successful issue as the man who had so large a part—not, perhaps, the whole part—in framing it and bringing it into being. After all, Sir, from a merely personal point of view, from the point of view of the Government which has a great many friends who would like to have office and not many offices to give them, which is the difficulty of all Prime Ministers, it would, of course, have been convenient to have another vacancy to bestow upon some deserving Member of this House; and the reason we did not take that very simple and obvious course, the reason why we persuaded Sir Horace Plunkett to continue his work out of Parliament as he had begun it in Parliament, was that we believed that was for the best interests of Ireland. F am convinced that no man in this House who knows anything about Ireland will deny that the decision come to by the late Government, and endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, was, in the interests of Ireland, the right decision. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party described the position of Sir Horace Plunkett as anomalous, illogical, and untenable. I think logic is very improperly and unhappily brought into this question. If by logic is meant an absolute consistency of policy, it has admittedly been broken in this case. It is perfectly true that Sir Horace Plunkett himself never anticipated when he took the office in Parliament that he would hold it when out of

  169
  Parliament; but if it was for the interest of Ireland, during the years that succeeded the election of 1900, that he should hold the office he has held, and continue to perform the great functions which he has performed to the admiration of everybody, why are we on this occasion to hold this close, pedantic view of continuity of policy, which is, of course, not backed up by any legal sanction, and has not behind it the sanction of any Act of Parliament? I think we were amply justified in the breach of logic of which the right hon. Gentleman complains; and the late Chief Secretary must have been of the same opinion, because he carried out a policy as anomalous, as illogical, as untenable as the policy for which we were responsible, and he did it for the same reason. I fail to understand the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down of his predecessor's policy. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be of opinion that Sir Horace Plunkett was continued in office, not so much to do work for which he was peculiarly qualified, as in order that he might give evidence on a subject of which he knew a great deal. If it is illogical to carry out a policy which is untenable, let us, at all events, do it in a better cause than that of merely enabling a man to give evidence before a Royal Commission. Let us do it in order that we may effect a great reform, may carry out a great material work to the benefit of the Irish people. And I believe, in spite of the evidence of Mr. Bryce's successor, that that was Mr. Bryce's intention when he asked Sir Horace Plunkett to continue his duties. What evidence has come to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland which has made him change the opinion entertained by his predecessor and the predecessor
  170
  of his predecessor? What view does he take of Sir Horace Plunkett's work which makes him doubt that the work of the Department could not be carried out so well by any other man? He has given us no suggestion, but he has assented— or rather he has, on the part of his Government, given his consent—to a Resolution which, however it is interpreted, is really usceptible of only one interpretation, and that is that the majority of this House, incited thereto by hon. Gentlemen ! below the gangway, have come to the conclusion that, whatever be Sir Horace Plunkett's qualifications for this post, however devoted he may be to the task he has undertaken, however great may be the work he is doing, he has committed one crime which is unpardonable—he has retained his Unionist opinions. I think that a very unhappy conclusion for the Government to arrive at. If when they came into office they had said to Sir Horace Plunkett, "You have always taken your position as that of a Party politician, you always expected to leave office with the Government with whom you on the whole agreed, we regret your departure, as, on a change of Government, the country has often to regret the departure of very eminent politicians, "then their position would have been absolutely unassailable, and the last person to assail it would have been Sir Horace Plunkett. But to ask him to go on not to give evidence—
  MR. BIRRELL: The last part of the letter says the Government retain their freedom of future action.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whatever it means, it does not mean giving evidence before the Committee. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of breach of

