Sitting of 2 July 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading there of, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable there to, have been com plied with, viz.:—Electric Supply Corporation Bill [Lords]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords]; —As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill (by Order).—Read the third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill; Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to en able the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts. [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the rural district of Ballycastle, the Bangor and Newtownards Joint Hospital, county Down, and the urban district of Dalkey." [Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Portishead District Water Company; and for other purposes." [Portishead District Water Bill [Lords].
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No.1) Bill.—Lords'Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No.2) Bill.—Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Portishead District Water Bill [Lords] —Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]. —Read the first time; referred to the

503
Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time to morrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Aberdeen; Airdrie; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (INSURANCE COMPANIES) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOME WORK REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  JURORS (EXPENSES) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Reading, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  Petition from Walsall. in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall. against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FRANCE (NO. 1, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris transmitting the Treaty between France and Siam. Signed at Bangkok, 23rd March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 27th June: Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented of Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 190(5. Part II. Salmon Fisheries [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATIONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd February. 1906; Mr. Birrell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]

  TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
  Copy ordered, " of Memorandum explanatory of the Telegraph Construction Bill."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 232.]

  COASTGUARD STATIONS (CLOSED).
  Return ordered, "showing number and names of Coastguard Stations closed since the 26th day of June, 1905, stating those at which a rocket apparatus was worked wholly or in part by the Coast guard or to which a lifeboat station was adjoining, and what arrangements are now being made at such stations for the notification of wrecks and life-saving services." —(Major Seely.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Salving Arrangements for Submarines.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the in creasing number of submarines in commission, any, and what, steps have been taken to provide adequate salvage vessels and appliances for the speedy and more effectual recovery of vessels of this class which, from one cause or another, may be so injured as to prevent their own crews from bringing them to the surface.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No special salvage vessels have been obtained for raising submarine boats, but mooring lighters are fitted with a view of effecting their recovery should occasion arise, and trials of a life-saving apparatus for individual members of the crews are also in progress.

  Duties of Public Veterinary Surgeons.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what are the duties i of veterinary surgeons under the Public ! Health Act in diseases transmissible from animals to man by milk or meat; what use does the medical officer of health make of the advice given in matters i purely veterinary; and whether the veterinary adviser reports through the medical officer of health or direct to the sanitary authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The duties of veterinary surgeons are contained in
  506
  Sections 43 and 60 of The Public Health Act, 1897. The use that a medical officer of health will make of any information or advice obtained from the veterinary surgeon will depend on the nature and circumstances of the individual case. With regard to the last part of the Question, when proceedings are taken under Section 60, the veterinary surgeon's re port, if any, is, in terms of the Statute, submitted to the local authority by the medical officer of health. In proceedings under Section 43 there is no statutory rule as to the reports, and it is for each local authority to determine whether any report under that section shall be submitted direct or through the medical officer of health. But in all cases it is the duty of the medical officer of health to advise his local authority as to the measures necessary to prevent the direct or indirect transmission of the disease to human beings, and, so far as authorised by Statute or otherwise, to execute or superintend the execution of those measures.

  Overcrowding of West Ham Public Elementary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education with regard to the overcrowding in West Ham public elementary schools, whether the regulations by the Board of Education allow as many as 100 children to be placed in a class-room only accommodating sixty, even for a single day.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Article 19 of the Code provides that—" The number of scholars in average attendance must not exceed the recognised accommodation, and no room may be habitually used for a larger number of scholars than that for which it is passed by the Board.'' It is obviously undesirable that over crowding should exist in any class-room, even for a single day, but I fear it would be impossible for the Board of Education to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the maximum number of children who may in any conceivable circumstances be taught in any one room for a single day.

  Inspection of Metropolitan Poor Law Infirmaries.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Metropolitan Poor Law infirmaries are visited by inspectors of the Board at regular intervals or only occasionally, at the discretion of the inspectors; and whether considerable intervals are some times allowed to elapse between inspections.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) These infirmaries are, in ordinary circumstances, visited at regular intervals as well as occasionally, either at the discretion of the inspectors or for special reasons. All the infirmaries have been inspected this year by the assistant inspectors, and a considerable number have also been visited by the senior medical inspector for Poor Law purposes. I may add that the arrangements in connection with these inspections are now under consideration.

  Rosyth—Acreage and Price of Land Purchase.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the property purchased at Rosyth in 1903–4 from Lord Linlithgow, from Mr. Newton, and from the Minister of Inverkeithing and Mr. Newton, respectively, what in each case was the price paid, and the area of land and of foreshore purchased.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The area of land purchased from the Minister of Inverkeithing and Mr. Newton jointly was 6¼acres. The price, £4,800, was fixed by the Scottish Law Courts. The land was building land and included no foreshore. As regards the rest of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh on 2nd M y. †

  The National Income.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex chequer if he will state the average annual income of Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, for the years 1820 to 1827
  †See (4) Debates, Clxxiii., 1052–3.
  508
  and 1900 to 1907, with the population of the two countries for those years.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) All estimates of national income, in the sense of the total aggregate income of the inhabitants of a country, which I take it is what the hon. Member has in mind, are extremely speculative; and I cannot pretend to give an official estimate even for the later period. As regards the earlier period any calculation would be still more conjectural. The population of Great Britain at the census of 1821 was 14.091,757, and that of Ireland 6,801,827. At the Census of 1901 the population of Great Britain was 36,999,946, and of Ireland 4,458,775.

  Tea Exports from Great Britian and India.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amounts and values of the exports of tea from India and from Great Britain for the last eight years, separately.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statements give the information asked for:—

  (a) Exports of Tea from British India.

  Years commencing 1st April.

  Exports from India.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Lbs.

  £

  1899

  178,934,372

  6,187,491

  1900

  194,616,477

  6,524,585

  1901

  184,247,386

  5,576,965

  1902

  185,592,312

  5,055,969

  1903

  210,488,197

  5,819,670

  1904

  216,608,017

  5,773,349

  1905

  219,953,700

  6,036,813

  1906

  235,945,410*

  6,605,585*

  * Exports by sea only, exports by land not yet being available.

  *Exports by sea only, exports by land not yet being available.

  (b) Exports of Tea from the United Kingdom, 1899-1906.

  Calendar years.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  British East Indian tea.

  Other sorts (including Ceylon).

  Total.

  British East Indian tea.

  Other sorts (including Ceylon).

  Total.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  £

  £

  £

  1899

  7,724,262

  24,499,943

  32,224,205

  337,810

  1,056,595

  1,394,405

  1900

  10,172,949

  32,884,935

  43,057,884

  421,243

  1,267,672

  1,688,915

  1901

  13,226,910

  30,162,608

  43,389,518

  503,205

  1,195,489

  1,698,694

  1902

  13,921,510

  31,568,080

  45,489,590

  556,442

  1,270,946

  1,827,388

  1903

  10,871,086

  29,268,985

  40,140,071

  473,792

  1,260,571

  1,734,363

  1904

  13,193,677

  28,935,329

  42,129,006

  566,103

  1,231,081

  1,797,184

  1905

  11,794,309

  29,243,322

  41,037,631

  538,451

  1,231,953

  1,770,404

  1906

  20,805,526

  34,893,907

  55,699,433

  800,717

  1,407,142

  2,207,859

  Free Distribution of Official Publications to Libraries.
  MR. GOOCH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what rules govern the free distribution of official publications to libraries; and whether he will make arrangements by which the British Institute of Social Service may receive such publications as it needs for its library, which is open to the public with out fee.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Parliamentary publications within a limit of £250 per annum are supplied gratuitously to public free libraries which are rate-supported, on application for specific publications. I understand that the British Institute of Social Service is not on this footing. I should perhaps add that such surplus Record Office publications issued prior to 1896 as are still in stock arc available for presentation to free libraries and other public institutions.

  Excise and Customs Revenue on Liquor and Drugs Consumed in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India why the table of figures showing
  510
  the net Excise and Customs revenues on liquor and drugs consumed in India, which was formerly printed in the margin of the Annual Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress of India, has not been included in recent issues of that publication; and whether he will give instructions for the inclusion of these figures in tabular form in future volumes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In preparing successive issues of this. Report it is usual to exercise a certain amount of discretion in the selection of the material. The table referred to was omitted in 1904-5 and subsequent years, as it was not considered essential to the context, and as more accurate figures of the net revenue for a series of years were already given in the "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India under certain specified heads," annually presented to Parliament. As the hon. Member attaches importance to the matter, I will give instructions that comparitive figures of net Excise and Customs revenue for a series of years, taken from the financial Return, are given in the next issue of the Moral and Material Progress Statement.

  Frickley Colliery Dispute—Evictions of Families.
  MR. HALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Carlton Main Colliery Company at their Frickley Colliery, Doncaster, where a trade dispute is in existence, evicted several families from their houses on Monday, 24th June, 1907, on account of their being concerned in such dispute; and if he will facilitate legislation with the object of making it impossible for employers of labour to evict men, women, and children from their homes when such disputes are in progress.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Carlton Main Colliery Company, at their Frickley Colliery, Doncaster, where a trade dispute is in existence, evicted several families from their houses on Monday, 24th June, 1907, on account of their being concerned in such dispute; and if he will facilitate legislation with the object of making it impossible for employers of labour to evict men, women, and children from their homes when such disputes are in progress.
  MR. COMPTON RICKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Carlton Main Colliery Company, at their Frickley Colliery, Doncaster, where a trade dispute is in existence, evicted several families from their houses on Monday, 24th June, 1907, on account of their being concerned in such dispute; and if he will facilitate legislation with the object of making it impossible for employers of labour to evict men, women, and children from their homes when such disputes are in progress.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I will answer this and the two following Questions together. I am informed that, on 17th April, a number of men employed at this colliery went on strike, eighteen of whom lived in houses belonging to the company owning the colliery. As these eighteen did not return to work or pay
  512
  any rent, they were on 3rd May given notice to quit. The notices not being complied with, ejectment orders were obtained and eight men were evicted on 24th June. Of the other ten, some had resumed work, others had left their houses. On the facts before me, I am hardly prepared to say that the men evicted were treated harshly; and, while I shall be happy to consider any proposals that may be laid before me, I am afraid I cannot promise any special facilities for legislation at the present time.

  Use of Taximeters by Horse-drawn Cabs.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations have been made to him asking that licences should be granted to English taximeter cabs drawn by horses; and, if so, what reply has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)Representations have been received with regard to the use of taximeters by horse-drawn cabs, but they are still under consideration owing to a point of difficulty which has arisen. When the Public Carriage Order was drafted the intention was to enable every cab, whether horse-drawn or motor, to use a taximeter. I was advised that I had power to prescribe a new scale for motor cabs, to which the provisions of the earlier Acts, as pre served by the Public Carriage Act, 1869, were inapplicable, but that I had no power to prescribe a scale for horse-drawn cabs which would conflict with the scale in force before the last-mentioned Act. There is however, a provision in the Hackney Carriage Act of 1831 which enables a cab to be hired by agreement for any sum not in excess of the legal rate; and, in pursuance of this provision, I inserted in the Public Carriage Order Regulation No. 32, which runs as follows: "The proprietor of a horsed hackney carriage may, with the approval of the Commissioner, cause it to be fitted with a taximeter on undertaking that the charges made for the hire of the carriage shall be in accordance with the scale affixed in the carriage and registered by the taximeter, which scale shall not in any case exceed the scale set forth in Schedule I. to this Order." Subject to

  513
  the conditions of this regulation it is open to the proprietor of every horse-cab to use a taximeter. A difficulty has, how ever, arisen in connection with such taximeters as have hitherto been presented for the Commissioner's approval tinder the regulation, and this is now being submitted to the Law Officers; but I may say that the difficulty only relates to taximeters on the horo-kilo metrique system—that is, taximeters whose fares are fixed by a combination of time and distance, and would not affect other types of taximeter. Whatever be the advice given by the Law Officers, I hope to introduce legislation next week giving the Home Secretary a general power to fix scales of fares and thus to do away with the inconvenience caused by the confusion of the existing statutes.

  Chelmsford Board of Guardians—Censure by Coroner's Jury.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a censure passed by a coroner's jury upon the Chelmsford Board of Guardians; and whether he could take any steps to prevent in other cases mischief arising from the mistaken belief of guardians that a man with his throat cut, and not in a position to obtain necessary nursing or medical attendance, though urgently required, may not legally be relieved.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of this case, and have communicated with the clerk to the guardians with respect to it. I am informed that the guardians do not entertain the belief referred to in the last part of the Question, and that in the present instance they were sitting on the day when the case occurred, and as soon as they became aware of the facts they at once made an order for the man's admission to the workhouse infirmary. It does not seem necessary that I should take any action in the matter.

  Expenditure of Hammersmith Guardians.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the last half-yearly returns of expenditure of the guardians of Hammer smith, sent to them by the Poor Law inspector, contained only the items of
  514
  outdoor relief and indoor maintenance; what were the respective amounts of these items; whether the following items, or any of them, were omitted from such returns, viz.: salaries, rations and superannuation of officers and servants, interest on loans, cost of furniture, repairs to buildings and furniture, and other items of cost of relief of the poor; if so, what was the total amount of expenditure on the omitted items of poor relief; and whether, having regard to the great and increasing cost of indoor relief, he would in future direct that the inspectors' half-yearly returns throughout England and Wales should give the whole cost of poor relief.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I think my hon. friend is under some misapprehension in this matter. The inspector of the metropolitan district has lately retired, but I understand that he did not send out periodical statements of the expenditure of the boards of guardians in his district. A Parliamentary Return is issued half-yearly by the Local Government Board, which shows the total amount expended by boards of guardians for poor relief, and as regards each union the amount expended on in-maintenance and outdoor relief. This is perhaps the Return which my hon. friend has in mind. The Return is only intended to show the expenditure incurred by each board of guardians in the maintenance of indoor paupers and in outdoor relief, and not to give particulars as to their total expenditure as a Poor Law authority. The latter information is given in the annual Local Taxation Returns. As regards Hammersmith, the expenditure of the guardians during the half-year ended at Michaelmas, 1906, was as follows:—

  £

  Maintenance of indoor paupers

  12,613

  Outdoor relief

  3,301

  Maintenance of lunatics in asylums, etc.

  5,487

  Salaries, etc., and superannuation allowances of officers and servants

  4,589

  Principal of loans and interest thereon

  5,505

  Other expenditure wholly connected with the relief of the poor

  3,293

  These items include, as regards paupers in establishments belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, only in-maintenance expenses. The total contributions by the guardians to the managers during the half-year was £10,404, but it is not practicable to state how much of this amount related exclusively to Poor Law purposes. In addition, a payment of £4,298 was made to the Metropolitan Common Poor fund during the half-year.

  Duties of Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists.
  Me. J. P. FARRELL:To ask the Postmaster-General why it was stated by departmental witnesses before the Select Committee of this House that a sorting clerk and telegraphist is rarely left alone in charge of an office, and that the largest number they would have to supervise is never more than three or four, when sorting clerks and telegraphist are frequently responsible for five times that number in several offices in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The witness referred to was replying to evidence given by sorting clerks and telegraphists, and his statement that a sorting clerk and telegraphist would not often be left alone for a long time in charge of an office, and in such circum stances would not have more than three or four others to supervise, is substantially correct. It referred, of course, to the number of the indoor staff whom he would supervise. If, however, the hon. Member will specify the offices to which he refers I will have inquiry made and communicate with him further.

  Income-tax—Naval and Military Pensions as Earned Incomes.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before coming to a final decision as to whether naval and military pensions should be treated as earned income, he will take into consideration the facts that retired pay is liable to forfeiture by misconduct and in any case ceases at death, and that a number volunteer and are nominated to war appointments to be taken up on mobilising, and all up to sixty years of age are liable for service in case of war or national emergency, and that these officers have to report yearly as to their physical fitness and
  516
  willingness to go on active service and cannot leave the United Kingdom with out Admiralty permission.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) As I have stated before, I can assure my hon. friend that no aspect of this question shall escape my consideration.

  Purchase of the Crookenden Estate, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland what is the total amount of the purchase money of the portion of the Crookenden, late Earl of Morley's, estate, in county Cavan agreed to be sold under the Purchase Act, 1903; and what proportion of the estate is not included in the proposals.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had this estate inspected with a view to making an offer to purchase it. The estate is a large one, and the inspectors' reports, which are voluminous, are being analysed for the Commissioners' consideration. Until they have fully considered these reports, the Commissioners are not able to say what the amount of the purchase money may be, or what proportion of the estate they may purchase.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of William Kennedy.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the estate of Anne Davey, situate in the parish of Clonsast, barony of Coolestown. King's County, there is an evicted tenant named William Kennedy, who applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement; that the farm from which he was evicted is untenanted and let by the eleven months; and, in view of the fact that the estate is about to be sold to the tenants, can he say what provision is being made for Kennedy.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The present occupier of the holding from which Kennedy was evicted has purchased it under the Land Purchase Acts, and the Estates Commissioners cannot therefore effect Kennedy's restoration to that

  517
  holding. The Commissioners have, how ever, placed his name on the list of persons suitable to receive allotments of land if such can be acquired.

  Extra Police at Dernaseer, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police who have been recently upon special duty on the farm of Dr. Hogan, at Dernaseer, near Mountrath, Queen's County, were placed there against the will of Dr. Hogan; and, if so, can he say at whose request and for what purpose the extra police were sent into this locality; and whether the local rates will be called upon to bear any portion of the expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No police men have been stationed on the farm referred to, but for some time police patrols paid special attention to the farm, because there was reason to believe that an attempt would be made to drive the cattle off it. The police so employed belonged to the ordinary local force, and therefore no charge for extra police will fall on the local rates.

  Land Purchase Agreement with Hugh Bartley.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Hugh Bartley, of Ballyminion, county Long ford, bought his land out in 1889 at 5s. in the pound reduction, and signed the agreement, upon the Greville property; whether he is aware that the inspector came on the land, and he reduced by £2 15s. out of £7 15s. per annum the instalments; whether he paid a year and a half's interest money on it, and then the agreement was refused, and he cannot get back the money which he paid on the original agreement; and whether this will be ordered to be repaid.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The purchase agreement in this case was dated 25th February, 1891, and the Land Com mission, after inspecting the holding, re fused the advance applied for on the ground that the security was insufficient. Under the 3rd section of The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1888, which was then
  518
  in force, interest was payable from the date on which the advance might be sanctioned to the vendor and not to the Land Com mission, as has been the case since the Act of 1896 was passed. The Land Com mission, therefore, have no knowledge of any payments which may have been made to the owner, either as rent or interest, under the purchase agreement in question.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The "Ariadne."
  MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in connection with the case of the ss. "Ariadne," whose perilous position on the dangerous Shipwash sands at 4.30 p.m. on the 19th June was telephoned to the coastguards at Aldeburgh, Suffolk, from the Shipwash light vessel, if he will explain why the chief officer of the coastguards at the Aldeburgh station, Suffolk, kept secret the telephone message, and did not post it up in the usual way on the station; and why this officer forbade his men to give this information to the lifeboat men, who, acting on a rumour about five hours later that night, launched their lifeboat to the steamer, and lay alongside till 4.30 p.m. the next afternoon, when the steamer floated.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson,): The coastguard watchman telephoned to the Shipwash light vessel to ask if the steamer required anything. The master of the Shipwash light vessel replied that the steamer had touched forward, that throe tugs were standing by her, but that the steamer did not require their assistance and that she had no distress signals hoisted. The master of the light vessel also asked the coast guard watchman not to report to the lifeboat authorities, as he (the master of the light vessel) had strict orders not to call the lifeboat out unless she was actually required. The coastguard watch man reported accordingly to his chief officer, and in these circumstances the latter did not consider any further steps necessary and did not post up any notice. The crew were not forbidden to give information to the lifeboat authorities.

  H.M.S.collingwood.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if the war vessel "Collingwood," at present lying in the Kyles of Bute, is to be offered for sale at an early date; if so, will he say what price she originally cost and when she was built; whether she is to be sold with the condition that she must be broken up; and whether, in view of the fact that new war vessels are permitted to be sold abroad, he will make an effort to sell this vessel without the breaking-up condition, and thus ensure a considerable saving.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Collingwood," which was completed in 1886 at a cost of about £746,000, will be sold by auction at Portsmouth on the 9th July. As she is an armoured vessel, it is not considered practicable to offer her for sale without the breaking-up condition.

  Coastguard and the Life-Saving Service.
  Major SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Coastguard perform many functions which can best be discharged by men of the Royal Navy, especially life-saving services, he can give an assurance that the present system shall be maintained, such proportion of the cost of the coastguard being charged to the Board of Trade Vote as may be considered reasonable in consideration of services rendered by the coastguard not of a naval character.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As the whole subject is now under consideration, it is impossible to give any assurance as to the result, but in the event of the present system being retained, I will make a note of my hon. friend's suggestion.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Report of the inter-Departmental Commit tee on His Majesty's Coastguard will be laid upon the Table of this House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Report is being considered by the Admiralty, and has been referred to other Departments concerned. It is quite premature till these discussions are con-
  520
  cluded to give any undertaking such as-is suggested in the Question.
  MAJOR SEELYasked whether, in view of the promises of his right hon. friend, this Report would be laid before the rising of Parliament.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot give any pledge.
  MAJOR SEELY: But you gave a promise.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not remember the promises, but if they had been made they would be kept.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether it might be assumed that no further action would be taken in regard to closing Coast guard stations until the Report was laid.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have promised that many times.

  Strength of Fleets.
  MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Return giving the strength of Fleets of Great Britain and foreign countries, which was issued last year on 22nd May, will be delivered at the Vote Office.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Return was delivered yesterday.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Having seen this Report I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers that it carries out the spirit and letter of his promise.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question when the Report will be laid. The hon. Member had better give notice.

  Battleship Construction.
  Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention to complete the battleship laid down this year at Elswick in twenty-four months from the date of laying down; and whether this policy will be continued in all future ships.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; and as regards the second part, it is impossible to give any such pledge as that suggested.

  Loan of Dredgers to the Egyptian Government.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty for how long the two dredgers which were lent to the Egyptian Government two years ago, in May and July, 1905, respectively, are to remain at the disposal of that Government; whether Treasury sanction had been obtained for this transaction; and whether any payment is being made by the Egyptian Government for the value of the services rendered by the two dredgers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: One of the dredgers sailed on the 22nd ult. on her way home. It is proposed to sell the other to the Egyptian Government. The Answer to the second Question is in the affirmative, and to the third Question in the negative.

  Tidworth Stables.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the stables for the Scots Greys at Tidworth have yet boon commenced; if not, will he say why; and whether he can now name a definite date for their commencement.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane,): Building operations have not yet been commenced, but the work in preparing plans, specifications, and quantities is sufficiently advanced to render it possible to call for tenders in a few days time. Until the tenders are received a date cannot be fixed for the commencement of the work.
  Captain FABER: Was there ever any intention of building these stables?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Woolwich Discharges.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in considering any future discharges of men in the
  522
  Ordnance Factory at Woolwich, he will have special regard to the number of women and children dependent on the men it is proposed to discharge.
  MR. HALDANE: As I have already informed the hon. Member on the 26th ultimo, in Answer to a somewhat similar Question, every regard is paid, when selecting men for discharge, to all the circumstances of each man's case, including any points concerning his family he may put forward.

  Army Expenditure Returns.
  MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to issue the Return ordered by the House on 12th March, giving, under different headings of Army Expenditure, the relative amounts devoted to the expeditionary force and immobile defences, such as coast protection.
  MR. HALDANE: This Return, which involves an immense amount of clerical i labour, is in course of preparation. I; regret that I cannot at present name a: date for its issue.

  Kilcreggan War Office Lands.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date the purchase was effected of the land at Kilcreggan, bought for £14,500; and what is the amount of money since expended on works.
  MR. HALDANE: As I informed my hon. friend on the 29th ultimo, the purchase was concluded in October, 1901; the amount of money expended on the construction of Portkil Battery since that date is approximately £19,560.

  Lala Lajpat Rai.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lala Lajpat Rai during the course of his public career in India, extending over a period of twenty years, has ever been implicated in seditious or anti-British propaganda; and whether he has had laid before him and is able to indicate any speech or utterance or action by Lala Lajpat Rai at any time which could in any way be considered to transgress the limits of legitimate and constitutional agitation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Morley,): Yes, I have seen public utterances of Lajpat Rai within the last two years which, as reported, are distinctly and strongly of the nature of anti-British propaganda, and can have no other meaning whatever. If the hon. Member will read Lajpat Rai's Lahore speech quoted in the Wafadar of 28th January, 1906, or his speech at Lyallpur reported in the Punjabee of 27th March, 1907, he will find language which I cannot think that the hon. Member, who was engaged for so many years in working the Indian system of Government, will consider as within the limits of constitutional agitation in India. These speeches, I will repeat, are not the only grounds or information for resort to the Law of 1818.
  MR. BELLOCasked whether the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded would give ground for a prosecution in a Court of Justice.
  MR. MORLEY: Yes, I am told that they would.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked why they were not submitted to a Court of Justice.
  MR. MORLEY: Because, as I have already more than once explained, there is other information which it is against the public interest, at this moment at all events, to disclose.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Law of 1818 was not merely an Ordinance of the self-constituted council of the old East India Company, which had never been sanctioned by that House.
  MR. MORLEYsaid he would not argue with his hon. friend, but it was the law of the land in India. He dared say it was not sanctioned by that House, but that was another question. It was the law of the land in India.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And a very bad one.
  MR. MYER: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the utterance of a man
  524
  named Hyndman, in which he says the trouble among the Indian people is solely due to our system of Government?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Whipping in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that flogging is administered in India as a judicial punishment in many thousands of cases every year in public, and on the bare buttock; that the triangles on which men are tied up are placed outside every magistrate's court in India, and that in Ceylon these public floggings have been prohibited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and whether he will take immediate steps to reduce the prevalence of flogging in India as a judicial punishment.
  MR. MORLEY: I am aware that whipping is ordered as a judicial punishment in India in some thousands of cases yearly; but I may point out that in several provinces the sentence is not carried out publicly, nor is the whipping always inflicted in the manner described. As I have more than once stated, the whole subject is now under my consideration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if it were not a fact that these public whippings were exclusively confined to natives and were never administered to white men.
  MR. MORLEY: Yes, Sir.

