Sitting of 16 July 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords].— Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Public Accounts Committee.—Second Report brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 252,]
Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and
512
Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the Documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords: And that the Clerk do carry the same.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Bude Gas Bill; King's Norton and North-field Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to: Wisbech Water Bill [Lords]; United Methodist Church Bill [Lords], without Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill Lords.—Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  VIVISECTION (PROHIBITION).
  Petition from Manchester and other places, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 19, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Norway respecting the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at Christiania, 18th February, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3858 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACTS, 1882 AND 1890.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the

  513
  working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (EXAMINATION'S FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE).
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Admission to the Indian Civil Service; alteration to paragraph 9 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  CROWN LANDS ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of First Report by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, as a Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, by virtue of the Crown Lands Act, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table,

  POOR LAW RELIEF (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for each Poor Law Union in Ireland—

  (1)The number of men, women, and children, respectively (excluding tramp night lodgers), who were in receipt of Poor Law Relief at any time during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1908;

  (2)The number of such men, women, and children, respectively, who were: (a) persons relieved singly; (b) heads of families; (c) dependants of paupers;

  (3)The number of such men, women, and children, respectively, who received: (a) indoor relief only; (b) outdoor relief only; (c) both in door and outdoor relief;

  (4)The total number of persons included in (1), classified according to the aggregate length of time during which they received relief; and

  (5)The number of persons in each of the classes indicated in (4), reclassified according to the number of times on which relief was granted."— (Mr. Birrell.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Publication of Report of Inquiry into Bay of Firth (Orkney) Oyster Order.
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs): To ask the Secretary for Scot-
  514
  land when the Report of the Commissioner who held an inquiry upon the Oyster Order for the Bay of Firth, Orkney, may be expected.
  (Answered by) Mr. Sinclair.) The Report referred to by the hon. Member was prepared by an officer of the Fishery Board solely for their information and guidance. It has not been customary to publish such Reports, and therefore this Report will not be published.

  Dock Accommodation for Battleships on the East Coast.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of docks on the east coast, north of Dover, capable of accommodating ships of the "Dreadnought," "Lord Nelson," and the "Inflexible" classes; and whether the approaches to these docks are in each case such as to allow of the passage of ships of the classes named at all states of the tide without involving more than the ordinary risks.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The only dock on the east coast capable of taking the "Dreadnought," "Lord Nelson," and "Invincible" class is Stephenson's, on the Tyne, which will accommodate these vessels under favourable conditions, and at moderately light draught. No. 9 dock at Chatham will take the "Invincible" and "Lord Nelson" classes.

  Labourers Acts—Application of Michael Delaney.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an agricultural labourer, named Michael Delaney, sent in a representation under the Labourers Acts to the Mountmellick Rural District Council; that the house in which he at present resides was condemned by the medical officer of health as being unfit for human habitation; and that the rural district council assigned as a reason for rejection that the house in which Delaney lives is a freehold; and will he state whether there is anything in the Labourers Acts barring out from their benefits a man who owns a freehold house which the

  515
  medical officer condemns as unfit for habitation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reason assigned by the rural district council for the rejection of Delaney's application was that he is a freeholder. If the applicant is an agricultural labourer, and does not hold land in addition to the house, he would not be debarred from the benefits of the Labourers Acts. The Local Government Board propose to draw the attention of the rural district council to this question, and to inform them of their views on the matter for future guidance.

  Post Office Servants' Committee Report
  MR. WILES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Postal Servants, whether he is able to state when the Report of that Committee will be presented to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) It is impossible to suggest an exact day for the presentation to the House of this Report, but no time is being lost in its preparation, which is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

  Payment for use of Bell Rock, Skerryvore, and Dhu Heartach Rock.
  Me. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any sum was paid for or for the use of the Bell Rock, Skerryvore, or the Dhu Heartach Rock, on which lighthouses now stand; and, if so, what in each ease was the amount so paid, and when, to whom, and by what lighthouse or other authority was it paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that no sum was paid for or for the use of the Bell Rock, Skerryvore, or the Dhu Heartach Rock.

  Loans to Irish Local Bodies for Public Work.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to take into consideration the case made out by public bodies in Ireland for obtaining loans at 3¼ per cent. for objects of public work;
  516
  and whether any relief of taxation arising from these loans at their present high rates of interest may be expected next year.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This subject will probably come up for discussion shortly on the Public Works Loans Bill, and I do not think it desirable to make any statement before then.