  171
  faith; I do not say the Government have broken any pledge they gave to Sir Horace Plunkett or anybody else. My charge, if you call it a charge, is of a different kind. I say they asked this eminent official to go on with his work, irrespective of the Committee, because he was specially qualified to do it, and now, because hon. Gentlemen below the gangway accuse him of no crime but the crime of Unionism, they turn round and say that, as soon as the Committee report, whatever they report, Sir Horace Plunkett is to be relieved of an office in which he continued at their special request. It is an unhappy decision, and, if the Government will allow me to say so, it is a decision of especially unhappy augury in view of those schemes of devolution of which we know but little, but of which one result we know will be that Unionists will meet with an absolute bar in the future, whatever their services may have been.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): A direct charge has been made, not only
  against Mr. Bryce, but also against myself, who am more responsible, in one sense, than Mr. Bryce, of having treated Sir Horace Plunkett in a certain way because he was a Unionist. Such an idea never entered into our heads. My right, hon. friend has explained the circumstances exactly. We were going to have a general supervision and investigation of this Department. We thought it most undesirable, seeing we could not tell what the result of that inquiry would be, that a fresh appointment should be made, subject to all possible changes that might take place, and we asked Sir Horace Plunkett, as a favour to the Government as well as to the country, to continue during the interval to discharge his duties; but we explained to him, and explained in this House, in the clearest possible manner, that it was only a temporary continuation of the appointment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 142.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Blake, Edward

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

  Acland, Francis Dyke.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Agnew, George William

  Brace, William

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Crean, Eugene

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Branch, James

  Delany, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Atherley Jones, L

  Bright, J. A.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes. Leigh)

  Dickinson, W,H, (St. Pancras, N

  Barker, John

  Brunner. Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.

  Dillon, John

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rs' t

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness]

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Byles, William Pollard

  Elibank, Master of

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cameron, Robert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Billson, Alfred

  Clough, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, A.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robinson, S.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gilhooly. James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. N.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gill, A.H.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Walter

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Grant. Corrie

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Gulland John W.

  M'Micking, Major G

  Shackleton, David James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B

  Hall, Frederick

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Halpin, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon Launceston)

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Massie, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N E.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Menzies, Walter

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mieklem, Nathaniel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Melteno, Percy Alport.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Money. L. G. Chiozza

  Summerbell, T.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham'

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hobart,.Sir Robert

  Murnaghan, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H,

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Ure, Alexander

  Holden, E. Hopkinsor

  Nolan, Joseph

  Verney, F. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Hare, Patrick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jowett, F.W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

  Wiles, Alexander

  Kelley, George D.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Price, C. E. Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, (J. H.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

  Young, Samuel

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Reddy, M.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Patrick O'Brien and Captain

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Randall, Athelstan

  Donclan.

  Lever. A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'h

  Levy, Maurice;

  Richards. T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n:

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beauchamp, E.

  Anson, Sir William Reynel

  Balfour, Rt Hn A.J. (City Lond.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Armitage, R.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh().

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Ashley, W. W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bridgeman, W. Clive.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Brooke, Stopford

  174

  175

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberta, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish. Rt, Hn. Victor C.W.

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Smith. Abel H. (Hertford. East)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Starkey. John R.

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Fane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Liddell, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birminghm

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Tennant, H. J. (Barwickshire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cory, Clifford John g

  Lynch, H. B.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Courthope. G. Loyd;

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, viscount

  Cox, Harold

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Walrond. Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mld)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F(Windsor)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Nicholson, W. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Faber, Capt, W.V. (Hants, W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS POR THE NOES— Mr.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Percy. Earl

  Lonsdale and Mr. Hugh

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barrie.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, Jn. Frederick Peel

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Renton Major Leslie

  Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon Mr. JOHN REDMOND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Resolved, "That the position of Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland was intended by Parliament to be, and in fact is, a Ministerial and Parliamentary office, properly vacated upon a change of Government, and that the retention of that office by a political opponent of the Government of the day is undesirable as a permanent arrange ment.—(Mr." Murphy.)

  IRISH TOBACCO BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of money voted by Parliament for Army service of necessary expenditure incurred by associations in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide for the re-organisation of His Majesty's military forces, and for that purpose to authorise the establishment of county associations and the raising and maintenance of a Territorial Force and to amend the Acts relating to the Reserve Forces (King's Recommendation signified), To-merrow.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
Basingstoke Gas Bill; Keswick Urban District "Council (Water) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Maidstone Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties
2
having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 4th and 18th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRISONS (SCOFLAND) ACT, 1877.
  Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-eighth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF SWANSEA).
  Order made by the council of the county borough of Swansea, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the

  3
  Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the county borough. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee, read, and discharged.

  RULE COMMITTEE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.