  Indian Political Prisoners.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if ho will state the names of all those recently arrested and deported without trial in India, giving the dates of arrest, the places of confinement, and the treatment accorded to each prisoner; and whether the friends of the prisoners are allowed to communicate with them or their relatives to see them at any time.
  MR. MORLEY: Only two persons, namely, Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh, have been recently dealt with under Regulation III. of 1818. The former was arrested on the 9th May, the latter on the 2nd June. As stated in my Answer to the hon. Member on the 18th June,

  525
  they are confined at Mandalay, where they are lodged in suitable houses within the Fort, receiving allowances for maintenance suited to their condition in life. I am inquiring how far they are permitted to see or communicate with their friends.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will repeat the Question next week.

  British Steamship Communication with East Africa.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the discussions at the Colonial Conference and of the Report of the Steam ship Subsidies Committee in 1902, His Majesty's Government can see their way to improve the direct British steamship communication to East Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): As I informed the hon. Member for the Montgomery District on 29th May, this matter has been and will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, but I am not able to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Sir Eldon Gorst's Pension.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Eldon Gorst is still in receipt of the pension of £500 a year granted to him by the Egyptian Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,): The pension from the Egyptian Government will not be drawn while Sir Eldon Gorst occupies the position of Consul-General at Cairo.

  The Ethiopian Railway.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to protect British investors in the Ethiopian Railway Company; whether all idea of connecting Diré-Daouah with Harrar and Addis-Ababa by rail has been abandoned; what steps have been taken for the construction of railways west of Addis-Ababa; and whether the Emperor
  526
  Menelek has been, or will be, approached with a view to his concurrence in the Tripartite Agreement of December, 1906.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The Ethiopian Railway Company is a French concern and the treatment of its shareholders is entirely a matter for the French Government and the French courts, in which His Majesty's Government could not usefully intervene and would have no reasons for doing so as long as British investors receive the same treatment as French. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the Question, no steps have as yet been taken for the construction of railways west of Adis Ababa. The Tripartite Agreement of 1906 has been communicated to the Emperor Menelek. The concurrence of the Emperor Menelek was not required for the Tripartite Agreement, which was binding upon the three Powers who signed it. It was communicated to the Emperor Menelek in order that he might be assured that there was nothing in it prejudicial to his interests or to his sovereign rights, and he raised no objection to it. I have no reason whatever to suppose that the French Government will differentiate in the treatment of British and French subjects who are interested in the concession.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman if he had any reason to believe that the company had been formed for the express purpose of getting rid of British investors and substituting French investors and French influence; and was there the remotest prospect of the concurrence of the Emperor Menelek in the Tripartite Agreement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His concurrence is not necessary. The Agreement was simply sent to him to show there was nothing in it to which he could object. As regards the first part of the Question I have no reason to suppose there will be any differentiation between British and French investors.

  MR. Abbott's Ransom.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Turkish Government to the demand for the repayment of the

  527
  ransom for Mr. Abbott, who was recently captured by brigands near Salonica.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.

  Case of the "Knight Commander."
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Russian Government regarding compensation for the loss of the s.s. "Knight Commander"; and whether similar German claims have been settled.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Russian Government have not yet replied to the proposal of His Majesty's Government that the case of the "Knight Commander" should be submitted to arbitration. The circumstances of the case of the "Knight Commander" cannot be said to be similar to that of the German vessels. In the case of the British vessel the Supreme Admiralty Council at St. Petersburg held the vessel and most of her cargo to be good prize. In the German cases the confiscation was not upheld by the Court and consequently compensation was awarded in respect of both ships and cargo.

  Galapagos Islands.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further in formation regarding the British subjects kept in servitude on the Galapagos Islands; whether some of them were kept in irons while there; and whether he can state what steps are being taken to release these people from their miserable condition.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no further information beyond the Report by the commander of the "Shearwater" alluded to in my Answer to the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on the 17th ultimo. † Five men stated that they had been put in irons, but this was denied by the working manager of the company to whose notice the matter was brought by the commander. The only case which the manager has admitted was that of a labourer who had committed a theft and who was punished by the Governor's
  †See (4) Debates, Clxxvi., 155–6.
  528
  orders by being placed in irons. It does not appear that any men were in irons at the time of the visit, and there is no reason to suppose that they are so now. His Majesty's Government have made re presentations to the Ecuadorian Government, and they have instructed His Majesty's Consul at Guayaquil to go to the Island by the next opportunity, and arrange that the men should be free to leave, if they desire to do so.

  Lord Cromer and Egyptian Administration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any measure is in contemplation to give effect to the opinion Lord Cromer has expressed in his despatch of 8th March (Egypt, No. 3, 1907) in favour of some steps being taken in the direction of the introduction of full Parliamentary institutions in Egypt.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer's observation on this point in the despatch referred to is as follows—
  "I think it would be altogether premature to take any decisive and rapid steps in the direction of the introduction of full Parliamentary; institutions in Egypt."
  I am not in a position to make any j further statement than Lord Cromer has made in this and in his last annual Report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not introduce a Coptic Council with the assistance of Lord Dunraven?

  Egyptian Postmaster-General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Borton Bey, who, on the retirement of Laba Pasha, a native, has been appointed Postmaster-General of Egypt, has had only two years experience of postal administration; whether the British Consul-General has in this case de parted from the policy laid down by Lord Cromer in his Report for 1906, of appointing competent natives to the higher administrative posts, provided that experiments of that kind already made should be successful; and whether it is in con sequence of the failure of such experiments that an Englishman has in this instance been substituted for a native.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the point raised by the hon. Member, but I will inquire.

  Egyptian General Assembly.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Lord Cromer, in his despatch of 8th March (Egypt, No. 3, 1907) complained that many of the eighty-five proposals laid before the Egyptian General Assembly were discussed in a very perfunctory manner, and that it was impossible in the space of three days to discuss them adequately, he will state upon whose initiative, and upon what grounds, the session of the Assembly was thus curtailed; and whether he will advise the Egyptian Government that in future the General Assembly should meet annually instead of, as at present, once in two years, and should be allowed sufficient time to deliberate on the proposals laid before it.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I have no information, but will inquire. I am not at present aware of any reason for altering the regulations respecting the meeting of the Assembly, about which, so far as I know, no com plaint has been made.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire by telegraph?
  Sir EDWARD GREYreplied in the negative.

  Armenian Villages in the Plain of Mush.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information in reference to the pillaging of Suluk and other Armenian villages in the plain of Mush by the Turks; and whether he will direct His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople to make representations, -with a view of preventing similar occurrences.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received no information with regard to the village named, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has recently made representations to the Turkish Government respecting the condition of the Armenian villages in the plain of
  530
  Mush, and His Majesty's Vice Consul at Van has been instructed to make a tour in the district.

  The Gold Reserve.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the question of increasing the national gold reserve.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): No, Sir. I am awaiting the outcome of the deliberations of the various interests primarily concerned, and I am still not without hope that an agreement may be arrived at without intervention on my part.

  Probate.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the limit up to which probate or letters of administration can be obtained from local revenue officials from £500 to £1,000.
  MR. ASQUITH: The adoption of this suggestion would increase the cases dealt with by revenue officials by 50 per cent. in number, and by still more in complexity, and the Board of Inland Revenue do not consider that any but the most simple cases should be disposed of by others than experts. I am therefore not prepared to recommend any extension of the present limit.

  Post Office Savings Bank Securities.
  MR. SWIFT MACNIELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what, on the 31st December, 1906, was the total value, taken at the market prices of the day, of the securities held against the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank; whether, having regard to the opinion constantly ex pressed by competent authorities that the stock of gold held by the Bank of' England and other banks is insufficient, he will confer with the banks as to the taking of measures to increase the amount; and will he, as a preliminary step to instituting such a conference, or otherwise, establish a gold reserve to be held against the sums due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Select Committee of 1902 on the Savings Banks Funds recommended the discontinuance of the practice of publishing a valuation of the assets of these funds at the current market price, on the ground that the results of such a valuation were misleading. Effect was given to that recommendation by the Savings Banks Act, 1904, which directed that, instead of the market-price valuation, there should be published every year a statement of the nature and amount of the securities held by the National Debt Commissioners. This course has since been followed, and I fear that I should be defeating the intention of the Act if I were now to make a valuation of the securities at market price. The question of banking reserves has engaged my attention, and it has also, as I understand, been the subject of considerable discussion among bankers. I do not think that such a conference as my hon. friend suggests would be a desirable step at present; nor can I admit that the Post Office Savings Bank is at all on the same footing as the commercial banks in regard to a gold reserve.

  Dudley Bathing Conviction.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state what steps he has taken in the matter of the Dudley justices who recently sent little boys to prison for bathing with out bathing-drawers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Glad stone,): I have made further inquiry and I am informed that the justices issued the commitments in the hope of enforcing the fines, and not with any intention of actually sending the children to prison. It is much to be regretted, I think, that greater care was not taken to prevent the commitments, if it was right to issue them at all, from being executed; but having discharged the boys from prison, I have no power to interfere further in the matter. I do not think such an incident is likely to recur.

  Tea Exports.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the
  †See page 508.
  532
  amounts and values of the exports of tea from India and from Great Britain for the last eight years, separately.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George,): I will have the information asked for printed in the Votes, †
  MR. DUNCAN: Were the exports smaller or larger before 1903.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The figures will show.

  Coastguard and the Rocket Apparatus
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg. to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to keep the rocket apparatus at those stations from which the coastguards have been removed in as efficient a state as it was before their removal; or whether it is intended to leave any of those stations without rocket apparatus.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At stations from which the coastguard has been re moved, arrangements have been made with a view to keeping the rocket life-saving service in as efficient a state as heretofore. The apparatus will in most cases be in charge either of a pensioned coastguard or of a capable civilian, but in some instances it will be worked by the coastguard from a flank station. It is not intended to leave any of the stations without rocket apparatus.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will this new service involve any addition to the Board of Trade Vote?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought there would not be any increase in the Vote for this service this year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the right hon. Gentle man had satisfied himself that where the apparatus was to be worked from flank stations no loss of life would result from delay.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed that that was a very important matter, which he would certainly bear in mind. He understood that at the present moment the arrangements were very effective in the flank stations.

  Longniddry Railway Station.
  MR. J. HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dangerous condition of the North British Rail way station at Longniddry; whether he will compel the railway company to discontinue the practice of stopping their passenger trains twice at the south plat form, owing to the length of the platform being less than the length of the trains; and whether he will instruct the rail way company to make the necessary alterations for the protection of passengers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have communicated with the railway company, who deny that this station is in any way in a dangerous condition, or that any risk arises from its use in connection with their passenger service or otherwise. The company add that the expense involved has hitherto prevented them from improving the accommodation at the station, but that the question of so doing shall be fully considered at an early meeting of the directors.

  Sewers and Income-tax.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a decision given by the House of Lords on Wednesday last in the case of Ystrady-fodwg and Pontypridd Board and Ben-stead, to the effect that sewers vested in local authorities, and maintained by them pursuant to duties imposed upon them by the Public Health Acts are assessable to the income-tax; if he can give some idea as to the total annual value of all sowers in the United Kingdom, and of the burden which will now be placed on all ratepayers in respect of the income-tax assessed upon their public sewers, irrespective of the amount of the incomes of such ratepayers; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to relieve the ratepayers of this income-tax burden now placed upon them for the first time since the income-tax has existed in this country.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns,): I have drawn the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to this matter. I understand that
  534
  it is receiving his consideration, and that if my hon. friend will put a Question to him on the subject in about a week's time, ho will do his best to answer it.

  Poor Law Statistics
  Mil. A. L. STANLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total number of inmates excluding casuals and insane, of work houses and other institutions in which paupers are received in England and Wales on the 1st January, 1907, together with the number and percentage of this total who were under and above the age of sixteen years, respectively, distinguishing, as regards those above the age of sixteen years, the number and percentage of those who were not able-bodied or infirm; and whether ho can give any information as to the number who were sixty-five years of age or upwards.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The total number of inmates of the institutions mentioned in the Question was on the 1st January, 1907, excluding the casuals and insane, 248,945. Of these 60,421, or 24.3 per cent. were under sixteen, and 188,524, or 75.7 per cent., were sixteen or over that age. Of the latter number 136,663, or 72.5 per cent., were classed as not able-bodied or infirm. This leaves 51,861 classed as able-bodied, but of these 31,556 were sick or temporarily disabled. Thus the total number of able-bodied inmates in health was only 20,305, of whom 11,508 wore men and 8,797 women. The Returns from which these figures are taken do not distinguish the number of paupers who are sixty-five years of age or upwards. The most recent information on this subject relates to the 1st September, 1903. On that date the number of indoor paupers of sixty-five or upwards (exclusive of vagrants) was 75,214, or 47.1 per cent of the total number of inmates of sixteen years of age and over.

  Low Valley Roman Catholic School.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in January, 1906, public notice was given of the intention of the promoters to provide a new Roman Catholic school at Low Valley, to replace the school struck off

  535
  the grant list in September, 1905, that the inquiry under Section 9 of the Act, 1902, was not held till July, 1906, and that the decision of the Board of Education, as a result of the inquiry, was not announced till April, 1907; and what is the explanation of this delay of nearly fifteen months, seeing that the law is to the effect that the Board of Education should act without unnecessary delay.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I regret the delay which occurred in arriving at a decision in this case. In view of the fundamental changes in the organisation of elementary education which would have taken place if the Bill of last session had become law, it was found impossible to determine the questions at issue while that Bill was under the consideration of Parliament. Some further delay arose owing to the change in the office of President of the Board.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Catholic school at Low Valley has been declared unnecessary, although there is no school accommodation for the children in the neighbourhood; whether he is aware that the parents of the children, for the most part working men, have maintained the school at their own expense for close upon two years rather than sacrifice the religious and secular education of their children; and what course he proposes in redress of this undoubted grievance.
  MR. McKENNA: The school accommodation in the neighbourhood appears to be sufficient in quantity, but the buildings are unsatisfactory. The local education authority are taking steps to provide a new school which will meet all the requirements of the district, and I am urging upon them the need for all possible expedition.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the local education authority have acquired a site for the school?
  MR. McKENNA: I am in communication with a member of the authority who
  536
  is also a Member of this House, and will ascertain that.
  LORD R. CECIL: How was it the school was declared unnecessary, when there was no accommodation?
  MR. McKENNA: There was existing accommodation, but not of a very excellent kind.

  Cloonacuna Cattle Raid.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle raid was made on the Cloonacuna farm, near Ballina, on Saturday night; whether this is the second incident of the kind on this farm within a few weeks; and, if so, why was it not prevented by the police.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL,): The police have been informed that cattle were driven off Mr. Peter Kelly's farm at the place named on the night of the 22nd ult. Two police patrols had visited the farm at different times on that night, and had found the cattle safe on each occasion. It is stated that the cattle were also driven off about six weeks before. There is no evidence to show how or by whom the cattle were removed on either occasion.

  Miltown Malbay Evicted Tenants.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire of the Estates Commissioners the reason the four evicted tenants on Mrs. Moroney's property, Miltown Malbay, are not reinstated, notwithstanding that the inspector visited the farms five months ago?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from nine persons who state they were evicted from the estate mentioned in the Question. If the hon. Member will give the names of the four persons to whom he refers, the Commissioners will be prepared to say how their applications have been dealt with
  MR. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety felt by Irish evicted tenants as to whether they are included in the 2,000 to be reinstated, or whether they are among the excluded 6,000? Will he not consider the desirability of publishing the names of the 2,000?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will consider that.

  Herbertstown Evicted Tenant.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a grant in money or kind was made to a man named M'Grath, of Herbertstown, county Limerick, by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how much.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned a grant of £135 to Thomas McGrath, in order to provide him with stock and buildings for a holding which he has purchased under Section 2.(1) (d) of the Act of 1903.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tenant, after having purchased cattle with this money, sold them again and used the money to pay off debts contracted prior to his reinstatement?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information on the subject.
  MR. LUNDON: It is a misrepresentation.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Will the hon. and gallant Member repeat the statement outside this House? We can then carry the matter further.

  Cost of Reinstating Evicted Tenants
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state approximately the cost of reinstating the 2,000 evicted tenants under the Bill he has introduced.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this subject. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the discussion on the Evicted Tenants Bill.

  Firearm Outrages.
  MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the assault with firearms upon the house of Mr. Donohue, at Killafin, in the Gort district, upon Saturday night, the 22nd instant; whether any motive is attributed by the owner for the outrage; and whether any arrests have been made.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday night, 23rd June, the residence of Mr. Blake, at Hollypark, in the Athenry district, was fired into; whether any arrests have been made; and whether Mr. Blake can assign any motive for this outrage.
  I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether official information has reached him of an assault with firearms upon a police station at Knockadorive, county Kerry; whether any arrests have yet been made for this and for the moonlighting outrages committed in this district a few months ago; and what motives are alleged to have been the cause of all these disturbances.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to refer to my Answers to three similar Questions which were put yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh † No arrests have been made. I have no information as to the motives of the offenders.

  Untenanted Lands.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the total acreage of the untenanted land which the owners who have been approached, under Regulation V. of the Regulations of the 13th February, 1906, have intimated their willingness to sell to the Estates Commissioners for the reinstatement of evicted tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 271 of the owners who have been approached under Regulation V. of the Regulations of 13th February, 1906, have intimated their willingness to sell lands to the Estates Commissioners, but of these only 160
  †See page 370.

  539
  have furnished particulars of the lands they are willing to sell, which lands comprise an area of 57,814 acres. In ten of these 160 cases in which the Commissioners have estimated the prices the owners have replied that they are willing to sell the lands, comprising 4,846 acres, at the estimated prices.

  Cattle Mutilation at Athenry.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary at Athenry have been informed that an act of cattle mutilation has been perpetrated on the farm of Patrick Mitchell at Carnakilly; and whether any arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the morning of 27th June the police at Athenry were informed that a small portion of the tails of two of Mr. Mitchell's cattle had been cut off during the previous night. The police at once visited the place and investigated the matter, but have not succeeded in discovering the offender.

  Killine Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at Galway quarter sessions on Tuesday, when application was made for permission to serve processes for rent by post in consequence of the threatening attitude of the people of Killine towards the process server of the Court; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the officers of the law in the execution of their duty.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the proceedings referred to in the Question. The police always afford full protection to process servers in the execution of their duty. In this particular case the process server is stated to have made two attempts to serve processes for rent. On the first occassion he made no application for protection; on the contrary, he told a policeman, who happened to meet him, that he required no assistance. On the next day he informed the police that he would make no further attempt to serve the processes, but notwithstanding this statement he made a further attempt on the following day, without asking for protection or even informing the police of his intention.

  Tullamore Post Office.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that there is an abundance of building material in the neighbourhood of Tullamore, he will use his influence to secure that, wherever possible, none but Irish materials should be specified for or employed in the building of the new Tullamore post office.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The matter referred to concerns the Board of Public Works rather than the Post Office. I will ask that Department to consider how far it is possible to give effect to the hon. Member's wishes without increasing the cost of the work.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it proposed to introduce a system of preferential protection in regard to Post Office contracts?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have said local materials will be used if it can be done without increasing the cost.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman intends to give preference to local material?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When it is adapted for the work, I should think it would be an advantage to use it.

  Lord Cromer.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to-ask the Prime Minister whether the proposed Vote of £50,000 to Lord Cromer for his services in Egypt will be submitted to the House by way of Resolution, and, if so, is he able to announce the terms of the Resolution and the date on which it will be introduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER And-FIRST LORD Of The TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Any step which may be taken must originate with a message from the Crown, and until such a message is received it would be premature and improper to make any statement.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that, if the unprecedented course is taken of giving Lord Cromer a

  541
  money reward for services for which he has already been well paid, I shall oppose the Resolution.

  The New Peerages.
  MR. E. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether all the new Peerages, or any of them, wore to be hereditary.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They are of the usual sort.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I thought there were Peerages of both sorts.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister whether the usual facilities would be given for the discussion of the Motion in reference to the attitude of the Government towards the Colonial Conference which stood on the Paper in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square †He also desired to know what Irish Votes were to be taken in Committee of Supply on Thursday, and what was the business for Friday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that of course the Government were ready to assign a day for the discussion of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's. He hoped to be able on Thursday to fix the day, when he made his promised statement in regard to the business of next week, and not as to business generally as had been suggested by some of their instructors in the Press. He had not got so far as that. On Thursday the Vote for University education in Ireland would be taken, and on Friday the finances of the Irish Land Act would be discussed on a Motion which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford had placed on the Paper.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON: reported from the Committee of Selection;
†Colonial Preference.—That this House regrets that His Majestiy's Government have declined the invitation unanimously preferred by the prime ministers of the Self-Governing Colonies to consider favourably any form of Colonial Preference or any measures for closer commercial union of the Empire on a preferential basis.
542
That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Earl of Ronaldshay.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Attornoy-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Sloan, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Crean, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Liddell, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Reddy, Mr. Power, Mr. Farrell, Mr. Glendinning, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Moore, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Ffrench.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Telegraph (Money) Bill and of the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill): Mr. Burns, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Telegraph (Money) Bill and of the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill): Mr. Buxton, Mr. Runciman, and Mr. Churchill.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following fourteen Members (in respect of the Telegraph (Money) Bill and of the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill): Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Smyth, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Meysey-Thompson, Mr. John Rutherford, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, Mr Harold Cox, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr Marnham, Mr. Bennett, and Sir Frank Edwards.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:—
*MR. H. H. MARKSmoved to amend the clause by extending the composition for stamp duty under the Stamp Act of 1891 "to policies of insurance or indemnity against liability incurred by employers in consequence of claims made upon them by workmen who have sustained personal injury." His object was, he said, to give to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the same power of accepting composition for stamp duty on employers' liability policies as they had in the case of other accident policies. The Workmen's Compensation Act had largely increased this class of insurance, and the question was one, therefore, of wide interest. The state of the law on the matter was not altogether clear. In 1898 it was decided by the Courts that contracts to indemnify against employers' liability were not policies of insurance against accident within the meaning of Section 98 of the Stamp Act of 1891, and it was held, therefore, that they were subject to an agreement stamp of 6d. instead of the 1d. stamp of a policy. The Finance Act of 1899 by Section 11 provided that the provisions contained in Section 98 of the Stamp Act of 1891 in reference to the expression "policy of insurance against accidents" should extend to and include policies of insurance or indemnity against the liability incurred by employers in consequence of claims made upon them by workmen who had sustained personal injury, when the annual premium on such policies did not exceed £1. It seemed, therefore that these policies were not generally within Section 98, and even if the power of composition for the stamp duties, which was given Section 116, did apply to these policies when the premium was not over £1, it did not apply to policies where a higher premium was paid. His point was that if the companies could compound for small policies they ought to be allowed to compound for larger ones, and
544
his desire was to put insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act on a level with insurances against other forms of accident.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 21, after the word 'property,' to insert the words 'to policies of insurance or indemnity against liability incurred by employers in consequence of claims made upon them by workmen who have sustained personal injury.' "—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH,)said the Amendment would not give effect to the intention. At present a policy of insurance against employers' liability upon which the premium did not exceed £1 was subject to a penny stamp, and was therefore within the composition clause; but when the premium exceeded £ the policy did not come within the ambit of the clause, and would not do so without an Amendment of the Stamp Act itself, which the hon. Member had not proposed. That, however, was a technical objection. On the merits of the case he confessed he saw no reason for extending the law beyond its. present scope. A policy on which the premium was £1 would insure an employer against all contingencies of injury to six servants, and this more than covered an ordinary household. Why should a policy on which the premium exceeded £1, and which was intended to apply to cases where there were more than six servants, enjoy special privileges He quite agreed it was right in regard to the smaller policies, but he saw no-reason for extending the scope of that provision.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that when the State imposed the obligation under the Employers' Liability Act which necessitated the taking out of a policy of insurance by A for the benefit of B, C and D—such policy being in fact the only security that B, C, and D would enjoy that which Parliament intended for them—no obstacle should stand in the way of the discharge of that obligation, but that on the contrary everything