  Kew Gardeners.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he has recently received resolutions from the Kew Employees Union and the Kew Guild, protesting against the gardeners at Kew being called apprentices; and, if so, will he state whether in the form of application for a situation as gardener at Kew, there is any reference whatever to the term apprentice; and, if not, will he see that the men are called gardeners in future by the Department.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The question of the most appropriate designation of the grade is now under consideration. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that my use of the term "apprentice" has apparently been misunderstood. I used it in no derogatory sense, but merely to convey to the House the idea that the young gardeners in question were afforded opportunities of instruction and self-culture in an advanced school of horticulture.

  Sunday Delivery of Letters in the Riverstown Postal District.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the representations made to the late Postmaster on behalf of the residents of Brookhill, Butlers-town, Coolnacaha, Ballinrising, and Killydonoghue, situate in the Riverstown postal district, to the effect that it was essential and desirable that there should be a Sunday delivery of letters in these places; to the memorial in support of this claim; and to a resolution passed at the Cork Rural District Council in favour

  517
  of a Sunday delivery in the districts mentioned; and will he state whether it is intended to comply with the wishes of the people in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has been called to the application referred to by the hon. Member. I find that the existing postal service on weekdays to the places mentioned is carried on at a considerable 10s; and, in these circumstances, I do not feel justified in incurring additional expenditure for the purpose of establishing a Sunday post

  Messrs. John Brown and Co. and Vickers, Sons, and Maxim and the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firms of John Brown and Company, Limited, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, of Sheffield, who contract for work with and supply material to the Admiralty, do not pay the standard rate of wages to the carpenters and joiners in their employ; and whether he will take steps to compel those firms to observe the Fair Wages Clause or otherwise to strike them off the list of Government contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of Admiralty contracts on which the firms named have not observed the Fair Wages Resolution I will have immediate inquiry made.

  Police Note-taker at Meeting at Newtownforbes.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the reason which dictated the sending of a police note-taker to a peaceable and orderly meeting in Newtownforbes on Sunday, 7th July; and whether he was consulted on the adoption of this new departure in the case of Nationalist meetings in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A police note-taker was sent to this meeting because there was good reason to appre-
  518
  hend that illegal language would be used at it. This course was taken with my approval.

  Sale of the Douglas Estate, Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are 1,500 acres of grazing land let to four eleven months tenants on the Douglas estate, in the parish of Clonquish, and near the town of Longford; whether he is aware that 1,200 people were cleared off this property in 1844–9 to make way for a plantation of Scotch graziers; whether he is aware that most of these planters failed, and that this land is still let on the English tenant system by Mr. Douglas, who is at the same time offering for sale to the tenants the uneconomic portions of his property on which a large population live in a state of chronic poverty; and will he direct that the Estates Commissioners will refuse to sanction the purchase of that portion unless the large grazing tract is also sold.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the matters of fact alleged in the Question. No proceedings for the sale of the estate appear to be pending before the Commissioners at present, but if such proceedings should be instituted the Commissioners will fully consider the facts of the case.

  Relief of Distress in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the effect of the present weather upon crops in Ireland; whether he is aware that practically every crop is threatened with destruction owing to long continued wintry weather; and whether, in case of further losses in this direction, the Government will take some special steps to take special powers to relieve distress in the coming winter in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer to the full statement on this subject which I made yesterday in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for the Connemara Division. †
  †See page 345;

  Return of Irish Departments (Cost, ║Income, and Expenditure).
  MR. GINNELL (: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return of Irish Departments (Cost, Income, and Expenditure), of which notice stands on the Order Paper, †
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It would not be practicable to give a Return in the form in which it is asked for. I am, however, willing to give a Return on the subject, and will, in the course of a few days, communicate to the hon. Member the form of the Return which I am prepared to give, in order that he may move for it if he should be disposed to do so.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of A. H. Armstrong.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether A. H. Armstrong, now residing at Knock, Belfast, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be restored to his late father's holding, situated at Billywood, Feagh Mullah, Kells, county Meath; and whether the Commissioners have approached the tenant at present in occupation of the farm with a view of purchasing his interest, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received Mr. Armstrong's application, but have not yet taken any action in the case. The application will be considered in due course.