545
possible should be done to lighten A's task as far as possible. No doubt where the premium was large the stamp duty was material. It was true that for domestic servants the premium was small, but to cover casual employment such as the charwoman and the window cleaner a minimum premium was required bringing the amount beyond £l. He had recently made an insurance of this nature.
MR. ASQUITH: Not costing more than £1 annual premium?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his impression was that it was more, and that the reason was that he expressly provided that the policy should cover the case of people called in to clean windows— a much more dangerous employment than ordinary domestic service.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that was an interesting question, no doubt, but the clause only applied to policies issued by newspapers. If, however, the hon. Member for Thanet would withdraw his Amendment the question might at a later stage be raised in the larger form.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself undertake to consider this question on the ground of public policy? We have passed an Act of Parliament which is intended to confer certain rights upon employees, the great bulk of whom are in the service of small employers and therefore cannot be assured of the benefits which Parliament intended to give them unless the employer does insure.
MR. ASQUITH: I will consider it, but I cannot pledge myself what the result of the consideration will be.
*MR. H. H. MARKS: In view of the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8:—
MR. HARMOOD BANNERmoved an Amendment to permit proxies executed abroad, and
546
allowed by this clause to be stamped in this country after execution, to be stamped by any person with an adhesive stamp within thirty days after it has been received in the United Kingdom. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in the clause, which would be of considerable advantage to shareholders who desired to exercise their influence over investments they had made in this country, and the object of his Amendment was to make this more simple and easier than was the case at the present time. He thought he was right in stating that under the clause as it stood proxies coming to this country would have to be taken to the authorities and stamped with an impressed stamp, which he thought was quite an unnecessary proceeding. It would be quite sufficient and would both add to the income of the Exchequer and to the facilities of shareholders abroad who desired to exercise their influence over their investments, if it were made possible on receipt of proxies from agents abroad to put an ordinary adhesive stamp upon them within thirty days after receipt in the United Kingdom. It was undoubtedly a fact that the investments of foreigners in limited liability companies in this country were increasing enormously, and we ought to do everything we could to enable these foreigners to follow their property, because they added to our income-tax and to our wealth. Furthermore, when they sent their money across to this country they had a right to exercise their own judgment and opinion whether the directors were acting badly or well. The very fact that these proxies would have to be sent to the Stamp Office to be stamped was a decided deterrent to the person receiving the proxy. On the other hand, the mere addition of a 1d. stamp to the proxy, to be spoilt when affixed, would meet all the requirements of the Bill and greatly add to the facilities of shareholders.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words ' in accordance with Section 15 of the said Act,' and to insert the words 'by any person with an adhesive stamp within thirty days after it has been first received in the United Kingdom.' "—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. ASQUITHsaid that the sole object of of the clause was to facilitate the use of proxies by shareholders and persons interested in companies residing abroad. The proxy could be sent by shareholders from abroad without any stamp, but the Government thought it right to apply the ordinary provisions of the Stamp Act upon arrival of proxies in this country, and require that a proxy should be stamped within thirty days of its arrival. If a proxy were stamped with an impressed stamp they would always be able to define whether or not such proxy had been stamped within the prescribed time, but if some adhesive stamp were affixed there would be no evidence whatever to show when it was stamped. The necessity of an impressed stamp was a very slight burden to impose upon those interested, and he thought they would take pains to see that the period of thirty days was not exceeded before the affixture of the stamp. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9—
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER,in moving an Amendment to provide that the capital duty in the case of a reconstructed company should only be chargeable on the additional capital brought in, said he did not think the clause went quite far enough. It merely included loan capital, and what his Amendment intended to do was to include share capital within the benefits of the clause so as to facilitate reconstruction under the Companies Act, 1862. He thought there was no reason why shareholders should be unduly penalised when a company was reconstructed. He did not make any request or suggestion with regard to the transfer of old capital to a new company, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might fairly accept the Amendment whereby equal benefits would be conferred on share and loan capital. He knew a good many companies with a capital of nearly two millions which had been registered abroad because of the stamp duty to be paid on reconstruction, representing a loss of some-
548
thing like £5,000 to the Government on capital duty.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 16, at end. to add the words — (3) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the share capital of a company which it is proposed to register under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, is to be issued in pursuance of a scheme of reconstruction under section one hundred and sixty-one of The Companies Act, 1862, of a company registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, the capital duty of five shillings per centum, imposed by The Finance Act, 1899, shall only be chargeable to the extent that the share capital, or any part of it, of the company to be registered is under the scheme to be paid up wholly or partly in cash.' "—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he doubted whether this was a proper place for the hon. Member to introduce his Amendment. The clause they were dealing with applied to the statutory corporations of the country. He did not think that the hon. Member's Amendment was really cognate to the subject matter of the clause. He was, however, rather disposed to agree with him that there was some substance in the contentions he had raised, but it would be extremely inconvenient, to say the least of it, to introduce such an Amendment into the clause. If he would allow him to do so, he would give the matter full consideration, if he had the opportunity of introducing another Finance Bill, in connection with the larger question of share capital as distinct from loan capital, and limited companies as compared with other companies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10:—
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not offer any objection to the clause; he was wholly in favour of it. But he would like to know what amount of revenue was likely to be lost by the series of concessions to the stamp duties, embodied in Part II. of the Bill.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the pecuniary difference would be very insignificant.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11:—
MR. ASQUITHmoved to add a proviso to the effect that where an interest in expectancy has before 19th April, 1907, been bona fide sold or mortgaged, no other duty on that property shall be payable by the purchaser or mortgagee when the interest falls into possession than would have been payable if the clause had not passed; and in the case of a mortgage any higher duty payable by the mortgagor shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee. He said that he was following strictly in the footsteps of his predecessors. The question was whether the higher rates of estate duty which they proposed to impose by the clause on estates exceeding,£150,000, should apply to cases of reversions which had already been sold or mortgaged. It had been represented to him by insurance companies which were very largely interested in transactions of this kind, that it would be a grievance if, subsequent to a transaction being entered into, the estate duty were raised, and the real profit of the transaction ex post facto considerably altered. He confessed he felt almost coerced into adopting the Amendment by the fact that in the Finance Acts of 1894 and 1900 a similar provision was inserted in regard to past transactions.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 38, at the end to insert the words, 'provided that where an interest in expectancy (within the meaning of Part I. of the principal Act) in any property has before the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, been bbona fide sold or mortgaged for full consideration in money or money's worth, then no other duty on that property shall be payable by the purchaser or mortgagee when the interest falls into possession than would have been payable if this section had not passed; and in the case of a mortgage any higher duty payable by the mortgagor shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee" — (The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was glad to hear the explanation which
550
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given them. He was in entire agreement with the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman had come, and he hoped they might see him (Mr. Asquith) and his colleagues acting on the same principle with regard to the rest of their legislation.
Question put, and agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HICKS BEACHopposed the clause in order to call attention to one or two points. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget statement had said that very few of the prophecies made in regard to these duties when they were imposed in 1894 had been fulfilled; that as a result no persons had invested their capital abroad nor had any country houses been shut up. But let the right hon. Gentleman go round the country and see how many houses were shut up or let to strangers entirely owing to the burden of the estate duties. He could mention one house which after its being in the possession and occupation of a family for over 200 years, the present owner had been obliged to let owing to these duties; and that in itself was a great hardship, not only to the life tenant but to the tenants on the estate. But that was not all; he had had to turn off a great many servants from the estate thereby inflicting great hardship on them. Although these duties had increased to such an extent there had been no relief to the agricultural interest, and he certainly thought that if the right hon. Gentleman was going further to increase them he might at least give some further grant in relief of agricultural rates, because the duties had a very far-reaching effect upon agriculture, and the House knew only too well how the rates now pressed not only on the large, but on the small holders. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to give some grant in relief of agricultural rates he would at least have done something to mitigate the effect of these duties. Then also there was the direct effect of these taxes on revenue. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated an increase of £1,200,000

551
from the duties, but owing to the length of time taken to settle up the estates the total increased yield this year from that source would only amount to £600,000. So far as he knew few people objected to hitting a millionaire as hard as they could, but there was one point the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked, viz., that in putting on this surtax on estates of over £1,000,000 in value and increasing the estate duty on estates of over £150,000, in the first place, he was drawing attention to the high pitch to which the duties had risen, and secondly, he was drawing the attention of the people who came into those estates to the fact that if their estate fell below a certain figure in value they would not pay nearly so much. The only result of that would be to make people divide up their estates to a large extent before they died. He believed large numbers of owners of property had already handed over if not the whole of their property, at any rate a large proportion, to their sons, so that when they died and their sons succeeded, they did not succeed to so large a property as they would otherwise have done had the estate duties not been imposed. The result therefore was that the Exchequer, instead of reaping a greater amount of revenue, only derived a small proportion, because the actual estate to which the sons succeeded at the death of their fathers was a comparatively small portion of the entire estate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer by this proposed increase would not increase the actual revenue, because he directly encouraged people to divide up their estates in their lifetime, and also because the steps of graduation were of such considerable length. The right hon. Gentleman went from £250,000 to £500,000, and from that to £750,000, and on to £1,000,000, and then to £1,500,000. Those were considerable stops, and he maintained that by leaving them at that degree the Chancellor of the Exchequer induced people to take steps to divide up their property, so that on their death the estate fell into a lower scale than that to which it originally belonged. For these reasons he believed that the Revenue would derive no benefit from the increased scale of duties, and he therefore hoped the clause would be rejected.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said that the death duties had become an integral part of our system and he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman who last held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer ever contemplated for a moment reverting to the policy which was advocated in 1894. The proposal that was now made in the schedule was that a larger amount should be paid on the larger estates. The experience of the last few years had been profitable, and he doubted whether any of the fears entertained in 1894 had been realised in actual fact. The distribution of estates to which the hon. Member had alluded might have; gone on to some extent, but even if it had he was not sure that it was an entirely bad policy. That estates should be cut up in that way was not altogether a. disadvantage to the younger generation. But year. after year for the last twelve years the revenue had gone on increasing, and only this year had there been any diminution. The rise had been continuous. The proposed increase began at a very high figure and applied to estates which were not likely to be distributed. The Government aimed at setting hold of estates of over £1,000.000, £2.000,000, and £3,000,000, in value. Such estates were more common to-day than ever they had been in the past; in fact, the Treasury had never known so large a number fall in, as they now found falling in year by year. Those who had an estate of over a million sterling could well afford to pay. He could not admit any of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the only argument of the Financial Secretary was an argument in favour of increasing the scale of graduation, and that was a very valuable argument if once they accepted the death duties as being wholly for the good of the community. But let them cast back their minds, even upon that point, to the long debate which centred round the original proposal of Sir William Harcourt, otherwise they might forget that the principle of graduation had been always combined with the principle of aggregation, and that the recipients of very small bequests from the

553
estate of a multi-millionaire were, as everybody would agree, inequitably taxed by comparison with the recipient of a million or millions. That was not a very important point, still it was a point when the Financial Secretary thought, as that afternoon, it sufficient to say that the death duties had become a permanent and integral feature of our finance. Why had they become a permanent and integral feature of our finance? It was because they had afforded one Government after another considerable sums of money which every Government in the past had needed, and which the present Government needed quite as much as any of its predecessors. Then as to direct taxation, hon. Members opposite had often put forward the plea that they were in favour of retaining the death duties because they thought that some system of equality between the taxpayers was arrived at if they made direct taxation as nearly as possible the same as indirect taxation. ["No, no."] He had heard that put forward; he thought hon. Members would agree that it had been again and again put forward that there should be 50 per cent. of direct, and 50 per cent. of indirect, taxation, and those who proposed it had turned round with an air of impartial justice and asked, "What more do you want?" That was only true generally of the whole revenue, "but it was absolutely untrue of the revenue derived from certain portions of the United Kingdom. He took Ireland as an illustration, where, as a matter of fact, 75 per cent. came from indirect taxation, and only 25 per cent. from direct taxation. What was true of Ireland was true of all the Eastern counties of England, and also of the Western counties, Wiltshire and Dorsetshire. The plea that they were conferring impartial justice on the whole community by deriving half the revenue from direct taxation fell to the ground when they considered the agricultural community. He did not think it could be denied that this form of direct taxation hit the agricultural community harder than the industrial community. So that what was impartial justice according to the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was unjust to the agricultural districts according to the view of Members on that side of the House, who held that it was another injustice imposed upon the agricultural community. There was no special virtue in direct taxation as
554
such, and there were evils attaching to it which were unforeseen for a long period and then became apparent. Direct taxation, in common with indirect taxation, was only to be justified if they got the money they needed without injury to the productive capacity and the general welfare of the community at large. The Financial Secretary had claimed that the death duties had enabled the Government to obtain many millions each year for national defence and social reform, and that nobody was a penny the worse; therefore, presumably, it was an ideal form of taxation, because they got the money without depressing the springs of future wealth. He thought the moment had arrived for asking, in no Party spirit, whether all that was as true as it seemed. It was true at first. But what had been going on? Fourteen years ago they would not find a family solicitor or a trustee generally who did not advise those for whom he acted to invest their money in gilt-edged securities—either in Consols, or in securities which rose and fell in sympathy with Consols. Now the family solicitor or trustee invariably gave advice utterly different; and consequently a considerable class in the community with small fortunes of £5,000 or £10,000 invested their money in securities which gave them a greater return. In the old days it used to be said that land did not run away; and the same thing was said of Consols. Nobody was saying that now; it was no longer true; and this was the moment, he thought, to bring that fact before the attention of the Committee This was a change, not a very great change, not a very important change, in the death duties, but it was a change which went still further in the direction which he mentioned. He was not asking the Committee to repeal the death duties; he was asking them not to be so self-satisfied and complacent in regard to the action of the death duties as perhaps both sides of the House had fallen into the habit. of being. People divided up their estates, and. it was the fact that younger sons were now given a security which produced the allowance formerly afforded them. And he would call attention to another fact, a very important one, which they ought not lightly to doubt— that money was being invested abroad at the present moment to an extent for which

555
there was no parallel in the history of the country, and the death duties were one of the causes which produced that result, because 4½ to 5 per cent could be got from foreign investments.
MR. ASQUITH: How do the death duties produce that result?
MR. WYNDHAM: Because prior to the death duties the family solicitor and the trustee invariably advised the investment of money in Consols or British railway stock. Now they advised investments in South America, Mexico, Egypt, and the Australian Colonies, as well as in industrial enterprises in this country. That was one of the reasons why Consols stuck obstinately at eighty-four or eighty-three; and it was one of the reasons for the universal depression of first-class securities. To that extent there was more to be said for a greater recourse to indirect taxation than many people had recently been prepared to allow.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE:said the argument with regard to the equality of direct and indirect taxation, which was alleged to be common in the mouths of all of them, was one which had fallen from the last two or three Chancellors of the Exchequer, and had never been put before them so strongly as by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. It had never been accepted in that quarter of the House, among the Radicals below the gangway. While this very small increase of the death duties was proposed here, foreign countries, most of whom raised more money by direct taxation proportionately than we did, France notably, were all increasing the death duties more rapidly than we were; and since our adoption of the graduated scale in 1894, there had been an enormous increase of the graduation of the death duties in rival foreign countries. In France, the death duties were far higher than here, and they were to be increased again by the proposals of the last Budget and the present Budget. In all the States of the German Empire there were not only State death duties but also facultative local progressive death duties. The Imperial progressive death duties were added to the
556
local progressive death duties, and these death duties were increasing at a rate of which that House had little conception. They were also combined with a progressive income-tax, and the tax was used for local purposes, including enormous improvements in Hamburg and all the great cities of Germany, which improvements were being entirely effected out of this income tax and entirely out of direct taxation. If hon. Members opposite, who thought that direct taxation in this country was too high, considered what was taking place in France and Germany, and in Italy above all, perhaps, they would see that, even in countries which were mainly agricultural, and of which the resources were, in a far higher degree than here, agriculture, they would see that they were raising a vastly increased proportion of their revenue, both in Imperial and local taxation, by direct taxation in the forms of a progressive income-tax and progressive death duties. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of this as an agricultural grievance, a matter in which he followed the mover of the rejection of the clause. It was a direction in which he certainly could not follow the right hon. Gentleman, and on which he desired to hear some more facts from those who took that view. It was perfectly true that the case of Ireland was not an isolated case. It was perfectly true that in many constituencies, his own for instance, they had the Irish grievance, that indirect taxation pressed very heavily on the people there, who paid a larger proportion of indirect taxation than did the country as a whole. How did that help this proposal? Did it not rather help the proposal to reduce indirect taxation?. What was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in the case he put before the House on behalf of agriculture? He suggested that capital was going abroad for fear of the death duties. How he could make that suggestion in face of the fact that the death duties were higher in France and were increasing far more rapidly abroad than they were in this country he could not for the life of him understand. In every foreign country they would find the same statement being made which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman—that capital was being driven out of the country by the death

557
duties. Every foreign country was beginning to see that they had to raise larger sums from direct taxation, and we were slowly following the impulse which was becoming general, and in regard to which this country took a very important step in 1894.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he understood the Financial Secretary to say that the Government were satisfied with the result of the death duties and that none of the fears expressed in former years had been realised. He would undertake to say that if they wanted to spell rural depopulation in two words it might be spelt "death duties." Empty cottages were more plentiful in the districts where the death duties had operated most disastrously. In many of the villages in England where large estates had recently changed hands they would find considerable depopulation resulting from the operation of the death duties. Although that might not be a conclusive argument against such duties he put it forward to substantiate some of the doubts expressed in former days. If the desire to put people, back on the land and to maintain happy homes in the villages was genuine and not a political fraud they would recognise that it was the direct consequence of the death duties that those industrial rural communities had been dispersed. In his opinion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not correct when he suggested that they were entirely mistaken in their forebodings as to the result of the death duties.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. MCKENNA,said two remarkable statements had been made as to the consequences of the death duties. The right hon. Member for Dover, who said that the exportation of capital was due to these duties, omitted to remind the Committee that foreign investments paid death duties just as much as home investments. So long as that was the case, it would be very difficult to prove that our death duties caused investment abroad. The fact was that trustees now had a much wider range of investment than they had before, and it
558
was the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member which widened the area. This, amongst other causes, had seriously affected the price of Consuls. The last speaker had attributed rural depopulation to the death duties. Did he, then, date such depopulation from 1894 or show that it had increased more rapidly since that date? On the contrary, the right hon. and gallant Member had not shown that there was any relation between the death duties and rural depopulation. It was true that in rural districts there was now a larger percentage paid in indirect taxation than in urban districts, but it was not shown that rural districts were therefore as a whole taxed too highly. The right hon. Member for Dover had referred to the theory that indirect and direct taxation ought to contribute in the proportion of half and half to the revenue as an accepted theory. That theory was a very valuable theory at a time when the proportions were something like 80 per cent. of indirect and 20 per cent. of direct taxation, and he remembered the time very well when hon. Gentlemen on both sides received with great applause the statements of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that they were endeavouring to bring this proportion more to an equality. But that did not mean that they were bound for ever to accept equality as their ideal. When there was anything but equality, and the burden of indirect taxation was especially hard, undoubtedly it was a wise thing to aim at equality; but to-day, when the standard was levelled up, it did not necessarily follow that it must stay at equality. No Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party had ever laid it down as an axiom that we ought to have equality between direct and indirect taxation. The only Chancellor of the Exchequer who had stated it positively, as far as he remembered, was Lord St. Aldwyn, who certainly did lay it down as an ideal, but it had never been accepted on that side. He saw no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should now assume that they were bound for all time never to allow direct to exceed indirect taxation. Speaking for himself, if it were possible, he would gladly see all indirect taxation done away with.
MR. WYNDHAM: You would have Consols at 40?
MR. MCKENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had shown no relation whatever between direct taxation and Consols at 40. In an ideal system he thought nothing would be better than to have our whole taxation raised through income-tax and death duties; we should then get rid of all burdens upon trade from which we now suffered—the whole machinery of Customs. But that was the ideal. He did not intend to speak for anybody but himself. He would gladly see an extension downwards as well as upwards of income-tax, rather than any extension of indirect taxation, and he was sure that in the long run it would be found to the interest of the State. They would raise their money far more cheaply than at the present time and with much less interference with business. He protested against the assumption that they were in any way committed to the principle of equality between direct and indirect taxation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not sure as to the relevancy of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment before the Committee. Those remarks were interesting, and he thought hon. Members would agree with him when he said that he had never heard a more amazing statement from a Minister speaking on the Finance Bill. What was the doctrine he had just laid down? The right hon. Gentleman's position was that they might hold up to the House and the country a theory of taxation, but that they were not to be supposed as in any way committing themselves to the practice of that theory. They were merely using it as a convenient form of argument as long as the system of taxation in force erred more widely than the theory set up. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were not to be held to keep direct and. indirect taxation exactly equal. That was a convenient theory, but if it was good when indirect exceeded direct it was equally good when direct exceeded indirect. The theory was sound or unsound. For his part he believed the theory had absolutely no foundation in fact, and that it was absolutely unjustified by any logical trend of thought. That, after all, was merely a little light on the ethics of policy as it appeared to the right hon. Gentleman, but he made
560
a much more important statement because it was gravely enunciated as a financial principle. The right hon. Gentleman would like to abolish all indirect taxation and raise the whole of the revenue by income-tax and the death duties. He need not say that the right hon. Gentleman was never likely to he in a position —he did not think the right hon. Gentleman ever expected to be—to carry out that aspiration. That was unimportant, but what he wished to direct attention to was the argument by which the right hon. Gentleman sustained the proposition. His argument was that if they could place the whole burdens of the country upon the income-tax and the death duties they would get rid of all the burdens on trade. Did the Committee ever listen to a more amazing statement from a responsible Minister? Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that one of our present Customs duties, the duty on tea, was a greater burden on trade than a 10 per cent. tax on incomes? A tax on income was as much a burden on trade as a charge on the articles of trade. There was absolutely no difference in that respect. It was only a difference in degree rather than principle between a tax upon accrued property such as the death duties and a tax upon articles of consumption such as Customs and Excise duties. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman could not be sustained for a moment; he could not quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his support, for he had laid down to the House, and rightly so, that a high income-tax was a burden on trade, and that it affected not only the person who directly paid the tax, but indirectly those who were dependent for employment given by the payer of the tax. He thought that to everyone except the President of the Board of Education that proposition would be clear; he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman had time to give a little more thought to the subject he would see that he could not relieve the burdens on trade by putting the whole of the burden of taxation on the income-tax or the death duties. There are two questions raised by the cause; one was the effect of the increase of the death duties on the revenue, and the other was the effect on the individual. These two questions were

561
quite distinct and had to be treated separately There was no doubt that the death duties had proved a wonderful source of revenue. They had shown wonderful power of expansion, but at the same time nobody who knew the fact would doubt that a good deal of property now escaped death duties which would not have escaped if they had been at a much more moderate level, or if the scale introduced by Sir William Harcourt had never been made. The effect on the whole had been to produce a largely increased sum, but the second effect had been to cause a certain number of people to consider how they could legitimately or otherwise evade payment of these heavy duties. The heavier they made the duties the greater was the temptation of people to evade them if they could. One form of avoidance was that to which his right hon. friend and also the Secretary of the Treasury had referred, namely, donations and gifts. He thought Sir William Harcourt could be quoted in support of the statement that that was a good thing in itself, as a social arrangement, and that they had no reason to regret it. When it was pointed out that this would be one of the effects of the death duties he was proposing, Sir William Harcourt said that if it was so it would be a very good result, and he would not be unhappy at having brought it about. Socially it had been a good result. It did enable a certain number of people in certain circumstances to reduce very much the burden that fell on their estates at their death. It worked very unequally. It was not always that a man could transfer to his heirs within his lifetime. He might die when they were children, and he could not distribute his estate in the same way as he could do if he lived till they were grown up. As long as that process went on it was bad for the revenue, but on the whole, setting the advantage to the community against the disadvantage to the revenue, the advantage predominated. But that was not the only form of evasion which went on. There was a class of securities absolutely untraceable on the death of the owner. There was no security that the death duties would be paid on "bearer" securities except the good faith of the
562
person who owned them. These securities were not very largely held in this country, but those who did hold them were rich people whom the revenue authorities particularly wished to get at. One of the peculiarities of the death duties and one inconvenience in getting an increased contribution from rich people, was that it was always more easy for a man of superabundant wealth to evade and avoid them than for a man of moderate or small means. A man of moderate means had probably to pay up to the hilt. It was only rich men who were able, it might be by legitimate or illegitimate methods, to evade payment of their full share. That process of avoidance would and must, he believed, be hastened and increased by every step taken in the direction of making the burden heavier on those big fortunes. In so far as that process went on, in spit of the increased yield of the duties, it would be quickened by the steps now taken under this clause, and in so far as it went on it would be bad for the revenue. It was natural to expect that that would be so, looking at the analogy of the income-tax and what happened during the war, when it was raised from 8d. up to, at one point, Is. 3d. in the £. If they consulted the Report of the Board of Inland Revenue, or the evidence given before the Committee on the Income-tax, they would find that the immediate result of that great rise was that there was an enormous increase in the number of people who claimed abatements from the tax. That was to say, the number of people who had not taken the trouble to make the claim when it was low did make it when the tax was high. In exactly the same way a number of people who did not go out of the ordinary routine to evade the death duties while they were moderate would set to the task of inquiring how they could evade them when they were made very high. That must have a bad effect from the revenue point of view. As to the other question, the effect upon the individual, he confessed that he did not think it unjust to take a larger share in death duties if they could get it from very rich men with property freely available and easily realisable, especially when that property did not

563
carry with it great obligations which reduced the income apparently available to its possessor. But was that always so with big fortunes? It was so with big fortunes in personalty, but it was not so with big landed estates. There the capital value of the estate was out of proportion to the net revenue which the owner of the estate enjoyed and his obligations not merely legal but moral—obligations which he discharged from a sense of noblesse oblige, family traditions, duty to the estate, and the desire to carry out what his father had carried out before him. These made great inroads on the income apparently available for his own purposes. It was often excessively difficult to turn into cash a portion of the estate which he held. There were cases in which a man might be able to sell a portion of the estate in order to meet the claim, but there were other cases in which they could not easily do that, and he thought the effect of the large duties already imposed had been very hard in some of those cases. He quite agreed with his hon. friends who had already spoken that they had a distinctly bad effect on the economy of certain rural districts; that they turned out of the great houses, sometimes for a few years, and sometimes for many years, those who had the greatest sense of responsibility to the districts in which their families had lived, and put in their places tenants who came to-day and might be gone to-morrow, and who had none of that personal responsibility and care for the life and circumstance of the districts in which their home was temporarily placed. If there was anything in what he had said, the effect was to aggravate the evils of which he had spoken. For his part, though he did not see his way to modify the incidence of the death duties, he had left them as he found them, and he thought that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to increase the death duties he should have made an endeavour, while getting more money from those who could afford to pay, to lessen the hardships caused to others less wealthy.
MR. EVANSsaid that the debate on this clause had ranged over many subjects, and he was quite sure that they were very much obliged to
564
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for having pointed out how hard the death duties might be on the landed interest, and how easy they would be on persons who enjoyed personal property! He expressed surprise at the speech of the President of the Board of Education, which, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean the removal of all indirect taxation, such as the duties on spirits, tobacco, and tea and other commodities. He deprecated the discursive and Utopian discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman and others had taken part, and wished to bring the Committee back to something practical. He was entirely in favour of the death duties from the point of view of the landed interest as well as from the point of view of those who had large personal property. Whatever the late Chancellor of the Exchequer might say now, when he was in office, and when he had a large and obedient majority at his back, he did not endeavour to get away from the principle of death duties, or modify them in the sense he had indicated in the debate that evening. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in asking the Committee to believe that when the income-tax was increased to Is. 2d. in the £ there was greater evasion than when it was at a lower rate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that what he had stated was that there were many more claims for abatement when the tax was increased. When the tax was comparatively low many persons who were entitled to abatement did not claim it; and he argued from that that if the death duties were made higher there would be attempts to evade them.
MR. EVANSsaid he was entirely in favour of death duties both on landed and personal property, as he had said, but his complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the right hon. Gentleman had been much too easy in the increase he had made. First of all, he had only commenced his increase of duty when he arrived at £150,000; up to that sum the rate of duty being that established in 1894. Why did he not begin at £100,000, instead of £150,000? And why after £1,000,000, having raised the rate by £1, did he cease to raise the

565
rate. It might have been thought from that point the increase would have been by leaps and bounds.
MR. ASQUITH: Was not that moderate?
MR. EVANSsaid that the extremity of the moderation of the right hon. Gentleman was only arrived at after £1,000,000 was passed. It was a grotesque arrangement. From £500,000 to £750,000 the rate was £9 per cent.; from £750,000 to £1,000,000 it was £10 per cent., and then it might have been expected that the increase would go on. But the scale proposed was from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000, £10 on £1,000,000 and £11 per cent. on the remainder; from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000, £10 on £1,000,000 and £12 per cent. on the remainder; and with every additional £500,000 there was an additional £1 per cent. on the excess over £1,000,000 up to £3,000,000. He wanted to know what particular reason there was for raising the duty by £1 as the estate increased up to £1,000,000 from £750,000, and then stopping short and going into fractional parts. The right hon. Gentleman should have the courage of his convictions and not have been so extremely moderate. Nobody would have complained. The deceased could not complain and the representative of the person coming into possession of over £1,000,000 would have no reason to complain of an increase of one per cent. rather than a fraction of one per cent.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean had stated that the death duties were higher in France than in England, but if France was to be our guide the French system of taxation would have to be followed throughout.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that everybody in France now believed that their system of taxation ought to be improved. At any rate, the direct taxation in that country was much higher than it was here.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what he really rose for was to answer the extra-
566
ordinary statement of the President of the Board of Education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was to tax profits on trade and also to take death duties. That would make success in trade almost impossible, and it would also make it impossible for some people to succeed to landed property. He did not, like the right hon. Member for Dover, believe that capital was going abroad in consequence of the imposition of the death duties. It had been said quite truly that foreign securities had to pay death duties as well as English, but foreign securities were mostly "bearer" securities, which, although very unpopular in England, were popular abroad, because by means of them the income-tax could be evaded. These death duties pressed heavily upon estates which were divided among a large number of people because, said the right hon. Gentleman, the family always sent for [the family solicitor, who arranged these matters and secured the lowest rate of estate duty. But somebody had to pay it. If a man having eight children left a million of money, each child would receive £125,000, and the estate would be subject to a death duty of 10 per cent. If his brother had £125,000 and only one child his estate would only have to pay 6 per cent. Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to him in what way the family solicitor being called in would alter that state of things? He admitted that the rise in the death duties was not large; indeed as the sum which would be raised by it was not large, there seemed hardly any necessity to make it at all. Although it was true that the death duties dealt with large sums of money and that, as the late Sir Wm. Harcourt said, people did not like to part with their money during their life-time, still the tendency to do so would be increased if these death duties were raised. People with money were however becoming accustomed to these death duties, and although the desire not to part with their money was ingrained in human nature, it would be a national evil if through legislation they were induced to do so.
MR. ASQUITH: pointed out that the Statute dealing with the death duties had not been changed by the Conservative Government.
SIR F. BANBURYreplied that it was not the habit of the different Parties to change the legislation of their predecessors when they came into office. He was afraid, however, that the Party opposite were going to do so, and therefore in consequence when the Unionists came back to power they would probably have to change some of their legislation. He did not think that capital was going abroad on account of the death duties, but as the change in these duties was only going to bring in £600,000 when the total death duties yielded £14,400,000, he thought it was a mistake to stir up all the old feeling on the subject for so small an advantage. Therefore, in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would vote for the Amendment and against his proposal.
MR. ASQUITHwas very much obliged to the hon. Baronet for his consideration and greatly appreciated the tone and temper of his remarks, but he had somewhat under-rated the effect of the change. During the present year it was not safe to estimate for more than £600,000 or £700,000; but when the change came into complete operation, looking at the yearly average of the last ten years, it was likely to bring in about a million and a quarter. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that that sum was a welcome addition to a Chancellor of the Exchequer with not over-swollen resources. He agreed that the scale was open to the observations of his hon. and learned friend; but it seemed to go as far as was prudent at present. If the yield was in excess of their anticipations and it appeared that further steps were not likely to be attended with detrimental results on the accumulation of capital or on the development of trade, he saw no reason why they should not be taken. The low price of Consols could not be attributed to the death duties, for Consols had gone on rising after the death duties were introduced, and had reached their record point and high water mark of 113 or 114 in 1896, some years afterwards. There was no connection either between the death duties and the exportation of capital. The countries to which capital was being exported were countries in which death duties had long prevailed. Death duties
568
had the enormous advantage to the revenue of being much the most difficult duties to evade. Income-tax under the present law, and probably under any improvement they could make in the law, could be evaded to a large extent. Facilities for fraud and concealment and illegitimate interchange of wealth as between man and man were so great, that an income-tax which would operate fairly and justly between all classes of the community was an ideal which could never be fully attained. Death duties, however, were extremely difficult to evade. The only effective way of evasion was by doing what was repugnant to human nature, parting with the possession and control of property in one's own lifetime. Without going into the problem of what was, or what ought to be, the precise proportion between direct and indirect taxation, they had here the most potent instrument yet invented for taxing realised wealth. He was only asking the Committee to proceed on lines which were well justified by experience and suggesting tentatively a step in advance likely to bring a large accession of revenue and to lay the foundations for further advance.
MR. J. F. MASONadmitted that there was a justification for this clause if it were only applied to personal revenue, but thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was throwing away an opportunity of rectifying a great injustice now existing on account of the absence of differentiation between the duties on personal and real estate. It was quite a different thing to charge land and to charge money invested in securities. As to the question of evasion he would point out that the opportunities were much larger and could be more easily availed of in the case of personal property than in the case of land. Let them take for example the instances of two men, one of whom succeeded to an estate of £100,000 in land, and the other £100,000 in personalty. The man who succeeded to the landed estate would be lucky if he got an income of £2,000 a year, yet he had to pay his death duties, in order to do which he had very often to borrow money, and had the extra difficulty that he was not able to realise any portion of his estate

569
in order to pay the duty. On the other hand the man who succeeded to the personalty, possibly gilt-edged securities, not only derived an income nearly twice as large as the other man, but also had the advantage of lopping off a part of his estate and so getting rid at once of the death duties and having the remainder settled once and for all. He ventured to think that this was an opportunity which might have been taken advantage of to remedy the injustice by differentiation. He would not have objected to see the estate duty on personalty increased so long as the duty on land was not increased. Land was burdened enough already. He thought in the interests of the community at large and the interests of justice it was most important that the principle of differentiation should be acknowledged.
MR. BOWLESsaid the question before the Committee was not whether we should have death duties or whether it was a good or bad form of taxation, but whether the new form of graduating the death duties proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was a good, useful, and fair graduation. He himself believed that all graduations, with one exception, were really a mistake and wrong, because they proceeded on a principle which was mischievous and unsound. All taxes were disagreeable, but they were necessary, and the principle; upon which we should proceed with regard to them was that if a tax was to be paid it should be regarded by the person who paid it as a payment for services rendered to him by the State. If that principle was sound then the argument was unanswerable that if a man possessed property twice the value of that of his neighbour, the services rendered to him by the State were double those rendered to his neighbour, and therefore his property should be taxed twice as much. That being so, graduation was bad with the exception of the graduation of a tax on the necessities of bare existence. That, however, was not a plea that could be made in this case, because what the right hon. Gentleman was doing did not begin until the estate amounted to £150,000. It was therefore a frank application
570
of the principle that a man ought to pay to the Government not in proportion to what he received, but in proportion to what others had received. There was an ancient principle taught by the Jesuit Fathers of Spain that if one saw a man going to rob a poor man it was a right principle to take the man by the shoulder and point out to him a rich man whom he might rob instead. That was the principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had pointed out one great injustice of this process of graduation; he would point out another. Suppose that under this scale a millionaire died and left to his butler £1,000. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scale the butler paid 10 per cent., or £100, on succeeding to that £1,000. But reverse the case, and suppose the butler died and left it to his master the millionaire: the latter would only pay 2 per cent. His real objection to the proposal for screwing up the graduation of the death duties was that he believed it would have a serious and bad effect on the revenues. These heavy duties had resulted in evasion and avoidance, and if it was true as the right hon. Gentleman said, that evasion could only be effected by doing what was repugnant to human nature, it showed that these duties were regarded as being so unfair that people were prepared to do what was repugnant rather than to submit to them. The real truth was that all graduation was wrong. But if there was to be graduation, unless the right hon. Gentleman was going to do more harm than good the graduation must be by almost imperceptible steps in order that a man should not know exactly how he stood, and have no temptation to deal with his property. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the other principle, which would inevitably lead to increasing the temptation of a man to get off the step on which he stood and on to the next below. He would instance the case of a triple millionaire. The first million would pay £100,000, and the other two millions £300,000— in all, £400,000. If he were able to get rid of £2,000,000, he would save three-quarters of the duty. The temptation to such a man to do that was

571
certainly enormous. For these reasons, because it was perpetuating and increasing an injustice, and because at the same time it would bring no real advantage to the right hon. Gentleman's revenue, he considered this a thoroughly bad proposal, and, what was worse or quite as bad in these matters, a thoroughly foolish proposal.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYagreed that some of the pictures which were conjured up when the proposal as to these duties was made in 1894, had not been entirely fulfilled; at the same time he was of opinion that, of all the people in this country, the most heavily taxed were the men who had inherited large landed estates, and who, certainly, for three or four years had practically to pay out the whole of the income to meet the death duties. Several cases had occurred where undoubtedly great reductions had been made in establishments in the country, with the result that large numbers had been thrown out of work. Moreover, there could be no doubt that it had been found impossible to carry on the work of the estate, to build cottages for small holdings, and to effect other improvements, owing to the economies which the landowner was compelled to exercise in order to meet the death duties. During fourteen years there had been no change in these duties, and people had been able to make provision for paying the amount which fell due to the Treasury at their death, so that their relatives should not be left in an impoverished state. Arrangements had been made, either by life insurance or by other methods, by which the death duties could be met without incurring hardships on the heir. But this proposal to increase the death duties must instantly cause a great feeling of insecurity in the minds of those who had accumulated capital in this country. He did not anticipate, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches and public acts, that they were likely to have any Bills introduced which, as he had said in his speech that day, would have the effect of stopping the accumulation of capital in this country or have any detrimental effect on trade. He believed, however
572
he might differ from him on many subjects, that the right hon. Gentleman would take the greatest care that no proposal which would have such an effect was made. But when they heard the speeches of some hon. and right hon. Members, especially that of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, that the present proposal did not go far enough, he thought it must be perfectly apparent to everybody that it might be the thin end of the wedge, and that in future, whenever a Progressive Government was in office and they wanted money, they would increase the death duties. The consequence would be seriously to decrease confidence in this country as to the holding of property in any form. It would be a serious thing for our trade and prosperity if security and confidence were to be shaken and capital removed. After all, it was not a brave expedient, whenever a million or two was required, immediately to tax the rich people. It was believed by hon. Members opposite that wealth carried with it great power; but that was not the fact. He was rather disappointed when he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he did not consider the proposal made on this occasion to be final in any way. He was perfectly certain of one thing, that once it got about that whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money he would raise the scale of the death duties, it must lead to a great feeling of insecurity. He knew that the answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite was always that there was no difference between real and personal property, and that it was perfectly easy for a landowner to meet the death duties by borrowing money on his estate. He had some experience in these matters, and he knew that if anything could be done to make the condition of agriculture worse, and consequently the condition of rural districts, it was to encourage landlords to raise money on mortgage and encumber their estates. It meant that an estate was tied up, and that either nothing could be done to ameliorate the condition of the people living upon it or the whole thing was handed over to trustees who would try to bleed the rural district for the

573
greatest amount possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should carefully consider whether he ought not to make some definite statement that day to the effect that, having gone so far in this direction it was not intended to go any further. Under the old scale of death duties it had been possible, as he had said, for persons to make arrangements by which to meet them, but if, whenever a million or two was required, this cowardly policy, for that was what he called it, of raising the scale of the death duties was to be resorted to, then persons would not be able to make such arrangements, and estates would become encumbered throughout the length and breadth of England, a result which would have a most disastrous effect on the rural districts of the country.
MR, W. REDMONDsaid he occupied a somewhat detached position, as he belonged to neither of the two great Parties. He was often lost in amazement at the tactics pursued in that House by Parties when they took office and when they were in opposition. The whole of that afternoon a series of attacks had been made on the death duties by hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House. To listen to their speeches one would imagine that if they had the opportunity they would not allow half an hour to elapse before they abolished the death duties, and brought relief to the poor long-suffering millionaires of the country whom they represented. But everybody knew that during the whole time the Unionist Party were in power, they had never in all the years since the death duties were enacted, said as much against them as they had said that afternoon. They had every opportunity when they were in power of undoing the great work of Sir William Harcourt, but the idea was so popular with the working people of the country generally that they never attempted in the slightest degree to interfere with it. But now that they were in Opposition they lifted up their voices in the most piteous manner about the woes of the millionaires and the iniquities of the death duties. He read somewhere in a newspaper not long ago of a man who had visited the House of
574
Commons. He was rather an irrverent person, because he said there was a good deal of "humbug" in the place. When asked what he meant by that, he said that when a Party was in opposition they invariably saw all sorts of evils in things to which, when they were in power, they never had any objection whatever. The whole thing was somewhat hollow and insincere, and it was made all the more so when they had such a speech as that which had been delivered by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had delivered an attack upon the proposed change in the graduation of the death duties, and yet when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he never made the slightest attempt to undo the Act of Sir William Harcourt, and had never uttered a single word, so far as he knew against the system. But, free from office, he came to the House, and drew a picture, sufficient almost to bring tears to one's eyes, of the tremendous sufferings which had been endured by the wealthy classes of the country. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn a picture which had really touched him very much, when he spoke of representatives of ancient families, the old aristocracy of the country, being obliged sadly and sorrowfully to close the ancestral halls and go away, because they could not live there with the dread of the death duties over them—with the horrible result that some new rich people came along and installed themselves in the ancestral homes of the aristocrats of England. If that was the result of Sir William Harcourt's death duties, it was very terrible indeed. But he thought that if the people were aware of it at all, it was not until they were informed of it by the right hon. Gentleman. He had criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer gladly because he had not removed the tea duty, but he thought the proposal they were now discussing was the very best thing in the budget. The general wish of the country was that they should go further and put a great deal more on the death duties. He asked the Committee to imagine at the beginning of this century hon. Gentlemen defending the enormously wealthy people of the country and declaring that they

575
ought to be relieved of a reasonable share of taxation. In other parts of the world the death duties were much heavier. The evidence given before the Committee on Income-tax, of which he was a member, showed that the taxation of the wealthier persons abroad was heavier than in this country. He would have thought hon. Members would be ashamed to come down to the House and whine about being asked to pay a reasonable amount of taxation towards the revenue of the country. The time would come when a much heavier burden would be put upon those who had amassed enormous fortunes. At the present time there was too great a proportion of taxation placed upon the extremely poor. It was a most astounding thing that the people who were continually complaining about taxation were the very wealthy, and those who paid with the least murmuring were the poorest part of the population. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next year would go further along this path and make those persons who had so much surplus wealth pay more than they did at the present time towards the revenue of the country.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid the hon. Member for East Clare had complained that the Opposition on this question held different views from those they expressed when in office. He did not pretend to have the same knowledge of constitutional history as the hon. Member, but he would find what he complained of was true of every Parliament throughout the world, and it would probably be true of a Parliament in Dublin when the hon. Member himself might be Chancellor of the Exchequer. If by using that argument the hon. Member intended to do a kindness to the Party in power he could not possibly have done them more harm. He had risen to contradict the hon. Member's statement that the rich men in other countries were much more heavily taxed than in England. Surely the hon. Member in his constitutional researches had overlooked the case of America, where rich men were not so heavily taxed as in this country, where the income-tax was practically non-effective, and where the duties paid by
576
rich men were much smaller than in this country. The opposition to the clause was directed against a graduated scale of death duties and the point was whether such duties were or were not advisable. Nothing which had been said in the course of the debate had given the Committee any ground for supporting the right hon. Gentleman in his proposal to graduate the death duties. He did not believe that the proposal would have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman imagined and he hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
LORD BALCARREsaid the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had said that, so far as he knew, no evil result had followed from the Act of 1894. He ventured to say that at least one evil result had followed, because, in consequence of that Act and still more in consequence of the extension of it this year, there had been an ever-increasing export of works of art from this country, such as pictures, libraries, plate, and everything in the nature of works of art. This exportation was steadily going on, and the cause of it was very largely the operation of the death duties. The late Sir William Harcourt himself in 1894 admitted that that was the only argument which really affected him in the criticism of his Finance Bill. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach made an alteration in 1896 which to some extent mitigated that evil, but the effect for the last thirteen years had been a constant and ever-increasing stream of works of art out of this country.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No.
LORD BALCARRESadmitted that that was to some extent a matter of opinion, but he could assure hon. Members that ten years ago there was practically no country in the world which bought works of art from Great Britain except the United States of America. In 1900 competition with Germany became very serious, and during the last four or five years France and Austria and even Spain had been taking part in this competition. Italy, the country from which half our great collections had been taken, was now actually entering the British market as a competitor with other buying countries. As far as he could

577
ascertain, the importation of works of art from the Continent was only about one-fifth of our exports. He was not putting the point on fiscal grounds. Whether i t was directly attributable to the death duties he would not say, but that it was so in the case of fifteen or twenty particular instances he unhesitatingly asserted to be the fact. So far as he could learn, in this country works of art in the vast majority of cases were sold by their inheritors when the death duties had to be paid. There were agents on the Continent who, one way and another, had access to the country houses of this country and had regular records sent to them. He had known cases where gentlemen had received letters from foreign agents acting for foreign buyers offering substantial sums for a whole room. He thought, the country at large was all the poorer for the loss of these works of art. Many of them were in private hands, but there was no country in the world where the public, in these matters had more free, regular, and systematic access to private collections than in Great Britain. It was almost impossible in these death duties to discern the amount realisable from any particular class of property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no official information to enable him to give the Committee the figures. If asked what he estimated the net income derived from works of art to be the right hon. Gentleman would be unable to tell them. He himself had made an estimate and his conclusion was that out of the £15,000,000 received during the last highly successful death duties year something like £250,000 was received by the Exchequer entirely on account of works of art. He did not say that that was the exact amount payable on them, but it was almost susceptible of proof that the amount of money so gained by the State was a very appreciable item. He thought the effect of this clause would be to increase the tendency to which he had referred. He regretted that, and he wished that the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to substitute some other system for this particular valuation of works of art. If there was a tax on sales of works of art, it would only be incurred by those who desired to purchase, and it would extend over a vastly greater number of persons
578
than were at present touched. It would reach the foreign buyers, who were far greater in number and more opulent in the purchases than the British buyers, and altogether they would get a larger sum than at the present moment. The constant drain of works of art from this country was sensibly making the nation poorer. He would like that the allocation of the money so received should be given to a greater extent than at present to the National Galleries. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not allocate the proceeds to particular items in the Civil Service Estimates, but he thought it would be worth while considering later on, in view of the gigantic sum of money received from this particular source in connection with the death duties, whether the art services of the country should not be treated more generously in future.
MR. MARKHAMcalled attention to the scale set out in the Schedule, and stated that it seemed to him that there were certain classes of property which did not at present pay enough. If a man died leaving a thousand acres of land containing minerals, which land must have a market value in respect of those minerals, the estate only paid duty on the value of the agricultural land.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member cannot raise this question on the clause now before the Committee.
MR. MARKHAMasked whether it would not be in order to point out how increased revenue could be obtained in the way indicated.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It does not arise on the clause now before the Committee, I think, because it does not, as I understand it, affect the alteration of the scale.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some of his remarks had caused him disquietude, because he not only proposed to increase the already heavy death duties which had remained fixed since the Act of 1894 was passed, but had indicated that it was perfectly possible that in future years under certain circumstances

579
those duties would be still further increased. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it his duty to hold out a threat of that kind. Last week for the first time since the right hon. Gentleman entered upon his important office he did hold out a little olive branch of peace which gave encouragement to the capitalist interest of the country. The remarks he made sympathetically last week tended to produce important and beneficent results. Having put a little hope into the capitalists of the country, he now proceeded to hold over their heads a prospective danger in the shape of a threat of increased death duties. If one only looked at it from the point of view of the multi-millionaires there would be a certain amount to be said for the increase, but if they looked to the effect on the whole financial condition of the country it would be seen that capital in the multifarious ways in which it was employed could not operate to the same extent if it was to be further penalised. Employment and capital were so intermingled and interlaced that it was almost impossible to divorce the one from the other, so that when they were considering the effect of heavy death duties on the one they must also consider the result to the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed this alteration in the law at a most unfortunate time. When Sir William Harcourt introduced his scheme of death duties the income-tax was not at Is. as it was now. With high death duties in operation, together with £20,000,000 of war taxation, it was proposed at this particular and unfortunate concatenation of events to put fresh taxation on capital. Formerly Chancellors of the Exchequer in raising revenue tried to keep an equal and impartial hand between direct and indirect taxation, and the time at which this change was proposed was from his point of view an exceedingly perilous one. When a man died the estate duty had to be paid. There were three ways in which it could be done. It could be paid in cash, or if there was only landed property a mortgage must be raised upon it, or an insurance could be effected to meet it. To take the case he had men-
580
tioned last, that of insuring against the payment of death duties with an insurance office. He himself had heard only last week from one of the biggest insurance companies in the City, that men were constantly coming into the office for that purpose. That meant in many cases paying out very large annual sums to the insurance offices who were not philanthropists, and would not do business for nothing. It might run into thousands a year. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear hear!] The hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear," but what was the result? If a man paid this large amount of insurance money he could not spend it on the employment of labour, and thus not only was the rich man penalised but the employment of labour was lessened. To take the second case, that of the landowners who had not got the money to pay the estate duties in cash and who had to raise it by mortgage. In the first place it was not easy nowadays to raise money on mortgage on land at all. Certainly, as a business man, he would be very slow indeed to lend money on land after all the threats that were now held over the heads of landowners. But even if a landowner was able to raise a mortgage, the mortgagee would not lend the money for nothing. The mortgagor would have to pay very considerable interest on the money advanced. The result was that the house was shut up—not in the case of the millionaire, but in the case of a man enjoying only an income from the land of £3,000 or £4,000 a year; employment of labour was cut off and distress was promoted. But let him put the case from another point of view—from the revenue point of view. There must come a stage where the income-tax and the estate duty became competitors with each other, because even Government Departments could not eat their cake and have it. He instanced the case of a millionaire who now paid £80.000 estate duty and under the proposed alteration would be called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay £100,000. There would be £20,000 less of capital value on which to levy income-tax in the hands of the successor. The State could not take it in both forms. If the State took the money in estate duties it could not take it on the same money in income-tax.

581
He would not of course, carry the argument too far — that there should not be estate duties at all. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that there were no outward or visible signs to show that there was any contraction of the estate duty or the income-tax. True, but with the population of the country increasing they must expect some increase, and there came a point where the Chancellor of the Exchequer must look at the estate duty and the income-tax in conjunction, and seriously consider their effect on each other and on the community at large. They would not see the result of undue pressure on capital all at once. The imposition of a heavy death duty on the top of a war income tax was like the Chancellor of the Exchequer squeezing or sucking an orange at both ends. What he wanted to impress on the right hon. Gentleman was the argument from the point of view
of the good of the country and not merely from the point of view that the millionaire, who was supposed to be fair game—a daw to peck at and for everybody to laugh at. They were pressing capital too far in this country, and when the mischief was done there was no going back. The time would come when there would be no longer an orange to squeeze, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would then repent not having taken the warning of a humble individual like himself.
MR. ASQUITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 309; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 260.)

AYES.

Abraham,William (Cork.N.E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Elibank, Master of

Agnew, George William

Byles, William Pollard

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Alden, Percy

Cairns, Thomas

Erskine, David C.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cameron, Robert

Esslemont, George Brinie

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, Samuel T.

Asquith.Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Fenwick, Charles

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ferens, T. R.

Baker,JosephA. (Finsbury,E.)

Chance, Frederick William

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Findlay, Alexander

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cleland, J. W.

Flynn, James Christopher

Barker, John

Clough, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barlow,SirJohnE. (Somerset)

Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barnes, G. N

Collins,Stephen(Lambeth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Gill, A. H.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E. Grinstd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glendinning, R. G.

Beck, A. Cecil

Cory, Clifford John

Glover, Thomas

Belloc, Hilaire JosephPeterR.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Berridge, T. H. D

Cowan, W. H.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bertram, Julius

Cox, Harold

Grant, Corrie

Bethell,SirJ.H.(EssexRomf'rd)

Craig,Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex. Maldon)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Billson, Sir Alfred

Crombie, John William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

Crosfield, A. H.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Black. Arthur W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gulland, John W.

Boland, John

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Boulton,A.C.F..

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Brace, William

Davies,W.Howell (Bristol,S.)

Hall, Frederick

Bramsdon, T. A.

Devlin, Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brigg, John

Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh,S.)

Harmsworth,CecilB. (Worc'r)

Bright, J. A.

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Brocklehurst,W. B.

Dickson Poynder, Sir JohnP.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brodie, H. C.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

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

Brooke, Stopford

Duckworth, James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bryce, J. Annan

Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Buckmaster. Stanley O.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hedges, A. Paget

Hemmerde, Edward George

Montagu, E. S.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.