  Great Western Railway and Conveyance of Devonshire Volunteer Regiments to Camp.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Great Western Railway have refused to carry
  † Irish Departments (Cost, Income, and Expenditure). Return showing, for the latest completed financial year, the Cost, Income from all sources, and Expenditure of each of all the Irish State Departments, Boards, and Bodies, and the total Cost, Income, and Expenditure; and the total Payments and Expenditure for and in connection with land by the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and the Estates Commissioners, respectively, with monetary return or capital value of set off, if any.
  520
  the Devon Volunteer battalions to camp on 3rd August next, and that, as the Great Western Railway is the only railway running near the camp ground, many of the battalions are at a loss to know how to get to the camp on the day named; whether he has any power to compel the railway company to carry these men; and, if not, is it possible for him to grant the men extra pay if they march into camp from stations farther away on the London and South Western Railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It appears on inquiry that the arrangements made by the Great Western Railway Company for conveyance of passengers during the holiday season at the commencement of August did not admit of their meeting the requirements of the 4th Volunteer Battalion, Devonshire Regiment. I am not aware that any other of the Volunteer battalions are similarly affected. I have no power to compel the company to carry these men at the reduced rates. An allowance will be made to the battalion mentioned for the march from Yeoford to Moreton Hampstead, a distance of twelve miles, where they will camp.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Destroyers.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in Germany the life of a destroyer is officially reckoned at ten years; and whether he can state the number of destroyers laid down in Great Britain and Germany in the last ten years and the number projected for this year.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert,: I am informed that the official German estimate of the life of a destroyer is twelve years. Taking this-period, 115 destroyers were laid down in Great Britain, and sixty-one in Germany. Great Britain has now 142 destroyers and Germany sixty-one.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Were not the bulk of these destroyers laid

  521
  down during the earliest portion of this twelve years? The hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LAMBERT: I have answered the Question in the light in which it appears on the Paper.

  British and German Fleets.
  Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the composition of the German High Sea Fleet and the British Channel Fleet in battleships, armoured cruisers, unarmoured cruisers, and destroyers, respectively.
  MR. PIRIEasked whether such Questions were not objectionable, and might not possible harm be done by making these comparisons between our own naval strength and that of a friendly nation? Would not a reference to official Returns give the information asked for?
  MR. BELLAIRSasked if the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was aware that such official comparisons were made every year and laid before the German Parliament in a document signed by the German Emperor.
  MR. LAMBERT: I think I had better confine myself to answering the Question of which notice has been given. The present composition of the Fleets referred to is:—Channel Fleet: 14 Battleships, 4 Armoured Cruisers, 8 Unarmoured Cruisers, 1 Repair Ship, 1 Despatch vessel. German High Sea Fleet: 16 Battleships, 3 Armoured Cruisers, 8 Unarmoured Cruisers. As to destroyers, none are permanently attached to either Fleet.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Dreadnought" has at any time fired a complete broadside with full charges, namely, eight 12-inch guns firing simultaneously with full charges.
  MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir.

  Ships' Armaments.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the twenty-seven 12-pounder
  522
  guns carried by H.M.S. "Dreadnought," and the sixteen 12-pounder guns carried by ships of the "Minotaur" type, and the fifteen 12-pounder guns carried by ships of the "Lord Nelson" type, are intended for use against torpedo craft; and, if not, for what purpose are 12-pounder guns carried in such numbers.
  MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the 12-pounder guns recently removed from twenty-one armoured ships were, previous to their removal, intended for use against torpedo craft or for what other purpose; and why these guns are no longer required on board these twenty-one armoured ships.
  MR. LAMBERT: The guns in question were intended for use as boat and field guns. One gun remains in each ship for use as a field gun, but is not shown in the Return of Fleets, as it is not provided with a ship mounting, and cannot therefore be used as a ship gun. Arrangements have been made for substituting 3-pounders, for use as boat guns, and for replacing the second field gun by a more powerful weapon if required.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the 12-pounder guns on permanent mountings with which the river class of destroyers are now being armed are intended for use against torpedo craft, or for what other purpose.
  MR. LAMBERT: As stated in the reply of my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to a Question by the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the 18th June, it is not desirable in the public interest that information connected with re-armament should be made public.