Mooney, J. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, G. May (Cornwall)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen) |

Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

Herbert,T. Arnold(Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morse, L. L.

Snowden. P.

Hogan, Michael

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Soames. Arthur Wellesley

Holland.,SirWilliam Henry

Murnaghan, George

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hope,.JohnDeans (Fife, West)

Myer, Horatio

Stanger, H. Y.

Hope.W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

Napier, T. B.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Steadman, W. C.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nolan, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Straus, B..S. (Mile End)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, John (Kildare,N.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O' Doherty, Philip

Taylor,TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

Tennant,H.J.(Berwickshire)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Kearley, Hudson E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomasson, Franklin

Kekewich, Sir George

Partington, Oswald

Tomkinson. James

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pearce, Robert(Staffs., Leek)

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearce, William(Limehouse)

Toulmin. George

Lamb,EdmundG. (Leominster)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lambert, George

Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton

Verney, F. M.

Lamont, Norman

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

Wadsworth, J.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Philipps,OwenC. (Pembroke)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walters, John Tudor

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pollard, Dr.

Walton,SirJohnL.(Leeds, S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lever,A.Levy(Essex,Harwich

Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Wardle, George J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pullar, Sir Robert

Waring, Walter

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, G. H.

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Lloyd-George, Rt.Hon.David

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Lough, Thomas

Raphael, Herbert H.

Watt, Henry A.

Lundon, W.

Redmond,John E. (Waterford

Weir, James Galloway

Lupton, Arnold

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitbread. Howard

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rees, J. D.

White. George (Norfolk)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Renton, Major Leslie

White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Richards,Thomas(M.Monm'th

White. Luke (York. E.R.)

Maclean, Donald

Richardson, A.

Whitehead. Rowland

MacNeill,John Gordon Swift

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitley John Henry(Halifax)

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whittaker.Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts,CharlesH. (Lincoln)

Wiles. Thomas

M'Crae, George

Roberts,John H. (Denbighs.)

Williamson, A.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson,Rt,Hn.E.(Dundee)

Wills. Arthur Walters

M'Killop, W.

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Wilson. Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

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

Robinson, S.

Wilson,Henry J.(York,W.R.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson,John (Durham, Mid)

Mallet, Charles E.

Roche,Augustine (Cork)

Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Mansfield,H.Rendall(Lincoln)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rowlands, J.

Winfrey. R.

Marnham, F. J.

Runciman, Walter

Young. Samuel

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Yoxall, James Henry

Massie, J.

Schwann,SirC. E. (Manchester)

Meagher, Michael

Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sears, J. E.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seaverns, J. H.

Mond, A.

Seely, Major J. B.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

NOES.

Acland Hood,Rt. HnSirAlex. F.

Balcarres, Lord

Baring. Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Baldwin, Alfred

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Anstruther Gray, Major

Balfour,RtHn. A. J. (CityLond.)

Beach,Hn.MiehaelHughHicks

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hunt, Rowland

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Stone, Sir Benajmin

Cavendish, Rt.Hon.VictorC. W.

King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Long,Col. CharlesW. (Evesham)

Tumour, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lonsdale. John Brownlee

Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Duncan, Robert(Lanark. Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

Moore, William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Fletcher, J. S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Viscount Valentin and Mr.

Haddock, George R.

Percy, Earl

Forster.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 315; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 261.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Abraham, William. (Rhondda)

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Adkins, W. Ryland D).

Bryce, J. Annan

Duckworth, James

Agnew George William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Alden, Percy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne,MajorE. Martin(Walsall

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

Astbury, John Meir

Cameron, Robert

Eli bank, Master of

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Bakwer, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine, David C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Esslemont, George Birnie

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight).

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Samuel T.

Baring,Capt. Hn.G (Winchester

Chance, Frederick William

Everett, R. Lacey

Barker, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clough, William

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barnes, G. N.

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

Findlay, Alexander

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barry, RedmondJ. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Flynn, James Christopher

Beauchamp, E.

Collins, SirWm.J. (S.Pancras, W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beck, A. Cecil

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bertram, Julius

Cory, Clifford John

Fullerton, Hugh

Bethel],Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gill, A. H.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cowan, W. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Billson, Sir Alfred

Cox., Harold

Glendinning, R. G.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Glover, Thomas

Black, Arthur W.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Boland, John

Crombie, John William

Gooch, George Peabody

Boulton, A. C. F.

Crosfield, A. H.

Grant, Corrie

Brace, William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Brigg, John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bright, J. A.

Devlin, Joseph

Gulland, John W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Gurdon, RtHn. SirW.Brampton

Brodie, H. C.

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Hall, Frederick

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sears, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seaverns, J. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hart-Davies, T.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford);

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Massie, J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

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

Meagher, Michael '

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mond, A.

Smith.F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Hedges, A. Paget

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Hemmerde, Edward George c

Montagu, E. S.

Snowden, P.

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

Mooney, J. J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Herbert. Col.Sir Ivor(Mon.,S.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanger, H. Y.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Horse, L. L.

Steadman. W C.

Hogan, Michael

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murnaghan, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Napier, T. B.

Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset, N.

Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Horniman, Emslie John

Nolan, Joseph

Sutherland. J. E.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Tennant. H. J. (Berwickshire)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas.Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Doherty, Philip

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomasson. Franklin J

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Thompson.J.W.H. (Somerset.E.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N

Tomkinson. James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Malley, William

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax,)

Toulmin, George

Joyce, Michael

Partington, Oswald

Trevelyan. Charles Philips

Kearley. Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Verney. F. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wadsworth. J.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Walters, John Tudor

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lamont, Norman

Pollard, Dr.

Wardle, George J.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Waring. Walter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Price, RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)

Wason, Rt. Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lehmann, R. C.

Radford, G. H.

Watt, Henry A.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Rainy, A. Rolland

Weir, James Galloway

Levy, Sir Maurice

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitbread. Howard

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White. George (Norfolk)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Redmond, William (Clare)

White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lundon. W.

Renton, Major Leslie

Whitehead, Rowland

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richardson, A.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Lyell. Charles Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Wiles. Thomas

Lynch, H. B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williamson. A.

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bg'hs)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wills. Arthur Walters

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull, W)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Wilson. Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Callum, John M.

Robinson, S.

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)

M'Crae, George

Robson. Sir William Snowdon

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

M'Kean, John

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

M Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roc, Sir Thomas

Winfrey. R.

M'Killop, W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Young, Samuel

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

Rowlands, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Runciman, Walter

M'Micking. Major G.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mallet, Charles E.

Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

NOES.

Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex. F.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.Sir H.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Baldwin, Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

Sheffield, SirBerkeleyGeorge D.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Brotherton, Echward Allen

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Starkey, John R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunt, Rowland

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir JohnH.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W.

Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Keswick, William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

King, SirHenrySeymour (Hull)

Turnour, Viscount

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marlyebone, E.)

Long Col. Charles W.(Eveshnm

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A. (Wore

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dunean,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Fell, Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause 12:—
MR. MEYSEY THOMPSON:said this clause took power to remit payment of the tax in certain cases, and he asked whether it included power to remit in a very hard case such as had come to his notice. The elder of two brothers succeeded to an estate, and long before the estate duties were paid he went to South Africa and was killed whilst fighting for his country in the South African War. Then the younger brother succeeded and another heavy fine had to be paid. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would take such cases into his consideration, and whether the duties in such a case would be remitted or reduced. A still harder case which had come to his knowledge was that of a man of sixty-seven years of age who succeeded to a life interest in a cottage, and he was naturally anxious to obtain possession and end his days in his own house.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he understood from the Minister in charge that the points now raised had nothing whatever to do with the clause before the House. Under those circumstatces it would not be in order to discuss them now.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was always glad to consider cases of hardship in their
590
proper place, but this clause had nothing to do with cases of this kind. It was a clause simply to give the Commissioners power to wipe off, as a bad debt, after twenty years, that portion of the tax which had not been paid.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that, as he understood, this clause was to deal with a temporary state of things, which was fast passing away. He wished to know what was the real object of the clause and how it would work, because so far as he could see there was neither advantage nor disadvantage in it. The matters with which it dealt would average themselves, and the right hon. Gentleman would get the same revenue whether the clause were passed or not.
MR. MCKENNAwas understood to say that the reason for the introduction of the clause was very simple. These inquiries as to the past value of a small portion of a large estate were extremely difficult to make. It was, in fact, impossible, to trace back what was the value at the time the duty was paid or payable, and the clause was justified on those grounds.
SIR F. BANBURY: said that as far as he could gather from the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman this clause was intended to simplify matters, but it seemed to him that it would have the opposite effect. The clause read—
"The deduction to be allowed under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1906, in respect of death duties previously put on property on which duty is payable, shall, instead of being the amount of the duty paid or payable, be the amount which would have been payable on account of the duty if the duty were calculated on the value of the property on which estate duty is payable."
To him it seemed that nothing could be clearer and simpler than the introduction of the words "amount paid." As far as he understood, a certain fixed sum was to be paid; and suppose an estate were divided into eight parts?
MR. MCKENNAstated that an estate would not be divided into eight parts. It would be subdivided, and that part of the property which had never been valued would be separately valued.
SIR F. BANBURYasked on what basis the inquiry was to be made.
MR. MCKENNA: The present value.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if the inquiry was to be made on the present value it seemed to be very hard where the value had decreased. Apparently it appeared to be the case that the object was to make calculations easier on real property. It would not be so difficult on personal property, but this applied to real property, and it certainly appeared to be very hard in that case.
MR. MCKENNA: It applies to personalty as well.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid there could be no difficulty in regard to personalty, but there was in reference to real property. It seemed to him, in view of the fact that there had been a considerable depreciation of the value of real property, that they would commit an injustice.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was a good deal of force in what the President of the Board of Education
592
said, that these valuations had not been made at the expense of the payer of the tax, and that it would very often be better for him to adopt the proposal under this Act, even if he paid a little more in taxes, because he would pay less in inquiry expenses. But he did not think that that would always be the case, and as he had said before and as his hon. friend had said, it was very hard to make a change of his kind, which would be actually extorting more money against the will of the taxpayer than they had a claim upon him for. He wanted to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not make the clause optional, giving the option to the payer of the tax to adopt it or not. In most cases, probably. in order to save the trouble and expense of an inquiry, the payer of the tax would be glad to adopt this, method; but where there had been a serious depreciation and where, therefore, he would be a great loser, the old system would still remain open to him.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the point of this clause was that it was a great deal more in the interest of the person who paid the tax than in the interest c f the revenue authorities. Those who suffered the trouble and expense of the present system were obliged to go back and trace the history of a particular bit of property. That had been done by the person claiming the reduction, and it was a very great expense, as experience had shown. He knew the hon. Baronet was always open to argument, and he appealed to him, therefore, not to oppose the clause, as he would do a great deal of injury to a number of people whose interest he was most anxious to promote. As to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would certainly take it into consideration. He could not, of course, be expected to say anything definite until he had consulted his advisers, but he would take into consideration whether there should be this option.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15: —
Amendment proposed —
"In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words ' after the passing of this Act,' and

593
insert the words 'on or after the 19th day of April, 1907.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to have an explanation of the clause?
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said that under the Act of 1894 all property passing on death was aggregated without regard to the method in which it passed, and therefore property in regard to which a man had full control and full enjoyment, was aggregated with the form of settled property which he had not control over or the full enjoyment of. Thus the latter by increasing the aggregate amount might bring the whole property on to a higher scale of graduation. This was a legitimate grievance and one which the Bill would meet.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in the case of a man with an estate of £4.3,000, as to £5,000 of which he had a life interest, if he left the £5,000 free of conditions to the heir, not putting him in possession of the life interest only, but giving it to him fully, he understood that was to be treated as separate estate, because the man who died had only a life interest in it. That was so, he understood. On the other hand, if the mail who died had had full power over the £5,000, the property would be aggregated. In each case the treatment of the property would be governed by what was its condition at the moment of death.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5. line 38, after the word 'licences,' insert the words '(including any duty charged under Subsection (1) of Section 8 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896).' "— (Mr. Asquith.)
*THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln. He proposes to insert after "thereof" in line 5, in page 6, the words—
"A fixed sum equal to the amount which was paid into that account as the proceeds of the duties on licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seven, and in addition thereto."
I have looked at the Resolution governing this matter upon which the Bill is founded, and it is clear that under its terms it is possible that in certain contingencies the sum payable may be less than what is proposed in the Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to provide that more than is authorised by the Resolution may be paid, and therefore because it may involve an increased charge the Amendment is not in order.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsubmitted that what was proposed was not really a new charge. The Resolution made it impossible to alter existing charges, but the Amendment would not. impose any increased charge. All it would do would be to prevent the charge from falling below the present sum. Would it not be in order to move an Amendment of that kind not necessarily founded upon the Resolution but upon the fact that the larger charge was by a Resolution of this House?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is quite the case that a larger charge is already in force. What the hon. Member proposes, and what is suggested by other Amendments on the Paper of this kind, is, in my opinion, beyond what the Resolution authorises.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that his recollection of the Resolution was that the only thing it authorised was the transfer of a sum equal and not greater or less.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that, by the practice of the House, Bills dealing with money could only be introduced by a Resolution, and when the Bill came under discussion no change could be made in it which suggested a larger charge than the original Resolution. That was the constitutional practice.

595
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down that the Resolution on which this Bill was founded did not merely put a superior limit to the charge but laid down that it should be equal, precisely and exactly. Surely that was binding them by a Resolution which was outside and beyond the ordinary practice. The policy of having a preliminary Resolution was one which was open to question, but it would become a great abuse if they were prevented after the Resolution was passed from diminishing the charge. Was the doctrine to be that a preliminary Resolution could fix the charge at a level which not only could not be increased but could not be diminished whatever the Committee might desire to do?
MR. ASQUITHsaid this was not a question of altering a charge, but simply a question of a transfer. All that was authorised by the Resolution was that a sum equal to the amount which would have been left should be the subject of that transfer.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right. It would be quite in order to reduce the amount, but it is not in order to increase it.
MR. LEIF JONESasked if it would be in order to move to add the words, "Provided that this section shall not apply to licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors." That would raise the same point but in a somewhat different form.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member state where he means those words to come in?
MR. LEIF JONES: At the end of Subsection 2.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that would have the effect which the hon. Member desires. I think the best way would be to discuss this matter on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
MR. MCKENNApointed out that this clause did not impose a charge at all.
596
All it did was to provide for the transfer of an existing charge from one account to another, and that was governed by the Resolution of the House.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this was a substantial point, and could only be raised upon an Amendment of this kind. His hon. friends, for reasons which they had not yet been able to explain, desired that a portion of the transfer which the right hon. Gentleman was proposing should not be sanctioned. There was no question of increasing, or lowering, or even altering the charge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing that certain sums now payable out of one account should henceforth be payable out of another account. For reasons of his own his hon. friend desired to move that some portion should not be transferred from the old account to the new account. He thought that would be in order, and it was a point which could only be dealt with by an Amendment.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsuggested that the proper course was to wait until some particular Amendment was moved in a particular place, and then it would be competent for anyone to ask for the ruling of the Chairman.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lincoln did put a particular Amendment to me and I ruled it out of order. The only Amendment on the Paper which is in order at this point is that of the hon. Member for Yarmouth.
[THE CHAIRMAN, on being asked again whether the alternative Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Appleby was in order, said that it was in order from his point of view. He merely suggested that it did not carry out what the hon. Member desired. That was, however, a matter of merits, not of order.]
*MR. LEIF JONESmoved to add to Sub-section 2 a proviso "that this sub-section shall not apply to licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors." He had every sympathy with the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to regain control of the sums

597
allocated to local authorities, but he wished to fix the amount to be paid in lieu of the duties on licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors. An effort was being made all over the country to reduce the number of liquor licences, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tend in the opposite direction.
MR. ASQUITH: No.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid that was the effect of the proposal as it stood. The reason why he wanted a fixed sum rather than the present arrangement was that where the justices reduced the number of licences they also reduced the return to the local authorities from licences. Therefore there might be a desire in a locality not to have the number of licences reduced, because by the reduction they lost the. contribution which they would otherwise receive. There was thus a force in operation militating against the reduction of licences, and it was because he wanted to facilitate the reduction that he said there should be no temptation for the local justices not to reduce the number, and that the local justices, who were charged with the duty of reducing licences, should have a free hand to do so without feeling that in reducing the number they would be reducing the sum which came to the local authority for the relief of rates.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors.'"—(Mr. Leif Jones.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not think the clause would have the effect which the hon. Member attributed to it. Moreover, if the Amendment were carried it would defeat the hon. Member's object. The clause merely left matters exactly as they were and dissociated once for all the revenue contributed by the Imperial Exchequer to local resources from the proceeds of these licences, so that Parliament would be free to deal with these duties in the general interest without
598
diminishing the revenue of local authorities or disturbing the distribution of the Imperial contribution. It was the fixed intention of the Government to deal with this question next year, and the whole object of this clause was to preserve the status quo in the meantime.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not approach the question from the same point of view as the hon. Member for the. Appleby Division, who looked at it as a matter of temperance legislation. He was looking at it from the point of view of revenue to the local authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to leave the local authority in as advantageous a position as it would have been in if this clause had not been included in the Bill; but if that were so, if the kind of legislation which they all knew to be desired by the hon. Member for Appleby was passed, and if he could realise the wishes he had expressed in this House in regard to Imperial taxation, he would crush out a large number of licensed houses. In a debate on this very Bill in an earlier portion of the session the hon. Member stated that the object at which he was aiming was the destruction of a number of the smaller houses, which did not pay well, by increasing their licence duty. If this clause did not pass, what the local authority lost by the destruction of the small houses it might gain by the increased duty receivable from larger houses. The local authority might thus be recouped in the increased duty payable by the larger houses, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal was carried, all that recoupment would go, not to the local authority which had to lose it, but to the Exchequer. The local authority therefore did stand the real risk of being worse off in consequence of the change which the right hon. Gentleman was making.
MR. ASQUITH: said that supposing they introduced legislation raising the duty the local authority would suffer in exactly the same way if this clause was not in the Bill at all.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that that depended on the persons to whom they assigned the produce of the

599
increased duties. If they simply, as a matter of licensing reform, raised the duties now, and crushed out the small houses and the local authorities lost the duties on them, they could recoup themselves by the higher duties which they charged on the remaining houses; but if they said, as the Government did say now, that any higher duty should henceforth go to the Exchequer, then the local authorities would in that contingency undoubtedly receive less in consequence of the change which the right hon. Gentleman was making. They would receive the old rate of licence duty.
MR. ASQUITH: So they would have done if this clause had never been introduced at all.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had altered the system of imposing the licence duty and taken to the Exchequer the whole of the increase of the duty, but he put in this clause in order to set his hands free for that purpose.
MR. ASQUITH: Not quite. If the law remains as it is all that I shall be able to do is to get the increase. What I do by this clause is to get the whole into the Imperial Exchequer, and the local authority is not put in a worse position by the clause.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not the clause that put the local authority in a worse position. He appealed on behalf of the local authorities against what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by the clause itself and by the legislation which he had adumbrated. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had considered the case of the local authority. If he was going to leave them worse off in respect of these licences he thought he ought to make a contribution from some other source.
MR. ASQUITH: I think so too.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a satisfactory answer so far as I am concerned.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought so, subject to this, without prejudice, that he could not agree that the present system of contribution to local resources was to be regarded as fixed and unchangeable. He thought hon. Gentlemen, opposite did not think it very adequate. It must not be understood that he committed himself to the opinion that the proportionate amounts received by the local authorities must remain as they were now; they might be changed. But he did not intend to diminish the contribution by any provision in this Bill.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was very much obliged to his hon. friend for introducing this Amendment which he intended to support. The hon. Member had stated that in his opinion the justices would cease their efforts to diminish the number of licences because by doing so they would lose a certain amount of money for the relief of the rates.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he did not say that the justices would entirely cease their efforts at reduction, but that the present system tended in that direction.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, of course, the magistrates would do their duty when any case came before them irrespective of what would affect their own or anybody else's pocket. But he was going to support the Amendment for a very different reason from that urged by the hon. Gentleman. His idea was that the Amendment would be an exceedingly good one from the point of view of the interest of the brewer and the publican. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to increase his taxation in the following year and at the same time satisfy his friends by aiming a blow at the brewers and the publicans. But the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to put the result of that blow into his own pocket, and not into the pocket of the local authorities. He was one of those who thought that the brewer and the publican were sufficiently taxed at the present moment, and under these circumstances if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment he would object, and it would be very pleasant to

601
carry it with, the aid of the temperance party.
*MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he supported the Amendment, but not for the reasons stated by his hon. friend or the hon. Member who moved it. If the Amendment were not carried the profits from the increase of the licence duties would go not to the local authorities but to the Imperial revenue. If these duties wore largely increased there would be fewer licences and the contribution to the local authorities would be less than the amount now derived from these licences, because it would be calculated on a diminished number of licences, not at the new scale of duty but at the rate of the licence duty at present in force. Moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer by removing this area of taxation from the local authorities was taking away a portion of what the Royal Commission on local taxation had declared to be the property of the local ratepayers and one which could be utilised to give considerable relief to local taxation. And the Royal Commission had specially singled out the licences to hotels, the rate on which they said might be very substantially increased without any great hardship. The local authorities ought not to surrender this property without receiving an assurance that they would receive not only an equivalent grant but an increased grant.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: said that he was glad that his friend the Member for Appleby had raised this discussion, but he could not support his
Amendment. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his only quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman—if quarrel it were—was that by this Bill he was not going to do to-day what he intended to do to-morrow. He only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would carry out in the future what he desired at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his present proposal was intended to disentangle the local finance from its connection with licences. His objection to the Bill was that it did not do that. The only effect would be an improvement in bookkeeping; and when the Bill became law there would be the same entanglement as existed at present. Still he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his assurance that the disentanglement would be effected at a later time.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman did not apply to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid that having received a satisfactory statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He might explain that his motive in moving it was entirely in the interest of the local authorities.
Leave to withdraw being refused,
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47 Noes, 234. (Division List No. 262.)

AYES.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Remnant, James Farquharson

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool^

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Haddock, George R.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish,Rt.Hon. VictorC.W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Younger, George

Cecil. Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Dalrymple, Viscount

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Sir Frederick Banbury and

Dobson, Thomas W.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Mr. Hicks Beach.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maggie, J.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meagher, Michael

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Agnew, George William

Furness, Sir Christopher

Molteno, Percy Alport

Alden, Percy

Gill, A. H.

Montagu, E. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Glendinning, R. G.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morse, L. L.

Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.)

Grant, Corrie

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murnaghan, George

Barker, John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Myer, Horatio

Barlow, SirJohn E.(Somerset)

Gulland, John W.

Napier, T. B.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gurdon, RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Barnes, G. N

Hall, Frederick

Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Norton, (Capt. Cecil William

Barry, RedmondJ. (Tyrone.N.)

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Beck, A. Cecil

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Doherty. Philip

Bell, Richard

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

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harwood, George

O'Malley. William

Bertram, Julius

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax,)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Billson, Sir Alfred

Hazleton, Richard

Pearson, SirW.D.(Colchester)

Black, Arthur W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Boulton, A. C. F.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pollard, Dr.

Brace, William

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

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Brigg, John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Bright, J. A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rainy, A. Holland

Brooke, Stopford

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Redmond. William (Clare)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Rendall, Athelstan

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Horniman, Emslie John

Renton, Major Leslie

Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Richardson, A.

Byles, William Pollard

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Rickett. J. Compton

Cairns, Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon

Ridsdale. E. A.

Cameron. Robert

Jackson, R. S.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cawley. Sir Frederick

Johnson, John (Gateshead

Robertson. SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd

Chance, Frederick William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Robinson. S.

Cleland, J. W.

Jones, SirD. Brynmor(Swansea)

Robson. Sir William Snowdon

Clough, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roche. Augustine (Cork)

Cobbold. Felix Thornley

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roe, Sir Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, F. W.

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras, W.

Joyce, Michael

Runciman, Walter

Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester)

Corbett.CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd)

Kekewich. Sir George

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

King. Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sears, J. E.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cowan. W. H.

Lamont, Norman

Shipman. Dr. John G.

Cox;, Harold

Lehmann, R. C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Sinclair. Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Snowden. P.

Davies, W. Howell(Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dewar, SirJ.A.(Inverness-sh.)

Lough, Thomas

Stanger. H. Y.

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

Lundon, W.

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Duckworth, James

Lupton, Arnold

Steadman. W. C.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Luttrell. Hugh Fownes

Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lynch, H. B.

Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stuart. James (Sunderland)

Elibank, Master of

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Crae, George

Thomas, SirA(Glamorgan,E.)

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Fenwick, Charles

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

Thompson. J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Micking, Major G.

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Mallet, Charles E.

Ure, Alexander

Ffrench, Peter

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wadsworth. J.

Findlay, Alexander

Mansfield, H.Rendall(Lincoln)

Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marnham, F. J.

Walters. John Tudor

Flynn, James Christopher

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ward, W.Dudley (Southampton

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Wardle, George J.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Waring, Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Young, Samuel

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull, W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

White. Luke (York, E.R.)

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

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, W. T. Westhoughton)

Bill read a second time, and committed.