  Rye Bay Fishing.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that foreign fishing vessels are in the uninterrupted habit of fishing in Rye Bay; and whether he will take immediate steps to stop illegal fishing by foreign vessels in these waters.
  MR. LAMBERT: The reports received from the Coastguard cruiser "Argus,"

  523
  which has recently visited these waters, do not confirm the hon. Member's suggestion; but if he will give a specific case I will have further inquiry made.

  Inspection of Contract Work.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether practical founders are employed as inspectors to examine the foundry work done by contractors for the Navy; whether any representations have been made to the Admiralty on the subject; and whether he will undertake that in future all castings and other foundry work intended for naval purposes shall be inspected by practical founders.
  MR. LAMBERT: The inspectors employed by the Admiralty are not practical founders in the sense that they have ever been employed in a foundry; but they are practical officers with a great experience in examining foundry work. Representations on this subject have been made to the Admiralty by the founders working in one of the dockyards, but it is not proposed to make any change in the existing practice, which is that followed in the private trade.
  MR. COURTHOPE: How do they discover flaws?
  MR. LAMBERTasked for notice.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked if the Admiralty would consider the question of appointing practical men.
  MR. LAMBERT: In any new appointments that will be borne in mind.

  Sales of Obsolete War Vessels
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the fixed determination of his Department not to sell any obsolete war vessels except with the breaking-up condition attached, even in view of the fact that this country is constantly exporting war vessels of the latest type.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to offer at public auction any others of the obsolete war vessels in the Holy Loch or Kyles of Bute; and, if so, will he offer to sell in the first instance at least one of
  524
  the vessels without the breaking-up condition.
  MR. LAMBERT: There is no immediate intention of selling any of the ships in the Kyles of Bute. The Admiralty do not consider it advisable to sell armoured vessels without the breaking up condition.

  Rosyth.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can furnish any information as to the progress of the Government harbour work at Rosyth; what number of men are working there; and whether, seeing that there is no Government dockyard on the East Coast of Great Britain capable of accommodating a warship of the "Dreadnought" size at all tides, he will consider the advisability of expediting the work.
  MR. LAMBERT: On the subject of Rosyth I have nothing to add to the statements already made.

  Army Pensions.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that many pensioners who are now paid quarterly are at present in workhouses, he can see his way to advising a system of weekly payments through the medium of postal orders post-dated according to the dates required for weekly issue, and so relieve the workhouses from the strain of housing pensioners.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,: This question was referred to a Committee under the chairmanship of the Paymaster-General, and the Report of this Committee is now under the consideration of the Army Council.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Are we likely to have the Report before the end of the session.
  MR. HALDANE: I hope so.
  MR. CROOKS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had repeated applications from guardians of the poor on this point, to save the men from themselves?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes; but the question is one of great difficulty.

  Cartridges for Morris Tubes.
  *CAPTAIN FABERI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if cartridges for Morris tubes are available for use at the present time; and, if not, at what date are they likely to be ready.
  MR. HALDANE: I understand that the deliveries to which I referred in my Answer to the hon. and gallant Member on the 10th ult., are now being made by the contractors,†

  Bonuses for the Special Contingent.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what bonus will be given to recruits and men serving in the Volunteers, respectively, as an inducement to join the nucleus third battalions or special contingent.
  MR. HALDANE: It is proposed to offer a bonus of £2 to men now serving in the Militia as an inducement to join the special contingent. No bonus will be offered to any other men joining the contingent, but all men serving in it in future will receive an annual bounty.

  Indian Rupee Coinage.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state approximately the gain-to the Revenue in the last financial year due to the coinage of rupees and other silver pieces as token money.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY,: The profit on the coinage of rupees is not treated as Revenue: it has hitherto been transferred to the Gold Standard Reserve; and in future one half will continue to be so transferred, the other half being used for capital expenditure on railways. The amount of the profit in 1906–7 was approximately £4,000,000. The profit on other coinage, which is treated as Revenue, amounted in 1906–7 to £254,000.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv, 1066-7.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: Are there any signs of an extension of the currency of the rupee beyond their own border?
  MR. MORLEYasked for notice of the Question.