And it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MAJOR RENTONsaid that in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time upon that day three months he did not wish to address the House on the merits of the Bill as it affected the Humber. The whole question which he wished to present turned upon the way in which the Bill dealt with the River Trent. They had made every effort to meet j objections which were made to their proposals, but they had been met each time with a non possumus, and that was why they were compelled to oppose the Bill on this occasion. He occupied, probably, for the first and last time, the unique position of representing every solitary member of his constituency, no matter to what shade of politics he might happen to belong. This Bill, in his opinion, sought to introduce an exceedingly vicious system into our Private Bill legislation. He would not trouble the House with the various enactments concerning the Humber they had had in the last fifty years, but the House would remember that in 1905 a Bill was passed in which it was set out that within six months it was obligatory that a Committee of the Board of Trade should be appointed to inquire into the conservancy of the Humber. That Committee was appointed by Lord Salisbury, the then President of the Board of Trade,
606
and he would ask the House to remember that in his Minute appointing the Committee there was not one word about the River Trent, and it was owing to the fact that the River Trent was introduced into this Bill that their whole opposition was aroused. The Minute on which they based their opposition was dated the 9th of November, 1905, and it authorised an inf quiry as to the constitution of the Commissioners of the Humber and the powers and jurisdiction vested in them. It was alleged that the present Bill was founded on the Report of that Committee, but that was, he ventured to say, an utter fallacy, and something entirely fantastic, because the River Trent qua the River Trent was never mentioned before the Committee from the beginning to the end of the inquiry, and the Committee themselves in their report said that they had no power to recommend anything in regard to the River Trent. To say, therefore, that the Bill as regarded the Trent was founded on the Report of the Board of Trade Committee was to allege something which could not be substantiated by anything whatsoever. In the advertisement of the inquiry to be held by the Committee the Trent was never referred to and the matter never came to the cognisance of the Lindsey or Nottinghamshire County Councils at all, and they consequently never appeared before the Committee. It was true that the council of the town of Nottingham appeared before the Committee, but that had nothing to do with the case at all, because they only appeared in regard to certain ancient rights which they had had over the Humber dating back for many years. In some respects the Bill was founded on the Report of the Committee, because they recommended that a board should be appointed consisting of thirty-six members. The promoters of this Bill said now that the Board of Trade Committee having appointed those thirty-six members, if they added one to the board they would upset the whole arrangement made by the Committee. He would

607
point out that other tribunals more august than Committees of the Board of Trade were liable to have their decisions reversed, and that there was nothing in the number thirty-six which was so mystic or so cryptic that it could not be altered. Surely it was not beyond the wit of man to devise a board which should consist of a different number of men. The provisions of the Bill were entirely without precedent, and if it was passed the River Trent would be the only river in England which would have no representation on the Conservancy authority having control over it. Not a single representative from the districts through which the Trent passed was to be granted, and the county councils were not allowed to have any members on the board. There were two reasons why it was inopportune to include the Trent in the scope of this Bill. The Trent Navigation Committee obtained an Act last session, to enable them to make and improve the navigation. In the second place a Royal Commission was now sitting to inquire into canals and waterways. That Commission would no doubt have some very important recommendations to make concerning the River Trent, which was a very important river. The Trent was the third largest watershed in the United Kingdom; yet under this Bill no power was given to make necessary works. But it was said that there were occasional wrecks in the Trent, which made navigation dangerous; but those who stated that failed to produce any proof of such wrecks before the House of Lords Committee. There might be wrecks, but all he could say was that if there were, those who navigated that river year by year and month by month had no cognisance of them. The promoters of the Bill tried to prove there were many wrecks on the Trent. One of their witnesses was forced to admit that he had not been on that river for forty years. Then it was also alleged that there were no lights on the Trent, but in regard to that Hull Trinity House had had powers for many years to light the Trent if necessary, and the mere fact that they had not carried out this work proved conclusively that lights were not necessary on the Trent. Those whose business took them up and down that river said
608
that lights were not necessary, and that if the Trent were lighted it would only tend to confuse them. He thought it would be a great mistake to hand over the Trent to this foreign body. To start with, Hull was situated a very long way away from Gainsborough. Gainsborough was one of the principal towns on the Trent. It was a day's journey from Gainsborough to Hull, and he did not think that Hull would study the interests of the Trent or Gainsborough in any degree. It would not be to their interest that the Trent should become a great trading highway, and he would ask the House to remember that there were great possibilities for the Trent in the future. Those living in the district would not object, but would welcome a board being formed to undertake the management of the river, but such a Conservancy Board ought to manage the whole river, and any body which had the control of the river ought to have its offices on the banks of the river itself and not miles away in a town which it was a day's journey to reach. The competition between the Humber and the Trent was very real indeed and would be much more acute in the future. He did not think it would be either fair or just to hand over the river to the proposed board. He thought he had shown that it was not in the interests of the Trent itself that it should be handed over to the Humber Conservancy, and he had shown on the other hand that it was entirely unnecessary. If the Hull people were to have jurisdiction right up to Gainsborough, why should they not have jurisdiction up to Nottingham? Why stop at Gainsborough? The Trent was navigable up to Nottingham, and surely in the name of common sense they should take the whole and not a part, so that in the future there should be no divided jurisdiction in regard to this important river. If it was necessary to take the river over, he submitted it was necessary that the riparian county councils interested should each have a member on the proposed body. The recent Commission on the Thames Conservancy reported that every county council through whose district the Thames passed had a representative on the Conservancy Board. Then why should the Trent be put into the unique position of being the, only river in England which had no

609
representative of its own on the body having jurisdiction over the river? All they asked for was that the Trent should be treated in the same way as the Thames and other rivers of the country. There was a special reason why some representative of the county council should be behind the scenes and see what was going on. The land through which this river ran was below the river level, and if there was a flood by any chance coming clown the river which, owing to dredging operations having taken place, burst the banks, it would have a most disastrous effect on the low-lying country around and a most injurious effect on the rateable value of property. The primary function of the Trent was to drain the land through which it passed, and it would be most dangerous to hand over the river to a body far away without any representative upon it of those most concerned in its efficient government. He had put the facts as briefly as he could before the House. He could only say in conclusion that those who lived in the districts of Gainsborough and Nottingham viewed this matter very seriously indeed, and he hoped the House would hesitate and ponder carefully before it handed over to a foreign body the control of this river.
MR. NEWNES,in seconding the Amendment, supported his hon. friend in the line he had taken. The hon. Member for Gainsborough represented a Lincolnshire division and he represented a Nottingham division, and the interests of the county councils of the two counties were exactly the same. They desired to work in this matter on similar lines. They had no desire to interfere in the coordination of the authorities on the River Humber, or with the management of their affairs. But they desired to interfere in the matter because a clause in the Bill now before the House gave to the Humber Board control over the Trent. The hon. Member for Gainsborough had dealt with the history of the matter, and therefore there was no need for him to deal with it. As the House was aware. this Bill was brought forward on the question of the co-ordination of the different authorities on
610
the Humber. The Report of the Committee recommended the formation of a board, with thirty-six-representatives of different towns and dock companies and other interests on the Humber, who were to have representation in proportion to their interests. Although twenty-five miles of the Trent had been handed over to the control of this body no representation had been given to the county councils on either side of that river. It was said that the county councils, and the Nottinghamshire County Council for whom he spoke more particularly, should have appeared before the Commission when they were taking evidence on the question. They did not do so because they were not aware at the time that there was any intention or desire to include the River Trent under this new authority, the Humber Conservancy Board. Had they been aware of it they would have taken proper steps to appear before the Commission. They did not know the Trent would be included until the Bill was published, and then they took the necessary steps to oppose the Bill at every stage, and they had passed resolutions at their own meetings in the country against the Bill, on the ground that it did not give representation to them. It was quite true that the Corporation of Nottingham appeared before the Commission, but as his hon. friend had said, they appeared because they had certain existing rights. They did not know at the time they gave their evidence that there was any intention whatever to include the Trent and bring it under the control of this body, and they did not give evidence before the Commission on that point. They desired to be associated with the Nottinghamshire County Council in this matter and were prepared to regard whatever representation was given to Nottinghamshire as representing themselves as well. The question of the Trent never properly came before the Commission. It was mentioned only incidentally. The River Trent was not a small tributary of the Humber. It was, on the contrary, a large and important river and one of the chief waterways from the Midlands to the eastern counties. A Royal Commission was now sitting to inquire into the whole question of waterways, and it was felt that no proper

611
scheme for the regulation of the water-ways could be made in which the River Trent would not occupy a great position. It would be a very dangerous thing to hand over twenty-five miles of this river nearest the mouth to another body. It could not be said that the interests of the Humber and the Trent were identical, or that a board which was formed for controlling the Humber would necessarily be a board which should control the Trent. Since the matter had been before Parliament he had taken the opportunity of speaking to people living on the banks of the Trent—manufacturers and others—upon the matter, and their interest in it was very great. It was felt that the interests of the Trent were being handed over to a board whose interests were practically in another river. It was also felt that on that board a large representation was given to the railway companies, whose interests would not be the same as those of the Trent. Many of the railway companies of the district were to have not only direct representation but also representation in connection with their interests in dock and other companies, and the whole body was looked upon in Nottingham as a railway board. The people engaged in trade on the Trent-had used that river as a means of transporting their goods to and from their warehouses and factories, and if anything were done in the way of neglecting the Trent and preventing its being useful for navigation it was felt that that would be done to throw the trade more and more into the hands of the railway companies. They only asked that the riparian county councils should be represented on the board—not that they should be in a majority, but that they should, at all events, have a right to speak in the interests of the people living in their districts. It was said, he believed, by their opponents that that could not be done, because the Conservancy Board of thirty-six members had been so formed that all the different interests on the Humber were properly represented, there being not one with a preponderating influence, and that if representation were given to those for whom he spoke the balance of power would be altered. If the interests of these different bodies on the Humber were so conflicting that the
612
slightest alteration would upset the working of the board, he was afraid that the prospects of its successful working were not very rosy. But they hardly thought that such could be the case, and they really felt that representation ought to be given to counties like Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, having regard to the large number of interests they had in the river. The promoters had so far not been able to meet them in the matter, and that was why they were taking the course they were now adopting. He, therefore, had great pleasure in seconding the rejection of this Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now' and at the-end of the Question to add the words, 'this day three months.' "—(Major Renton.)
Question proposed, "That the word' now' stand part of the Question."
SIR SEYMOUR KINGsaid that from the observations which had been made it was obvious that the questions raised were more-questions for consideration in a Committee room upstairs than for discussion on the Second Reading. One question was whether a little more or a little less representation ought to be given to the interests which the hon. Members represented. He thought that the House was entitled to hear a little more on that question than had been vouchsafed by the opponents of the Bill. They had talked of the River Trent, which they had likened to the Thames, as though it was a river of vast and potential character with large steamers going to and from Hon. Members had come before the House asking, if he might venture to say so, to be put on an equality with representatives of the Humber, though they were people who for the last thirty years had decidedly neglected their duty. They had twenty-five miles of the Trent, and in 1885 he found that a Report was made by Captain Jarrard to Sir Hickman Bacon on the very question of the twenty-five miles of the Humber with which they were now dealing. The twenty-five miles in question was not the upper part of the Humber but the lower part of the Trent from the

613
Trent Falls to Gainsborough Bridge. In the Report made in 1885, the following statement occurred. Captain Jarrard said first of all that he had paid the greatest attention to the River Trent, and that at low water ships drawing. 2 feet 6 inches of water went ashore. There was their River Thames! Two feet inches of water was enough to accommodate the riparian constituencies which these hon. Members represented. Captain Jarrard, writing from Gainsborough in 1885, in the month of June, spoke of the flagrant neglect which permitted a railway bridge to cross the river at a most obviously obstructive place, and he said—
"Viewing the river in its present most unsatisfactory state, the necessity for placing it under proper control, and of providing for its conservancy is at once apparent, and cannot be too strongly urged as a matter of vital importance to all owners of land bordering on the Trent as well ns those interested in the river traffic."
By the way, in regard to the land, he noticed it was stated that the land was lower than the river itself, which would be a curious circumstance if it were correct, but as a matter of fact the land was two feet above the river. For two and twenty years this twenty-five miles of liver had been derelict. It had been under the Trinity House jurisdiction only so far as pilotage was concerned; but as regarded the moving of wrecks, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough had spoken specially, the Board of Trade, who he thought knew as much as the hon. Member for Gainsborough, said in a Report, dated 1895—
"On this portion of the river Trent—over twenty miles in length—lying between the jurisdiction of the Trent Navigation Company and the Humber Conservancy Commissioners, there is at present no body entrusted with the conservancy of the navigation. The need for such an authority which would have power to deal with sunken wrecks and other obstructions to navigation, has been experienced on several occasions, and the Board of Trade consider that the establishment of a navigation authority for this portion of the tidal river would be for the public benefit."
Repeated representations had been made to the Humber Conservancy and to the Hull Trinity House to remove the wrecks, but on each of these occasions they had had to say that they would be delighted to remove the wrecks if they had any jurisdiction whatever. They
614
had no jurisdiction. Twenty-two years had passed; these gentlemen had a depth of 2 feet 6 inches at low water, and they had left the river alone. Nearly all the traffic originated in the lower river Humber and went up the Trent. It originated at Goole, Grimsby and Hull, and nearly the whole of that traffic went up the river as far as Nottingham; and it was because the Humber Conservancy had no statutory powers or orders imposed upon them by Parliament that they now came to the House to ask to be enabled to carry out the findings of the Commission of the Board of Trade. Because they did this, suddenly the Lindsey Division of Nottinghamshire and the County Council sprang up with delight and said: "Oh, there is something worth having; let us have a finger in the pie." What were they contributing to the great cost incurred by the Conservancy? It was calculated that if the Conservancy buoyed and lighted the river up to Gainsborough Bridge, and the sea-going vessels went up there, they might impose 3d. per ton on those sea going-vessels, of which led. per ton would be for the Trent navigation. The total of the traffic on the Trent would mean about £150 a year. It was ludicrous to come down to the House and suggest that they should block a Bill of this importance on the Second Reading without giving it the chance of being sent upstairs to be heard by a Committee before whom they could obtain a locus standi. The town of Hull, which he represented, had a serious grievance against the Bill of the Humber Conservancy; they did not consider that they had sufficient representation, and there were many reasons on which they were opposing this Bill; but they had written to him to say that though there were these many serious questions at issue, they desired that the Bill should go before a Committee. He thought it only right to say to the House that, after all, the town of Hull had the most substantial interests affected by this Bill, and their grievance was not merely with regard to representation; they had also a very large income which they derived by Royal Charter, and which they had had for six or seven hundred years. That was to be taken away from them; but though they had these

615
serious questions at issue, yet the people of Hull were anxious that the Bill should be read a second time, and that it should go to a Committee upstairs. Let them look for a moment at the position in which they found themselves. The Humber Conservancy in 1905 came to the House and asked for certain facilities and certain rights. They were granted, on certain specific statutory conditions. They were told: "Very well, you shall have what you ask, but only on condition that the Board of Trade shall inquire into the various needs of the Humber and its immediate tributaries, and that you shall within six months of the findings of the Committee bring a Bill into the House of Commons to carry out the findings." The Humber Conservancy were now before the House in obedience to the will of the House, to carry out the statutory obligations laid upon them. It had been said that there was nothing in the Report of that Commission referring to the River Trent. They had only to look and see. They said that it was quite true that in their reference the River Trent was not expressly mentioned, but they added—
"We probably have no jurisdiction to recommend (in the sense that the Humber Conservancy Commissioners are bound to curry out such a recommendation) any transfer of the pilotage authority of the Hull Trinity House except so far as that is exercised in the Humber properly so called. But we see no reason why we should not point out that if the pilotage authority on the river Humber is to be vested in the Conservancy, it will be desirable to transfer to the same authority the whole of the pilotage jurisdiction now exercised by the Hull Trinity House in the Trent."
At this very moment the Hull Trinity House exercised pilotage authority on the Trent. Then as to the buoying and lighting of the Trent, the Commission said—
"We are of opinion that the powers of the Hull Trinity House ns the authority for buoying, beaconing and lighting the river Humber should be transferred to the new conservancy authority. We think that it is expedient that any power and authority which the Trinity House may possess of a similar kind in respect of the Trent should also be transferred to the new conservancy authority."
MR. ELLIS: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly refer to the page from which he is quoting?
SIR SEYMOUR KING: It is p. 89;. and again at p. 202—
"We have also suggested certain extensions of powers as regards jurisdiction outside the Humber, especially over the Trent, which we consider will have to be transferred to the Commissioners as the logical consequences of the change we propose."
That was their recommendation, and the Bill itself had received the strong endorsement of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade Report, of which he had already read a portion, said that the wrecks question, which the hon. Member had minimised so much, possibly because he had never been inconvenienced by them, ought to be entrusted to this one authority. It was absurd to think of cutting up authorities. The Hull Trinity House at this moment was the pilotage authority from the Trent Falls to Gainsborough Bridge. If they prevented this arrangement, the Hull trinity House would still remain the pilotage authority for that district, without a separate Act of Parliament being brought in. Then they would have the extraordinary thing of charging every quay up the. Humber 5s. per annum as a licence to trade in the upper reaches of the Humber. and as soon as they got up to the River Trent there would be no one to look after their interests to buoy, beacon; and light the river. Of all the grotesque suggestions they had ever heard that was the worst. Anyone who had anything to do with the navigating of rivers and the management of ships, regarded it as the most extraordinary proposition ever heard—that there should be no lighting or buoying of this portion of the Trent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Has the hon. Gentleman read the evidence before, the House of Lords on this subject?
SIR SEYMOUR KINGsaid that, they all knew what class of evidence was brought forward on the part of one side or the other. It was expert evidence which was always drawn to the direction of the side which had called it. He was speaking as a man of considerable knowledge of rivers, estuaries, and seas. and he would not suggest for one moment that, a river was better without being buoyed, beaconed, and lighted, for to

617
say such a thing was to say what any capable navigator knew not to be correct. The fact was that the Trent was not the only river which joined it, because the Ouse came in, and there were many much more important places concerned than Nottingham and Gainsborough, such as York, Leeds, Bradford, and other places, all of which claimed representation. The East and West Riding both claimed representation, as well as the Coalowners' Association. If they once opened the sluice gates of representation there was no limit which they could fix, and he could not imagine where it would stop. The Commission worked out most carefully a representation, and for anybody to say that it was only a representation of railroads could only be the result of not having carefully studied the representation as it would exist under the new board. Under the old board he agreed that the railway companies and the dock companies had too much representation. Under the old board the municipalities of Hull and Grimsby had five representatives, Hull four and Grimby one. The railway companies and navigation authority had twelve representatives; Trinity House, Hull, four; the shipowners, seven; and the Board of Trade could nominate four. Under the new Board, the municipalities of Hull, Grimsby, and Goole would each have one representative; the railway companies would get five; Trinity House, six; the shipowners, who were mostly interested, thirteen; the traders appointed by the Chambers of Commerce representing Hull, Grimsby, and Goole six; and the Board of Trade three. It would be seen that this was an attempt to accomplish the delicate task of balancing the representaion between the Upper and the Lower Humber, and if they gave any advantage to either one or the other by interfering with a scheme of representation which was the result of delicate negotiations and careful inquiry by impartial authorities appointed by the Board of Trade, during which the whole matter had been fought out between the various conflicting interests, they would at once set chaos loose, and this Bill, which was of the utmost consequence to the Humber, and to all who used the Humber, must go to the wall.
618
It was impossible for the Humber Conservancy Board to assent to the propositions put forward to add this or that. If they allowed one in from Lindsey, or one from Gainsborough, they would have all the other small towns claiming that they had as much interest in the matter as Gainsborough. As for Lindsey, that place never took any interest in the matter until it was stirred up to do so. The truth was that the opposition all came from Nottingham. It was quite a peaceable, harmonious entertainment until the Nottingham lambs had come in to break up the harmony. There was not the slightest desire to do anything but good to the Trent, and they were not placing any further tax upon the traffic using the Trent They wanted to rescue this derelict and make it useful. The only way of reaching Gainsborough was by a railway, and it was almost pitiful to read the account, of the River Trent traffic in 1865, and it had not improved since. It spoke of drunken pilots upon excursion boats with hundreds of passengers running ashore and apparently enjoying it because they were too drunk to appreciate the danger. The same account spoke of passenger steamers just missing by an inch the railway bridge which, had it been struck, would have turned over at once That was the state in which those places on both sides of the river allowed this precious river, equal to the Thames and quite as important to the districts it flowed through, to remain in until Hull, Grimsby, and Goole took the matter in hand and tried to do a little good for them. He hoped the House would give a Second Reading to the Bill, and whatever objections hon. Members might have to its details could be dealt with upstairs. If their claims were not then satisfied they could renew the discussion on the next stage, and by that time the House would be more fully informed as to the reasons why the Bill was recommended to the House.
*MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid that unfortunately the Trent brought down a great deal more than the limited traffic that trickled down its course to the Humber. There was a very large amount of mud

619
deposited where the Ouse and the Trent joined, and there was a most serious obstruction to traffic, caused largely by the accumulation of the mud brought down by the river Trent. All that the Conservancy Board proposed to do was to extend their authority for twenty-five miles upon a section of the Trent, not so much for the sake of controlling the Trent as to be masters of the navigation on the Ouse. Perhaps the House was not aware that there was an increasing traffic on the Ouse, and consequently traffic on the Upper Humber concentrated itself at Goole where the canal and the river Don united with the Ouse itself, and where the docks were being enlarged and railway accommodation was developing. At this point the coal traffic alone had gone up by leaps and bounds, and at the present moment it was about 2,000,000 tons a year. Consequently the interests of Goole were threatened through the blocking of the Humber at the entrance where the Trent and the Ouse united. Very frequently, on account of the accumulation of mud there, the steamers coming down from Goole lost the tide. The tendency at the present time was to increase the size of steamers for economy of working, and consequently the draught of these larger vessels demanded a clearer channel. As regarded the question of representation, surely the town of York had a great deal more interest in the matter than Nottingham or Gainsborough, and although York had applied for representation, that claim had been dropped. Leeds and Bradford were also interested in the waterways that lead down into Goole, and if representation was extended to the places along the feeders of the Trent they might also take in a great part of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire as well as Nottinghamshire. In fact it would in this way reduce the representation on the Conservancy to a farce. If there was any ease to be made out for the claims which had been put forward in this debate, they might safely be left for argument upstairs. He hoped the difficulties which at present were experienced and which were affecting the trade of Yorkshire would not be suffered to continue for another year, as would be the case if this Bill was
620
lost. Therefore, he trusted the House would pass the Second Reading.
*MR. ADKINSsaid he wished to address the House from a slightly different point of view. He had been asked by the County Councils Association to represent their view on j the question. It was not necessary I for him, from the point of view taken by the body representing the county councils of England, to break any lance with the hon. Member opposite, who imported so much vivacity into his speech, nor was it necessary for him to say anything in depreciation of the traffic on the Ouse, nor in regard to the desire of the most important in-interests on the Humber to have adequate representation. There were, however, in this Bill two or three matters which very much impressed the County Councils Association. There was to be brought within the scope of the Bill twenty-five miles of the river Trent, and there was not in the Bill as it stood any representation whatever in respect of that waterway or of the local authorities on its borders or of the neighbouring country. Whilst the remainder of the waterway within the scope of the Bill had its representatives on the board, consisting not only of the traders and other important interests but also of local authorities, it appeared to him that it would not be at all unreasonable that there should be some representation of some of the local authorities in connection with this twenty-five miles of the Trent. The County Councils Association were exceedingly anxious that where a river either passed through the area of a county, or intersected the areas of two counties, the governing body of those counties should be represented on the board which had control over the waterway. One might imagine from some of the remarks made in the debate that the county councils of Lindsey and Nottingham were seeking to dominate the Humber Conservancy Board, but nothing could be more inaccurate or misleading. They only asked for representation. They were not there to explain or apologise for or even to minimise the sins and-defects of those who had gone before them. It might be quite true that this important waterway

621
had been derelict, but it flowed between two large areas, and surely it was important in the interests or those areas that they should have some representative on the governing body. That would facilitate and make more harmonious the action of the Conservancy Board, instead of being a hindrance to it. He would give the House just one illustration. Most properly, one of the powers given to the Conservancy Board was that of dredging, and it was provided that that power was not to be exercised to the full without a Board of Trade inquiry. He would ask hon. Members who were familiar with the details of local government whether the carrying out of such work as dredging would not be made easier if there were representatives of the local authorities from the districts through which the river flowed, sitting on the Conservancy Board to discuss the best method of carrying out such dredging at the earliest stage. Would it not be bettor that they should have a direct voice in this way from the begining, instead of having to appeal before a public inquiry in an attitude; of apparent hostility? Therefore, on behalf of the County Councils Association, he asked the House to consider with, favour and sympathy the position of those gentlemen Who, in local government, formed the body to which Parliament, had given general administrative powers over counties, the body which was representative in character, and which was best fitted to voice the needs and requirements of the people who lived along be banks of the river and who might be affected by the work of the board. That authority should have some representation on the board. He asked the House in the next place to say, if that general principle was sound, that this Bill should provide for that representation. The Bill dealt with a long stretch of waterway between the two counties—a stretch of waterway now brought into the scope of this conservancy for the first time, which alone had no representation, and which ought to have some representation. When the hon. Baronet opposite said that this was a matter solely for the Committee upstairs, he answered himself by the skilful and careful phrases in which he described the evidence which was given
622
upstairs—evidence which seemed to the hon. Baronet to be affected, he would not say tainted, by the point of view of the eminent men who gave it. If that was so, it was surely desirable that there should be a preliminary discussion in that House, and a statement of the view a of those who might not be eminent, but who were not under the influence and the bias to which the hon. Baronet pointedly alluded. He hoped it would not be said that he and his friends were wasting the time of Parliament when they took this opportunity of making a firm and respectful protest in favour of some voice being given to a representative authority which could have no interest except the welfare of that district of the country which was committed to its charge by Parliament.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport)said it was unnecessary for him to go into the history of this Bill in any great detail, but he was bound to point out to the House that it originated through the intervention of the Board of Trade in 1905, when the Humber Conservancy Board, as it then was, came to the House for certain powers. The Board of Trade was well aware for many years that there were numerous bodies exercising jurisdiction over the Humber, and that their jurisdiction or responsibility overlapped in many particulars. They were also aware that tin particular piece of river which had given rise to the debate that night was under no conservancy at all; that it was, as the hon. Member for Hull had explained, derelict; and that it was in a, very dangerous—he might even use a stronger word, and say, disgraceful—condition. What was the obligation which the Board of Trade imposed on the Humber Conservancy when they came to Parliament in 1905? It imposed on them the obligation to have an inquiry, and the Board of Trade undertook to appoint a Commission. The Board of Trade did appoint a Commission, the head of which was Sir Kenelm Digby, who was formerly Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, and it included an engineer of great distinction, Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, and a member of