  The Unrest in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken in the Punjab to allay the unrest by concessions; whether the land tax has been abated in any part of the province; and, if so, by how much; and whether any reduction has been effected in the amount of water rates in the Lyallpur district, where there was lately so much agitation.
  MR. MORLEY: To speak of "concessions" in this connection is misleading and inappropriate, because it is the duty of the Government to see that its subjects have no legitimate grievance. So far as I am aware, the land tax was mentioned as a grievance only in the case of the Rawalpindi disturbance. The new assessments have been accepted without complaint by the agricultural population. The Local Government will deal considerately with any genuine instance of over-assessment which may come to light. In the Chenab irrigation colony, where the spring crop has been seriously damaged by rust, it is proposed to remit half the land revenue and half the water rate. In this colony, which forms the Lyallpur district, there has been no enhancement of the water rates, and agitation there did not concern these rates. The Bari-Doab Canal, on which the rates were to have been raised next September, does not enter the Lyallpur district. The levy of the proposed new rates on the Bari-Doab Canal was in April postponed until September, 1908, and pending further inquiry.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the publication in Eastern Bengal of an inflammatory pamphlet, known as the red pamphlet, inciting the Mahomedans to violent measures against the Hindoos; whether one Ebrahim Munshi, the author of this pamphlet, has been prosecuted under Section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code; whether the proceedings against him have been kept confidential by the

  527
  magistrate; and whether he can state what the result of these proceedings has been.
  MR. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the publication of the pamphlet in question. I am informed that proceedings under the section mentioned were instituted against the author, but that, on his undertaking to publish no more copies, and to withdraw the pamphlet as far as possible from circulation, he was released on his own recognisances. The case was accordingly not brought to trial, and the proceedings, as far as they went, were confidential.
  SIR H. COTTON:asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not aware that the circulation of this pamphlet was one of the principal causes of the unfortunate riots and disturbances which had been so marked a feature of Eastern Bengal.
  MR. MORLEY: No, Sir, I am not aware of it, and I greatly doubt it.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Is there any unrest among the Mahomedans?
  MR. MORLEYasked for notice of the Question.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Hazavibagh, in Bengal, proposing to give leases to several Europeans to build bungalows on the sacred hill of Parasnath, and to the feeling this proposal has excited among the Jain community in India, by whom the entire hill, which is their principal place of pilgrimage, is regarded as sacred; and whether he will inquire into the case, with a view of allaying disquiet among this influential community and protecting their rights and privileges which have hitherto been always recognised on the Parasnath Hill.
  MR. MORLEY: I have no official information on the subject, but from references in the newspapers I gather that, as a result of a conference between the Deputy Commissioner of Hazavibagh and representatives of the Jain community, it was arranged that the latter should submit a statement of their views within two
  528
  months, for the consideration of the authorities concerned. I am advised that all parts of the hill are not regarded as sacred. A large area was actually occupied as a military sanitorium from 1862–8, and the building then erected is still standing. I see at present no reason why a settlement satisfactory to all parties should not be arrived at.
  SIR H. COTTON: Owing to the extreme dissatisfaction caused to an influential and loyal section of the community will the right hon. Gentleman institute further inquiries?
  MR. MORLEYsaid he could not promise to make further inquiries than those he had already made.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that prisoners of State, confined under the Indian Ordinance of 1818, have no means of making any defence, except under the provision of the Ordinance which expressly allows them at all times freely to bring to the notice of the Governor-General in Council any circumstances they may wish in connection with their deportation and confinement, he will take steps to have Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh informed of their rights, and ascertain whether either of them desires to make any defence or complaint in respect of matters alleged against them.
  MR. MORLEY: Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh have already been informed of their right to communicate with the Governor-General in Council. The former has done so; the latter has not.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked if the defence of Lajpat Rai would be communicated to the House.
  MR. MORLEYreplied in the negative.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will place in the Library copies of the Wafadar of 28th January, and of the Punjabee of 27th March, in which newspapers Lajpat Rai is reported to have preached sedition in Lyallpur and Lahore; and whether he will state to the House on what other grounds the law of 1818 was resorted to