623
the Bar, Mr. Sheldon, who was selected because he had considerable experience in questions of this description. The second obligation imposed on the Humber Commissioners was that, whatever the recommendations of the Commission should be, they were to be embodied in a Bill to be presented to Parliament, and that was where they stood that night in regard to the Bill. He repeated once more that the Board of Trade brought about this situation, and it was not fair to suggest that the Humber Conservancy had tried to take an advantage over anybody else. They had undertaken an obligation to do what was proposed by the Bill under discussion that night. He had hoped that none of his hon. friends would raise the question whether the Trent should be included or not, there being such an overwhelming case for inclusion. He did not think that they strengthened their case for representation, or that their case would have been weakened in any way, if they had left out altogether the question whether the Trent should be included. Nobody could deny that the Trent could not continue to be derelict. That was not open to argument at all. There were twenty-five miles of most important waterway between the Humber and the upper reaches of the Trent with no conservancy authority at all. It was twenty-two years since a Board of Trade inspector reported that this particular part of the Trent had gone from bad to worse. That was the condition of affairs in 1886. It was clear that the Board of Trade was well advised in taking steps to have this state of matters inquired into. Now he came to what was the real matter before the House. It was purely a question of representation. He was perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Gainsborough had really no interest that this part of the river should not be taken over. He wanted representation for the county council of Lindsey, and other hon. Members wanted representation for the county of Nottingham and the borough of Nottingham. His hon. friend the Member for Hull wanted increased representation for Hull, although he was glad to say the hon. Member had put his case in a very moderate way. He thought the im-
624
portance of the other interests so great that he preferred to leave the question of representation over until the Bill went upstairs before a Committee. He would content himself with dealing purely with the question of representation. To take the county council claim: they said that the reference did not cover the Trent, but when the inquiry was held it was after it had been extensively advertised in the Nottingham, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire papers. He denied altogether that this part of the Trent was outside the reference. The Commission was empowered to inquire as to what modification or extension, if any, of the jurisdiction exercised by the Humber Commissioners should be given. It was an extension of the jurisdiction that was proposed in the Bill. The jurisdiction was extended to Gainsborough Bridge. The county council said they had no idea that the Trent was in contemplation of being inquired into. They did not attend the inquiry and they said that no Trent interest was represented at the inquiry. It was quite true they were net represented. That was a dereliction of duty on their part for which the Commission was not responsible, because the advertisements went sufficiently far and wide to give them every opportunity of attending. But certain Trent interests did attend the inquiry. For example Nottingham, who had nothing but Trent interests, attended the inquiry and were represented by counsel and claimed direct representation on the body. The Amalgamated Guild of Rivermen, representing tugsmen, lightermen, and watermen of the Trent, attended the inquiry and were strong supporters of having this part of the liver included in the jurisdiction of the Humber Conservancy. Mr. Rayner, the engineer to the Trent Navigation from Gainsborough Bridge to Nottingham, attended and gave evidence, and he raised no objection to the inclusion of this particular piece of waterway. So that it could not be successfully contended by the county councils that Trent interests were not represented on the inquiry. The next point was this: that if dredging took place in the Trent it would result in damage to the banks. His reply was this. In the first place

625
the Trent was sufficiently wide to enable dredging to be carried out in a deep-water channel at a sufficient distance from the banks to occasion no damage. But what was far more important was that no dredging could take place in the Trent without the assent of the Board of Trade, who were the owners of the soil of the bed of the river, and consequently no body, even though it had jurisdiction over the waterway, was entitled to touch the bed of the soil without the consent of the Board of Trade. It was most important that no dredging of the Trent could take place without the assent of the Board of Trade. Supposing extensive draining were required to be carried out, and local landowners considered it might be dangerous to their land, they would make representations to the Board of Trade, who would not give consent until a public inquiry had been held. Therefore, in that particular connection, the county councils had nothing to fear. The next point that had been made was that all Conservancy Hoards had county-council representatives. Well, he was surprised to hear that. Those who supported that argument had drawn an analogy between their own case and that of the River Thames; but as a matter of fact there was no real analogy between the two cases at all. The Humber Conservancy was solely concerned with navigation, whereas the Thames Conservancy was concerned not only with navigation but with sanitation. The watershed of the Thames extended over four thousand miles, and from it 65 to 70 per cent. of the water-supply of London was drawn. There was nothing like this in the case of the Trent, which was a tidal river pure and simple. With regard to the representation of Nottingham they stated their case and it was negatived. It was not the only borough council represented at the inquiry. There were the borough councils of York. Bradford, and Leeds. Their cases were heard, but a decision was come to against them. In face of this they had retired from the contest, and did not come again time after time, like Nottingham. If the door were once opened to Nottingham all these other towns would have a distinct grievance. It was per-
626
fectly impossible to reopen the case as regarded Nottingham. The county councils must see that it would be impossible for him to attempt to recast this Commission on the floor of the House of Commons. It was appointed by the Board of Trade, and that gave him no option but to support the findings of the Commission. When the question went upstairs there would be full licence for the Committee there to do what it chose, and the Board of Trade would use no influence in any way to prejudge the matter. The county councils would go there, and if they convinced the Committee so much the better for those councils. As far as the Board of Trade was concerned that Department would remain perfectly neutral and allow the county councils to do the best they could for themselves. The Board of Trade would have three nominations to dispose of, but it would endeavour not to give them on the side of the big battalions. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed further; every opportunity would be given upstairs to consider all complaints, but for himself it was impossible to take any other course than hat which he had laid before them that evening.
*MR. ELLISsaid the Secretary to the Board of Trade when he sat down was. if he might say so, better than when he began. He finished by saving that the Board of Trade on this vital question of representation were perfectly neutral. That was a very proper attitude for a Government Department to take, but he listened with some regret to certain observations in which the case seemed almost to be prejudged. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had used arguments which if put before the Committee might have very serious results. The question, although in one sense a local one, was a very important and vital question of principle. As one of the members for Nottinghamshire which was so much concerned in the matter, he contended that it was unprecedented to give to a body like the Humber Conservancy large powers over a district, without giving the inhabitants of that district any representation whatever on the Board. That was the point at issue. Much had been said of the Board of Trade Commission, and of the

627
obligation on the Conservancy to bring forward this Bill. He agreed that it was essential that something should be done, and he was entirely in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, but he was justified in making the protest he had done, and he hoped it would reach the Committee. They, however, reserved their rights on the Third Reading. They were simply making a protest in favour of some representation for the districts they represented. The clause in the Bill went even beyond this suggestion, not recommendation, of the Commission referred to. When he looked at the report of the Commission, he was bound to say it had acted in a somewhat peculiar manner. It made no recommendations on the navigation of the Trent, but only certain suggestions, and said—
"We consider it doubtful whether we have in strictness any power formally to recommend the adoption of these suggestions."
They knew they were on uncertain ground and for two reasons. In the first place the Trent was not within the terms of reference, and secondly, the evidence as to that river was not fully gone into. The Borough of Nottingham was certainly represented there, but only because they had certain old rights. They did not put forward their whole case, but left it entirely in the hands of the really before the Commission, no evidence was given, and the suggestions made were in the nature of obiter dicta and ultra vires. However, the clauses in the Bill went even further than the suggestions of the Commission. He did not oppose the Bill, but he asked most distinctly and most strongly that there should be a full inquiry before the Committee, and that if the Committee passed the Bill, including the Trent, they should give full representation on the Humber Conservancy Board to the County Councils of Nottingham and Lindsey.
MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid he wished to associate himself with the statement that the Humber Conservancy only brought forward this Bill for the benefit of the river as a whole, and not for the benefit of any particular section of the river. It had been stated that the case for Nottingham had not been properly heard by the
628
Commission; but the Trent Navigation Company, and many other companies in his own town who had the voting power, acknowledged that it would be in their own interest, as well as in that of the city of Nottingham that justice should be done to the Trent river. He was as much interested in the Trent as any hon. Gentleman who had spoken, and he only wished to do the best he could for the Trent. As a member of the Humber Conservancy Commissioners, he was one of a special committee that had to do with the raising of wrecks in the Humber, and they had a number of appeals asking them to remove wrecks in the Humber and Trent, and if they had had power to do so in the Trent they would have been only too glad to have done it. They proposed to put no expense upon Nottingham or Gainsborough in doing that. The cost would be raised by dues.
MAJOR RENTONsaid that after the explanation given by the hon. Member and the statement on behalf of the Board of Trade he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYas the Parliamentary representative for many years on the Humber Conservancy, supported what the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade had said, and thanked Major Renton for withdrawing his Amendment. The Conservancy had no interests but the public interests, and he was perfectly certain that the findings of the Commissioners, embodied in this Act of Parliament, would be not only in the interests of the locality, but of the public generally. He hoped the matter would be dealt with by the Parliamentary Committee upstairs. He was in favour of representation of local interests, but he was bound to say that at present those who represented the Trent in the lower reaches had done nothing to improve the navigation, and had often placed them in a very difficult position, because wrecks in the Trent had been most dangerous to the Humber. They wanted some jurisdiction in the lower reaches of the Trent, so that that

629
river might be made useful and effective in the public interest generally.

FINANCE BILL.
Postponed proceeding, resumed.
MR. CALDWELLin the Chair.
MR. FELLmoved an Amendment to secure that the normal increase in the proceeds of the duties on local taxation licences should belong to and be paid into the local taxation account. He said he regretted very much that the Amendment preceding his had been ruled out of order, because it was of more importance than this proposal, but still this Amendment was of great importance to the local bodies affected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained why this considerable change was to be made. With a great deal of what ho had said they had on more than one occasion expressed concurrence, but in agreeing to this change they had done so on the understanding that the local authorities should not be in any worse position than they were in at the present time, The amount which was payable was a fixed amount, and what was proposed by this Amendment was that the normal increase in those sums which would take place in process of time should belong to those local bodies, and that they themselves should receive the amount which they would receive at the present time.
MR. RUNCIMANthought the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. There was no suggestion in the clause that the amount should be a fixed amount. The normal increase of the duties would be seemed to the local authorities.
MR. FELLreplied that the precise interpretation of the clause was a matter of dispute, and this Amendment at any rate would make the point clear.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the words of the Bill at a later stage made the matter quite clear.
MR. FELLsaid that if his words would make the meaning more clear he took it that there would be no objection to their going in. All he said was that in certain places population might increase, and the locality should, he thought, receive the normal increase from these licences. The proposal of the Chancellor was that he might increase this duty, but would the increase of the duty belong to the Exchequer or to the neighbourhood? Where populations were growing institutions were coming up and rates were increasing. Was it not right that the local authorities should be recouped the heavy expenses which they would have to pay through the growth of the locality? If that was intended, it was perfectly clear that it gave them all they wished, but he did not think it was perfectly clear. He thought it would be made clearer by the addition of the words he proposed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert the words, 'but the normal increase in the proceeds of such duties shall belong to and be paid into the Local Taxation Account.' "—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that as he under stood it the object which the hon. Member had in view had been specifically provided for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had provided for the normal growth of these funds, and the local body would be in no sense damaged by the passing of this Bill. The full amount of the increased duty would come to the Local Taxation Account and would go to the credit of these bodies. That was what he thought the hon. Gentleman desired, and that was provided for by words which were to be found later on in the Bill. He thought the words were perfectly clear, and if that was so it was not necessary to add additional words. Therefore, the Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in referring to these provisions the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken

631
of their simplifying the accounts. He did not see how that result would follow, as the equivalent amount could only be arrived at by keeping all the accounts as if the present system continued.
SIR F. BANBURYmoved to report progress on account of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he said, had been away since a quarter-past eight o'clock.
*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANdeclined to accept the Motion. He had grave doubts originally as to whether the Amendment was in order, as the Bill provided in accordance with the Amendment; but, he thought he would allow the hon. Member to move it and the answer to be given. A complete answer had been given, and he saw no reason,
therefore, for accepting the Motion to report progress.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR F. BANBURYthought that they should have the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Question, and therefore he moved to report progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 253. (Division List No. 263.)

AYES.

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ashley, W. VV.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Moore. William

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

.Muntz. Sir Philip A.

Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Duncan. Robert(Lanark. Govan

Nicholson. Win. G.(Petersfield)

Banbury,Sir Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood.

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring,Capt. Hn.G(Winchester

Fell. Arthur

Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.

Fletcher, J. S.

Remnant. James Farquharson

Beach,Hn.Michael HughHicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol. West)

Roberts,S.(Sheffield.Ecclesall])

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gordon, J.

Rutherford, John) (Lancashire)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool

Bridgeman. W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Brotherton. Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sloan. Thomas Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey. John R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hervey, F. W.F.(BuryS. Edmd's

Talbot,. Lord E. (Chichester)

Campbell, Rt. Hon.) J. H. M.

Hill,SirClement (Shrewsbury)

Tumour, Viscount

Carlile. E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Walrond. Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor CW.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

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

Cecil, LordR.(Marylelbone. E.)

King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull)

Younger. George

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore

Lee, Arthur. H. (Hants, Fareham

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lowe. Sir Francis William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. Alfred

Mr. Forster.

Corbett, T. L. (Down,North)

M'Calmont, ColonelJames

Craig,CaptainJames(Down, E.)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barry, RedmondJ. (Tyrone, N.)

Brace, William

Agnew, George William

Beale. W. P.

Bramsdon. T. A.

Alden, Percy

Beauchamp, E.

Brigg, John

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Beck, A. Cecil

Bright, J. A.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bell, Richard

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

Belloc,HilaireJosephPeter R.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Benn, SirJ. Williams) Devonp'rt

Burns. Rt. Hon. John

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barker, John

Bertram, Julius

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Barlow,Sir JohnE.(Somerset)

Bethell.SirJ.H.(EssexRomf'rd

Byles, William Pollard

Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cameron, Robert

Barnes, G. N.

Billson. Sir Alfred

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Black, Arthur VV.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Chance, Frederick William

Horniman, Emslie John

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Rendall, Athelstan

Cleland, J. W

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Renton, Major Leslie

Clough, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richardson, A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambet

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Jackson, R. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, EGrinst'd

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cory, Clifford John

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones. Leif (Appleby)

Robinson, S.

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cox, Harold

Jowett, F. W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Joyce, Michael

Rogers, F. K. Newman

Crombie, John William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Runciman, Walter

Crosfield. A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dalziel,.James Henry

Kincaid-Simth, Captain

Scarisbrick, T. T, L.

Davies, David(Montgomeryo. Co

King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Scott, A. H. (Ashton- under- Lyne

Davies. Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Davies W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Lamont, Norman

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dewar,SirJ. A.(Inverness-sh.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Snowden, P.

Duckworth, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dunne,MajorE.Mart in(Walsall

Lupton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch. H. B.

Stead man, W. C.

Edwards. Sir Frank (Radnor)

Maclean, Donald

Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

Elibank, Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Erskine. David C.

M'Crae, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Killop, W.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Fenwick. Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ferens, T. R,

Mallet, Charles E.

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)

Findlay. Alexander

Manfield. Harry (Northants)

Thomas, David Alfred; Merthyr

Foster,.Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Thomasson, Franklin

Fuller, John Michael F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Fullerton, Hugh

Marks. G Croydon(Launceston

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Furness. Sir Christopher

Marnham, F. J.

Trevelyan. Charles Philips

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mason, A. E. W, (Coventry)

Ure, Alexander

Gill. A. H.

Massie, J.

Wadsworth, J.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

Menzies, Walter

Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

Glendinning, R. G

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walters, John Tudor

Gover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Montgomery. H. G.

Wardle. GerogeJ.

Gooch, George Peabody

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Grant, Corrie

Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Waterlow, D S.

Greenwood, G.(Peterborough)

Morse, L. L.

Watt, Henry A.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, George (Norfolk)

Gulland, John W.

Myer, Horatio

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW. Brampton

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

White, Luke (York. E.R.)

Hall. Frederick

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)

Harmsworth,Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Norman, Sir Henry

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Hart-Davies. T.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wiles, Thomas

Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Williamson, A.

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wills. Arthur Walters

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Haworth,Arthur A.

Pearce, William (Limehouse

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearson,SirW.D.(Colchester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Harleton, Richard

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke)

Winfrey, R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Helme, Norval Watson

Pollard, Dr.

Young, Samuel

Hemmerde, Edward George

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

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Henry, Charles S.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

Mr. Whitely and Mr. J. A.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Rainy, A. Holland

Pease.

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would repeat a question with regard to which lie had spoken at an earlier stage of the debate, he thought on the occasion of the Budget statement, as to the simplification of accounts. He gathered from the statements which had been made that it would be necessary to keep all the accounts and make all the calculations, and the question he desired to put—he would not elaborate it—was where the simplification of accounts and calculations came in.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the provisional state of things existed. They would merely keep up the provisional accounts until the question of the grants-in-aid of local taxation was dealt with by the House: but so far as the national finances were concerned, there would be only one account presented, and the Legislature would be free in future to devote the licence duties to purely Imperial purposes.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he hardly wished to oppose this clause as it contained matters with which he agreed. In regard to these grants in aid of local taxation, he had hoped to hear some assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would press the matter forward, as local interests were being injuriously affected. The right hon. Gentleman was taking back these licence duties into his own hands, but, as was so well jointed out by the Local Government Committee of the London County Council in their Report which appealed in The Times that morning—
"The increase which is contemplated in the rates of some of the licence duties will probably tend to restrict the natural growth of the proceeds of the duties calculated at their present rates, and consequently to delicate the amounts allocated to local taxation."
That was very well put as regarded his position. He thought there could be no question whatever that the position taken up in this Finance Bill would reduce the amount receivable by the municipalities and the county associations, and that the right hon. Gentleman
636
was taking back these licence duties with a view to increasing them and so swelling the Exchequer accounts. There were, he thought, some thirty-seven of these licence duties refreshment licences, dog licences, and all sorts of licences—which would now come into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of being increased and brought into the national finances. He could not put the case better and shorter than by taking the dog tax, which was 7s. 6d. It was perfectly clear that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased that tax to £1—he did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was going to do it—there would be far fewer dog licences taken out, and the result would be that the local municipalities would receive so many fewer 7s. 6d.'s. The national Exchequer would receive so many more 12s. 6d.'s than it now received, and it would do so at the expense of the municipalities. That was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman carried out his statement that—
"The increase which is contemplated in the rates of some of the licence duties will probably tend to restrict the natural growth of the proceeds of the duties calculated at their present rates, and consequently to decrease the amounts allocated to local taxation."
It was perfectly clear that the local authorities were going to suffer in this matter. So far as the loud bodies them-selves were concerned, he had received a resolution passed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which they declared that the effect of the proposal would be to decrease the amount which they would receive. The London County Council and the municipalities contended that not only should the Government not take this tax into their own hands, but they ought to increase the amount receivable from the local taxation fund. A certain amount which was now payable by the Government was being taken off and placed upon the municipalities. When the local taxation grants were first made the expense of maintaining the police fell half upon the Government and half upon the municipality, but when the grants-in-aid were given the municipalities were left to bear the whole of the cost. In the Report of the London County Council it was stated that the expenses which

637
had fallen on the council, in respect to what they had taken over, as compared with the average of the years ending 1892–93, created a deficiency of £'204,000. So also with other county councils and municipalities, the duties were in excess of the grants, and they were left with large deficiencies. They asked that the clause should not be passed without a grant-in-aid to meet these deficiencies; but he, not going so far as that, asked that county councils and municipalities should not be made worse off than they were at present. If a licence which now cost £25 was increased to £100 the tendency would be towards fewer licences. The municipality would get the £25 and the Government £75. By adding to the tax in that way they would be decreasing the. number. He thought he was fully justified in complaining that this clause had been put forward without any alteration to meet that position. In May last the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the change would not impose a penny additional on any of them, but as a matter of fact it did. In the same reply the right hon. Gentleman said—
"Perhaps the hon. Member had better wait and see the Bill before asserting the converse."
He had waited, and he found the Bill quite in accordance with his evil prognostications, and it did not meet the views either of the municipalities or of the county councils. The right hon. Gentleman further said—
"He had given that undertaking in his Budget speech, and if that did not turn out to be the case the Bill would be amended. If the hon. Member found in the Bill any such clause the clause would be amended to make it clear."
What was the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to-day? When they brought forward an Amendment to carry out this promise they were jockeyed out of a discussion. Knowing the generosity and consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, he appealed to him to consider what he said previously when this matter was brought forward. The local authorities had suffered as he had described, and not only was that not to be remedied, but the deficiencies would be increased. They were going to have thirty-six licences taken away from them. In increasing the duties on those licences for national purposes, the
638
right hon. Gentleman was decreasing them for municipal purposes.
MR. ASQUITHindicated dissent,
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. They all knew that if they increased the price of an article they decreased the consumption. The same thing applied to licences. If they increased the price of licences they would decrease the number, and the municipalities would suffer. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this was only a preliminary step and that he did not wish to deal with the whole question until twelve months hence. He had shown that the right hon. Gentleman was going at present to commit a rank injustice on municipalities and county councils. The right hon. Gentleman might well pause for a year in order to take the whole matter into consideration with a view to bringing forward a proposal in a generous spirit. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had taken motor licences into his own hand for the purpose of increasing them, motors being luxuries which should pay more towards the national finance. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that, but he thought the municipalities and county councils had a right to say that the money obtained from the increased licences should be applied to the creation of a fund out of which they might pay for the improvement of roads. The right hon. Gentleman was taking the motor licences into his own hand not for the purpose of improving roads and remedying the inconvenience which motors caused to the public, but for the purpose of making them luxury taxes to aid the general position of the Exchequer. He hoped hon. Members would consider what was being done in this matter. He did not think this was a proper way to deal with counties and municipalities.
MR. MCKLENNAsaid that the clause as it stood would not affect the finance of the local authorities by one sixpence. Whatever they would get under existing taxation they would continue to get, so far as this Bill was concerned. What the hon. Gentleman meant was that once this clause was passed it would facilitate other Bills which might deprive the local

639
authorities of some of the revenue they now received. The time for meeting that would be when such a Bill was introduced. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in raising the point at once, but not a single argument he had used was relevant to this Bill. Treating his warning with the utmost respect and taking it fully to heart, he begged him to allow this clause to pass and to rely on the opportunities he would have hereafter to deal with changes when they arose.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his hon. friend's case was that, if the amount of these individual licences was increased, and it was the expressed intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they should be, their number would be decreased, and that, while the Treasury would benefit, the local authorities would lose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not his intention that they should lose, but at the same time he had put forward as his sole reason for this clause that he should be free to raise these duties in the future. At an earlier stage when he discussed the Resolution on which this clause was founded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if there was any danger of the local authorities suffering they could amend the clause in Committee; and on that assurance his hon. friend the Member for Liverpool withdrew his opposition and the Resolution was agreed to unanimously. Unfortunately it was found that they on that side of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were alike in the error, and that to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's pledge effectively was now impossible under the rules of the House. The only course now open to them was to reject the clause as a whole, and to defer taking any steps in this direction until they were authorised by Resolution to amend the clause in the sense which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had approved. They could not consent to a further postponement, as the President of the Board of Education suggested, having already lost one opportunity by postponing their action on the Resolution stage. They did not want to be caught in another trap, and they thought it better to act at once. In regard to a number of these licences a considerable
640
rise in the duty would cause a sensible reduction in the number of licences, and thus expose the local authorities to loss.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would believe he was not likely to depart from any pledge which he had given, and he did not in the least desire to do so on this occasion. He had said all along that if there was any ambiguity on the subject, it would be possible to meet it by an Amendment to the clause when it came up for discussion in Committee. It appeared now that under the rules of order they were not able to take any steps in that direction. At the same time, he hoped the Committee would not take the drastic step, and, as he thought, the unreasonable course, of rejecting the clause. What was the situation? Unless there was a change in the law, the local authorities would receive under this clause exactly what they would have received in the past. The purport of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Liverpool would have moved if it had been in order, was to anticipate the possible effect of change in the law raising the scale of licensing duties, and thereby diminishing the receipts of the local authorities. He had it in contemplation in the future to propose, if ho were able, legislation which might have the effect of raising those duties. But unless and until that legislation was proposed and passed, it was conceded that the local authorities would not suffer under this clause. Supposing such legislation was proposed, he was prepared to have accepted, or to have proposed himself, an Amendment to the clause to the effect that, while the local authorities should be entitled, as they would be entitled under the clause, to the whole of the normal increase in those duties if the scale of duties remained unchanged, under no circumstances, whatever change by way of rise or adjustment in the duties was ultimately assented to by Parliament, should they receive a lower sum than they had received during the average of the last three years, including the present year, under the existing system. He was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to give that undertaking now. If they proposed, as he agreed they contemplated proposing.

641
to Parliament an increase of those duties which might have the effect of diminishing the receipts of the local authorities, he would undertake that that should be accompanied by a provision which would secure the the local authorities that they should not receive less than they had received on the average of the last three years. He thought it was a very fair offer, which might to be accepted.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that there were two points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which he would like to call attention. He based his speech on two premises. The scheme was that the local authorities were not only to be guaranteed the amount per licence that they now received, but also some proportion of the increased rate on each licence.
MR. ASQUITH: No. I guard the local authority from any loss due to a diminished number of licences in consequence of a rise in the rate of licence. But, of course, I do not give them a share in the additional proceeds of the licences due to a rise in the rate.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if there were no change in the scale, normally the number of licences would increase with the population, and the Exchequer and the local authorities would share in the increased return. But if the scale were changed, then the local authorities were to be deprived of the normal increase, and were to receive a fixed, unalterable amount. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill did not carry out his own intention, and the rules of debate forbade him now to carry out that plan by amending the clause. That ruling startled him. The Resolution which preceded the introduction of a money Bill did prevent the House from increasing the charge on the community; but such Resolutions would be wholly mischievous if they limited the discretion of the Committee of the House on matters which did
642
not in any way increase the amount of the charge on the community. So impressed was he with the general view of this question that he asked as a point of order whether it had been ruled that the Committee had so bound itself in the preliminary committee on the introduction of the Bill as to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from introducing an amendment which added no charge, which did not violate the spirit of the Constitution in any way, but which prevented the House from exercising a free hand.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he was as anxious as the Opposition to have this question decided now, if possible, by the insertion of words in the Bill rather than by a Ministerial undertaking, though one was as binding as the other. In order formally to raise the question he proposed the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oswestry. which was to this effect—
"Provided that in no case shall the sum payable to any local taxation account be less than that actually paid 'on. the average of three-years to end on March 31, 1907.' "
That addition would exactly carry out the undertaking he had given to the House.
*THE CHAIRMANwas afraid that that Amendment would not be in order, as an Amendment later in the clause had been decided, and he had put the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill. On the substance of the matter he ruled that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be no more in order than the original Amendment of the hon. Member for Oswestry. He was extremely sorry that this should be the position of affairs, but he had to carry out the rules of order. It was clear that if the proceeds of the public-house licences were less in 1907–8 than they were on the average of the three years preceding there would be, if

643
the Amendment were inserted, a deficiency to be made good, and not allowed for in the Resolution. He must, therefore, adhere to the ruling he had previously given. The simple way of dealing with this matter would be to pass a different financial resolution.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Chairman's ruling, he could consent to some modification of the original Resolution provided it were understood that the new Resolution should be passed practically sub silentio.
MR. ASQUITHentirely agreed with he right hon. Gentleman. They were all the victims of a common error. The modified Resolution, he added, might be brought in first thing to-morrow.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:—
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmoved to report Progress.
MR. ASQUITHasked the Committee to pass the first sub-section, continuing the income tax at the rate of 1s.—[Cries of "No"]—he undertaking to report Progress when the question of differentiation was reached.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 241. (Division List No. 264.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dalrymple, Viscount

Moore. William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doughty, Sir George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A.Akers-

Nicholson. Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Nield, Herbert

Balfour,RtHn.A. J.(City Lond.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury,SirFrederick George

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

Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester

Fell, Arthur

Remnant,JamesFarquharson

Barnes, G. N.

Fletcher. J.S.

Roberts,S.(Sherffield,Ecclesall)

Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry,N.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, John(Lancashire)

Beach,Hn.MichaelHnghHicks

Gordon, J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. OGervase

Gretton, John

Sheffield,Sir Berkeley George D.

Bignold. Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Brotherton,Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset,W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

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

Cavendish,Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon.Col. W.

Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton)

Cecil,LordR.(Marylebone, E.)

King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull)

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.JA.(Worc.

Lane-Fox;, G. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham

Younger, George

Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

M'Calmont, Colonel James.

Mr. Forster.

Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Craig, Captain James(Down,E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

Agnew, George William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury, John Meir

Alden, Percy

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Gooch, George Peabody

Morse, L. L.

Barker, John

Grant, Corrie

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Greenwood,G.(Peterborough)

Myer, Horatio

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Newnes, F. (Notts,Bassetlaw)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gulland, John W.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Barry, RedmondJ. (Tyrone,N.)

Gurdon,RtHn.SirWBrampton

Norman, Sir Henry

Beale, W. P.

Hall, Frederick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Beauchamp, E.

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hart-Davies, T.

Parker, James (Halifax.)

Bell, Richard

Harvey.A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Partington, Oswald

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Benn,SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt

Harwood, George

Pearce,William(Limehouse)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Haslam, Lewis(Monmouth)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester;

Bertram, Julius

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Black, Arthur W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Pollard, Dr.

Brace, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hernmerde,Edward George

Radford, G. H.

Brigg, John

Henry, Charles S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bright, J. A.

Herbert,Col.SirIvor(Mon.,S.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Renton, Major Leslie

Bryce, J. Annan

Holland, Sir William Henry

Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope.W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

Richardson, A.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Horniman, Emslie John

Rickett, J. Compton

Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Ridsdale, E. A.

Byles, William Pollard

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Roberts,Charles H.(Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Roberts,John H.(Denbighs.)

Causton, Rt. Hn.RichardKnight

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robertson,SirGScott(Bradf'rd

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jackson, R. S.

Robinson, S.

Chance, Frederick William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Clough, William

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Rose, Charles Day

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, F. W.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, SirCE. (Manchester)

Cooper, G. J.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seaverns, J. H.

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Lamb,EdmundG.(Leominster

Seely, Major J. B.

Cory, Clifford John

Lambert, George

Shaw,Charles Edw.(Stafford)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lamont, Norman

Shipman,Dr. John G.

Cowan, W. H.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cox, Harold

Lehmann, R. C.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lever, A. Levy (Essex.,Harwich

Sinclair, Rt.Hon. John

Crosfield, A. H.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Smeaton,Donald Mackenzie

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Snowden, P.

Davies,David(.MontgomeryCo.

Lloyd-George,Rt.Hon. David

Spicer, Sir Albert

Davies,Bills William (Eifion)

Lough, Thomas

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Timothy(Fulham)

Lupton, Arnold

Stanley,Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Steadman, W. C.

Dewar, SirJ.A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Lynch, H. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maclean, Donald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

M'Callum, John M.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Crae, George

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Edwards,Enoch (Hanley)

M'Kenna.Rt.Hon.Reginald

Sutherland, J. E.

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

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

Taylor,TheodoreC. (Radcliffe)

Elibank. Master of

M'Micking, Major G.

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

Erskine, David C.

Mallet, Charles E.

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

Thomasson, Franklin

Evans, Samuel T.

Mansfield, H.Rendall(Lincoln)

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E.

Everett. H. Lacey

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fenwick, Charles

Mar s,G. Croydon(Launceston

Ure, Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Findlay. Alexander

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Wadsworth, J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Massie, J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Fullerton, Hugh

Menzies, Walter

Walters, John Tudor

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ward,W. Dudley(Southampton

Gill, A. H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Waring, Walter

Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

Montgomery, H. G.

Warner,Thomas Courtenay T.

Glendinning, R. G.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Waterlow, D S.

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Watt, Henry A.

Wiles, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

White, George (Norfolk)

Willamson, A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wills, Arthur Walters

TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Whitley,JohnHenry(Halifax)

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

Pease.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Winfrey, R.

THE CHAIRMANruled out of order an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Padding-ton, proposing a scale of graduation and differentiation of income-tax, ranging from Id. in the £on earned, and 2d. in the £ on unearned incomes of £160, to Is. 6d. in the £ on incomes (earned or unearned) of £10,000.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it would be convenient if some arrangement could be arrived at whereby they could have to-morrow and Monday for the finishing of the Committee stage on the Finance Bill, on the common understanding that there should be only one day given for the Report stage with no particular limitation as to the hour at which the discussion should be closed. If that met the views of both sides of the House, he begged to suggest it.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought that would be a very reasonable arrangement, and he was prepared to accept it, subject to this. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had to be in Ireland on Tuesday, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Evicted Tenants Bill should be taken on Monday, and that Tuesday should be the second day for Committee on the Finance Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes.
MR. ASQUITH: I understand that there will be to-morrow and Tuesday for the remainder of the Committee
648
stage, and that there shall be another day, not necessarily limited to the Eleven o'clock Rule, for Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know what amount of discussion was expected on the Evicted Tenants Bill, and he must not be regarded as pledging himself on that Bill at all. If the discussion on it lasted more thang 219 a day, the Government would have to arrange for it. But at all events only two days more would be taken for Committee on the Finance Bill, and only one day, not necessarily finishing at 11 o'clock, for the Report stage. The actual days on which that bargain was to be carried out would rest with the Government alone. They could settle what the days were to be. The bargain was about time, and not about particular days.
MR. ASQUITH: I entirely assent to that, and I move to report Progress.
MR. W. REDMOND: I understand that the Evicted Tenants Bill will be taken on Monday.
MR. ASQUITH: Yes.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

IMPORTED WATCH-CASES BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.
Adjourned at twenty - seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: Central London Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Central London Railway Bill. —Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Leeds Corporation Bill. —Reported, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. —Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To- morrow.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill. —Reported, with an Amendment.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. —Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]. —Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Bill [H.L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]. —Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill —Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Suffield be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Bowes (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn); read, and agreed to.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. —Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

PETITION.
  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of the Westminster City Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FRANCE (No. 1), 1907.
  Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris transmitting the Treaty between France and Siam; signed at Bangkok, 23rd March, 1907.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1906. Part II. Salmon Fisheries.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE ARTILLERY.
  The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private notice, arising out of a discussion that took place last night in regard to the Royal Artillery. The Question is whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to postpone any further reduction in the Regular Artillery until properly qualified men of the Special Contingent are available to take their place.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (The Earl of Portsmouth): My Lords, I must express my thanks to the noble Marquess for having given me private notice of the Question. In reply I would beg to refer him to a statement which I made on July 24th of last year. I then said—
  "There will be no reduction in the artillery until trained Militiamen, liable to serve abroad, can take their place."
  Our policy in this matter has not changed, and we do not intend to make any reduction in the Regular Artillery until properly qualified men of the Special Contingent are available to take their place.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2: —
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN: had Amendments on the Paper to insert the word "provisional" before the word "Order" in three places in this clause and in several places in subsequent clauses. He explained that these were merely drafting Amendments, but were for the purpose of securing the uniform use of the phrase "provisional order." As the clause now stood, the term "provisional order" was used in one or two instances, and the word "order" in others. It was desirable that there should be no doubt what was meant, and he hoped his noble friend in charge of the Bill would have no objection to inserting the word "provisional." He begged to move the first Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the second 'the' to insert the word 'provisional.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)said the general principle adopted by the draftsman had been to use the expression "provisional order" once in each clause and sub-clause, and to subsequently refer to it
488
as the "order." The insertion of the word "provisional" in the place now proposed was unnecessary. He was afraid, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
The Earl OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Earl to give his reason for not accepting the first Amendment.
Earl CARRINGTONrepeated that the general principle adopted by the draftsman had been to use the expression "provisional order" once in each clause or sub-clause and to subsequently refer to it as the "order." To call it a provisional order in every case would require about a dozen Amendments beyond those on the Paper. The Amendments were purely drafting, and, if adopted, would not in any way affect the Bill. He appealed to the noble Earl, in these circumstances, not to press his Amendment. The Government were perfectly willing to agree to the insertion of the word "provisional" in two cases later.
The Earl OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the argument the noble Earl had used was a good one for rejecting the word "provisional" in every case where he proposed to insert it. Why in two particular cases he was willing to accept the Amendment and not in others he could not understand.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Onslow)thought Lord Carrington's point was quite clear. Clause 2 commenced with the words," Any such provisional order," and the noble Earl's contention was that the word "order" wherever used again in that clause necessarily meant the provisional order.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdid not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTONsaid his first Amendment was intended to enable the Board to deal with such cases as the abolition of netting in narrow water, which might be desirable in the general interests of the river but might seriously injure particular fishing. In the absence

489
of some power to secure the payment of compensation difficulty might arise in staving off objection to an order on this ground. It was not intended in any way that the powers should be exercised in such a manner as to encourage claims for compensation by every person who felt aggrieved by the means taken to improve the river generally.
Amendment moved—
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'pro visions,' to insert the words' including pro visions for payment of compensation to persons injuriously affected by the order.' "— (Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: moved to insert a new subsection, which, he said, had been drafted for the purpose of meeting a grievance felt by owners of fishery establishments. He understood that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 23, after the word ' advertisement ' to insert as a new subsection: '(4) An order under this Act shall not apply to any waters in which the business of artificially propagating or rearing salmon or trout is carried on under a licence granted by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and any such licence may be granted by the Board, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think fit, and may be revoked if the Board are of opinion that any condition has not been observed.' "— (The Earl of Denbigh.)
EARL CARRINGTONsaid it had been pointed out that to include fish farms in a district and to subject them to assessment would be likely seriously to hamper this industry. Fish farms, moreover, would not derive material benefit from the conservancy of the river. He thought the Amendment ought to be accepted, as it only referred to farms that were bond fide and carried on under proper conditions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3: —
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he supposed the noble Earl would accept
490
the Amendment to insert the word "provisional" in this case, as the word "order" was here the second word of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 24, to leave out the word 'An,' and to insert the words 'A provisional.' " —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTONmoved to substitute "one-fourth" for "one-tenth." The clause as proposed to be amended would read—
"An order under this Act shall not be made except on the application of a board of conservators constituted under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, or of a county council, or of persons who, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, are the owners of 'one-fourth' at least in value of the private fisheries proposed to be regulated or constitute a majority of the persons holding licences to fish in public waters within the area of the proposed order. …"
He explained that he had put down this Amendment because it had been represented to him that one-tenth was much too small a proportion to bring into effect the rather complicated machinery of this Bill. It appeared to him rather unreasonable that it should be within the power of, perhaps, one individual to put persons to considerable trouble and expense; and he suggested, therefore, that the proportion of one-tenth should be altered to one-fourth.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 28, to leave out the word ' one-tenth ' and to insert the word ' one-fourth.' "—(Lord Newton.)
EARL CARRINGTON:said he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: moved to amend the provision—
"Every such application shall be advertised in such manner as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries direct "—
by inserting, after the word "advertised," the words "by the applicants."

491
The provision as it stood was, he said, ambiguous as to the party responsible for advertising the application, and the Amendment was intended to remedy this. They wanted to make it quite clear by whom the advertisement was to be made.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 32, after the word 'advertised' to insert the words ' by the applicants.' " — (Earl Carrington.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4: —
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagain moved to insert the word "provisional," and said that to be consistent the noble Earl must accept the Amendment in this case.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out the word ' an,' and to insert the words 'a provisional.' " — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthen moved to insert the words "terms of the draft" before the Word "order" in the last line of Subsection 2, which, as amended, would read—
"The Board may, if they think it expedient, hold a local inquiry by an inspector or other officer of the Board with respect to any objections made to the draft order, and shall, after considering all such objections and the report of the officer who held the inquiry (if any) thereon, settle the ' terms of the draft' order."
The term "settle the order," at present in the subsection, was not one which had often been used in drafting. He thought it appeared in one of the Land Bills this year, but, as far as he could make out, the term might be taken, in the absence of some explanation, to mean that the Board would have the power to settle the order itself, especially with reference to the provision in the next clause that the Board might submit the order to Parliament for confirmation. He sup posed that the meaning was that the
492
Board of Agriculture should settle the terms of the draft order, and it was better to make that plain by inserting the words in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4. line 12, after the second ' the,' to insert the words 'terms of the draft.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTONsaid the Government considered the Amendment an improvement of the clause and gladly accepted it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5: —
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: moved to provide that, if while the confirming Bill is pending in either House, a petition is presented against any order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to that order, "shall" be referred to a Select Committee, and not "may," as provided in the clause. Under the clause as it stood there was no obligation to refer to a Select Committee. Surely the petitioner ought to have the right to have his case heard, and to secure this it was essential that the word "may" should be altered to "shall."
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 20, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: could not accept the Amendment because the Standing Orders of the two Houses made the necessary provision for dealing with opposed Provisional Orders by referring them to Committees. Therefore the Amendment was unnecessary. There was another objection- namely, that by accepting the Amendment they would be departing from the model form. In the circumstances he hoped the noble Earl would not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the argument of the noble Earl appeared to be that the Amendment was unnecessary, because the Standing Orders of both Houses stated that where a petition was presented the Bill should be referred

493
to a Select Committee. If that was provided for by the Standing Orders, what possible objection could there be to the Bill also stating that there should be a reference to a Committee? If the word "may" were left in, a doubt would be created which was only removed by the application of the Standing Orders of Parliament to the clause. The noble Earl had said that whether "may" did or did not stand part of the clause the result was the same. If that was so, it was better to use wording about which there could be no mistake. His noble friend had followed this course in several Amendments in the Agricultural Holdings Act of last year, and he was afraid that as a result he (Lord Camperdown) would have to trouble the House a little later by showing what a mistake had been committed through not pointing out clearly what was intended. It was much better to state what was meant, and he would, therefore, press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6: —
EARL CARRINGTONmoved to omit Subsection (1), which provided that the expenses incurred by the Board of Agriculture in respect of any order should be paid by the applicants for the order. He said that this provision might bear hardly on small fisheries boards, whose funds were rather limited. He moved this Amendment as the result of the objection that was taken to the subsection on the Second Reading of the Bill by the Earl of Harewood.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, lines 30 to 36, to leave out Subsection (1)." — (Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7: —
EARL CARRINGTONsaid the object of his Amendment to this clause was to make it quite clear that, though the Crown was not, without consent, to be bound in any way by the Bill, it would be possible, with a proper consent given
494
on behalf of the Crown or the Duchy affected, to include the Crown or Duchy fisheries within the scope of any order made under the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 8, after the word 'Act' to insert the words ' or any fishery proposed to be affected by any such order.' "— (Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8: —
Earl CARRINGTON: moved the insertion of the words "in Dumfriesshire" to remove any ambiguity as to which Esk was referred to, there being more than one river of that name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 36, after the word ' Esk ' to insert the words ' in Dumfriesshire.' "— (Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments to the House.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 90.)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BILL.
[Second Reading.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as your Lordships were good enough to pass this Bill through all its stages, when I proposed it last year, and as it was also passed some years ago when proposed by Lord Bramwell, it is probably not necessary for me now to detain you for more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading. Last year it was lost in the other House, not from any opposition, but from lack of time. It has now passed the House of Commons, and the discussions there turned merely on points of detail. The object is to introduce the system which abroad is

495
known as commandite, which has been in operation for many years in Europe and the United States, and is found most useful. It was examined some years ago by a Parliamentary Committee, which reported in its favour. It is supported by the chambers of commerce, and, indeed, by commercial opinion generally. Some good judges have considered that if it had been introduced before limited liability, much loss of capital would have been avoided. The Bill is substantially as passed by your Lordships last year, but there are some changes in detail, which in our judgment are not altogether in the right direction, and as to which it may be necessary to say something in Committee, but I need not trouble the House in the matter at the present stage. Last year there was no opposition, and I hear of none now. His Majesty's Government have been good enough to inform me that they do not oppose the Bill, and in these circumstances I will not go into any details at the present stage, but without more words will move the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Lord Avebury.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which my noble friend has asked your Lordships to read a Second Time to-night is one to which His Majesty's Government do not propose to offer any opposition, although they naturally reserve the right of introducing Amendments at a later stage should that course be considered necessary. The system of limited partnerships, or the en commandite system, seems to have worked excellently in other countries in which it has been in force and to have been of great help to commercial industries. This subject was brought before the Departmental Committee on Company Law which sat at the Board of Trade two or three years ago, and the Report of that Committee was unanimously in favour of introducing the system into this country. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more at the present stage, but simply to ask your Lordships to give the Bill your favourable consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
[Second Reading.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Elgin): My Lords, I have not much to say in explanation of this Bill. It deals with payments from the Dominion Government of Canada to the Provinces of Canada, but it is necessary to have legislation in this country because these payments come in substitution for the payments which are provided for in the British North America Act, 1867. A conference was held at Ottawa between the Dominion Government and the Provincial Governments, and the pro visions of this Bill follow on an address from the Dominion Government which represented the findings of that conference. There is this urgency about the matter, that to meet the financial requirements of the provinces it was desired that the Bill should be enacted before 1st July. Owing to delays in another place that has not been possible, but I hope your Lordships will be disposed to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, and allow it to take the other stages early next week. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"— (The Earl of Elgin.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

QUEENS BARRACKS, PERTH.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the recruits' receiving room at Queen's Barracks, Perth, is considered by the authorities as adequate and sanitary; whether a bath room is provided in these quarters separate from the bath accommodation for duly enlisted men; and whether a bathroom has been provided for the officers' quarters in Queen's Barracks but no bath, and no provision made for the supply of either cold or hot water.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, in reply to the first two Questions of the noble Earl I may inform him that the matter of the

497
recruits' receiving room and the provision of a separate bathroom are at present under consideration, and we are in correspondence with the local military authorities on the subject. In reply to the other Question, the provision of a bath room for the officers' quarters has been approved if the necessary funds can be found from the annual allotment made to the General Officer commanding in the Scottish Command. The completion of the service is temporarily suspended, I am sorry to say, for want of funds, but every effort will be made to provide the necessary funds as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: The reply to my last Question is hardly a complete Answer. What I wanted to elicit was why a bathroom had been allotted and other moneys spent on works in barracks which were never required and not asked for, and why a bathroom was provided but no bath. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me when the funds will be found to provide the bath.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I can assure the noble Earl that the funds will be found as soon as possible.

THE MILITIA AND THE ARMY BILL.
THE DUCK OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—(1) What is the form of attestation to be signed by a Militiaman of each branch of the service on his transfer from the Militia to the Army Reserve as proposed by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill? (2) Is it proposed to give any bounty to the Militiamen to induce them to transfer to the 3rd and 4th battalions? (3) What is to be the pay, bounty, and allowances of the Militiamen when transferred to the Army Reserve under the Bill? (4) What is to be the rate of pay of the recruits joining the proposed new 3rd and 4th battalions? (5) Is it proposed that the arrangements now applying to the Militia as regards clothing should be continued to the new 3rd and 4th battalions? (6) Will the Militia non commissioned officers who transfer to the 3rd and 4th battalions when called upon to servo with the Regular line battalions, 1st and 2nd, be allowed to retain their rank 1 (7) On what terms will a Militia man who has transferred to the new 3rd and 4th battalions be allowed to
498
purchase his discharge from the Army? (8) If any bounty is given to a Militiaman to transfer to the new 3rd and 4th battalions will he be required to refund such bounty on joining the Colours? (9) Will Militiamen now serving who elect to remain under the Militia Act of 1882 until time expired, and who are not called up for training, receive non-training bounty? and (10) Will Militiamen now serving be allowed to take their discharge free if they decide not to join the new 3rd and 4th battalions or the Territorial Army?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, the Answers to the ten Questions put to me by the noble Duke are as follows:—(1) An attestation form has been drawn up, to be signed by a Militia man of each branch on his transfer from the Militia to the Special Reserve. (2) It is our intention to offer a bonus of £2 to every Militiaman of over one year's service who is permitted and agrees to transfer. (3) We propose that (a) the pay and allowances shall be as at present for Militia; (b) the bounties will be rather less than at present, in view of the shorter annual training; they will amount to £4 instead of £4 10s. (4) The rate of pay will be as now for Militia recruits. (5) The issues of clothing are at present under consideration. (6) Yes. (7) This Question involves numerous and complicated details which have not yet been finally settled. (8) Men who receive a bounty to transfer to the Special Contingent will-not be allowed to join the Regulars within one year without refunding the bounty.(9) Yes. (10) Yes.
LORD BLYTHSWOOD: Might I ask the noble Earl whether the attestation paper is sufficiently ready, so that we may be able to see it?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The reason I have not been able to give the form is that it is not yet complete, but as soon as it is ready I shall be very glad to lay it on the Table.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, in reference to the reply of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary to Question No. 2, dealing with the bounty which it is pro posed to offer to Militiamen, might I ask him whether the Government have considered that under the present rates of

499
pay the Militia is largely short of its establishment, and that the £2 bounty proposed to be given on one occasion only to induce the Militia to undertake very grave additional duties is out of all pro portion to what has been given in the past; and whether His Majesty's Government have any reason to think that the £2 bounty will be sufficient to obtain the men whom we all desire should be obtained.
[No Answer was returned.]

SECOND CHAMBERS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I beg to move, on behalf of the Committee now sitting in your Lordships' House, for a Return of the Second Chambers in foreign countries, their composition, and their functions. I understand that the Return is unopposed.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return of the Second Chambers in foreign countries, their composition, and their functions." —(The Lord Rosebery (E. Rosebery).)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): His Majesty's Government will be very happy to give the Return asked for.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TRAINING OF THE SPECIAL RESERVE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements are proposed for the training, preliminary and annual, of the Special Reserve or Militia, in pursuance of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. Your Lord ships will remember that some six weeks ago the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was good enough, in reply to my noble friend Lord Wemyss, to give an account of what the training would probably be of the Special Reservists under the Territorial Forces Bill. I do not know whether the Government still adhere precisely to the terms which he then stated. There has been, of course, a substantial change in the Bill since he spoke, because now the Militia are to be
500
the Special Reserve which formerly they were not to be; and I beg to put this Question in order that your Lordships should be fully informed of how this training really stands.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I make no complaint that this Question has been asked, and I am glad to give the noble Marquess all the information in my power. It is proposed that the training, preliminary and annual, of the Special Reserve (infantry) shall be as follows:—Recruits, preliminary training on enlistment, six months; annual training, fifteen days, and in addition a course comprising six days musketry practice. The above periods of training may require modification when practical experience has been obtained. It may prove of advantage to reduce somewhat the period of recruits' preliminary training and to lengthen somewhat the period of annual training. The recruits' training of the 3rd and 4th battalions will be carried out at the depots, and an adequate staff will be provided for the purpose. In certain cases it may be necessary to permit some units to carry out their instruction of recruits by means of "preliminary drill" immediately prior to annual training. The annual training will be usually carried out as battalions in camp in suitable localities. The annual musketry will be carried out as is found most convenient to battalions, possibly either immediately before or immediately after the annual training, or even at other times if found more convenient to the battalion. By means of this elasticity, it would not be necessary for the battalion to perform its musketry practices as a whole.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl, in the earlier part of his Answer, spoke of the preliminary drill for recruits and then of the annual drill for recruits. He did not specifically mention the annual training of the trained men other than recruits.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: There may be some modification, but I think that practically and substantially the training will be the same.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Can the noble Earl tell us whether there will be pay during the six days of

501
musketry practice, and what will happen if men do not turn up? Will they be treated as deserters?
[No answer was returned.]
LORD BLYTHSWOOD: Is it intended that the battalion recruits should be drilled at the depot? If so, I can assure the noble Earl that there will be a great deal of difficulty in getting the men. If, on the other hand, the Government allow the recruits to drill in camp, plenty of men will be forthcoming; but the experience in Scotland, at any rate, shows that they will not come to the depot. A few years ago, before drilling at the depot was adopted, one battalion I could name was 1,200 strong; it is now only 400; whilst the regiment that I commanded, and which has never drilled at the depot, remains at the same strength —i.e.,over 900 strong.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To morrow, halt-past Ten o'clock.