  529
  in the matter of the arrest and deportation of Lajpat Rai.
  MR. MORLEY: My reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As for the second part, I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Members for East Nottingham and East Clare on the 2nd instant,†
  MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter part of the Question simply asks for the grounds upon which the law was resorted to?
  MR. MORLEY: I am afraid I do not understand the Question. The hon. Member asks whether I will state to the House "on what grounds the law of 1818 was resorted to" in the matter of the arrest and deportation. I have already told the House that there were matters connected with this arrest and deportation which I did not think it would be in the public interest that I should state.
  MR. O'GRADYasked Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, whether the Government of India were responsible to the House for its action in the administration of the law; and, if so, whether a Member of the House had not the right to demand that definite information should be supplied to him, publicly or privately, as to the ground for the arrest and deportation of any of His Majesty's subjects.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is open to any hon. Member to put any Question that comes within the rules of order, and it is equally open to the Minister to decline to give a reply.
  MR. LYNCHasked whether the hon. Member was entitled, to read a supplementary Question as he had just done. He himself had done so and had been declared out of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It depends upon the nature of the supplementary Question. There is no rule against reading.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 522–3, 524–5.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India why it was that the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam gave instructions for an appeal to be lodged against the acquittal of one Johar Mandel, charged with the petty crime of a theft of paddy; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the appeal was rejected by the High Court, and to the remark of Mr. Justice Mitter in the case that there is no safety of the subject if the Government appeal in such petty cases; and, in view of the fact that intervention by the Government in such cases amounts to a denial of justice, what steps, if any, he intends taking in the matter.
  MR. MORLEY: I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to, from which it appears that the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, being of opinion that there had been a failure of justice, ordered an appeal to be filed. In dismissing the appeal Mr. Justice Mitter is reported to have used the language which the hon. Member quotes. I do not follow his suggestion that the intervention of the Government amounts to a denial of justice, and I have no doubt that the High Court in other cases, as in this, will see that justice is done.
  MR. O'GRADYasked if it came within the functions of the High Court to take notice of the petty cases of this character.
  MR. MORLEY: It is not for me to say what is the duty of the High Court. It administers justice and is guided therein by statutory authority.
  SIR H. COTTON: Have not appeals of this nature become very much more common of late years than previously?
  *MR. REES: And does not the very rejection of this appeal by a Hindoo Judge of the High Court of Bengal conclusively prove that the intervention of the Government in such cases does not mean a denial of justice?
  MR. MORLEY: I should have thought so. I will inquire as to the number of appeals. I do not think it bears out the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Nottingham.

  Deaths from Plague in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the number of deaths from plague during June in the Punjab and in the whole of India; and what is the total for the six months in the Punjab and in India.
  MR. MORLEY: The figures for June are: Punjab, 58,821 deaths; Whole of India, 69,064. For six months ending June: Punjab, 632,953; Whole of India, 1,060,067.

  Back Taxing in Rural India.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to an inflammatory pamphlet, known as Rack Taxing in Rural India, in which the acts of the British-Indian administration are so misrepresented as to be calculated to bring that Government into contempt and odium on the part of its subjects and to incite them to violent measures of opposition; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. MORLEY: The pamphlet, I believe, was circulated by a Member of this House for the instruction of other Members of this House. I am content to leave it to their judgment.

  Arracan Capitation Tax.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is any effective supervision over the capitation tax levied on coolies from Chittagong on entering the province of Arracan; whether he is aware of the extra tax above the 1s. per head demanded from the coolies by the native official; and if steps can be taken to put an end to the system of taxing a man passing from one province to another, which restricts the supply of labour and is injurious to the province.
  MR. MORLEY: I have no information on the subject, but will ask the Government of India to give it their consideration and to report the facts.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: Although the tax is only 1s., at least double that
  532
  amount is squeezed by the official out of people crossing the border.
  MR. MORLEY: I will inquire.

  German Steamships to Canada.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now any information concerning the proposed new line of steamships between Germany and Canada.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, (Mr. CHURCHILL,: No, Sir, I have no information.

  Colonial Governorships.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies why military men are appointed to governorships of Colonies; what are the duties which they perform in the Colonies which are suitable for that profession; and whether he will in future consider the necessity of appointing commercial or business men to these positions.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A considerable proportion of the governorships has been held and I hope always will be filled by civilians; when a military man is appointed to be governor the Secretary of State is satisfied that the particular individual is fully qualified to perform the general duties of government. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look into the subject he will find that in many instances the governor also holds a commission as commander-in-chief and also that in certain instances the governorship is of a distinctly military character, as in the cases of Malta, Gibraltar, and Bermuda, when the nominee is suggested by the Secretary of State for War. For further information I would refer my hon. friend to a detailed reply which I gave to the senior Member for Bath as recently as the 20th June last.†

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether any licences have yet been issued under the New Hebrides Convention.
  †See(4) Debates, clxxvi, 590
  MR. CHURCHILL: No licences can be issued until the Convention has been brought into operation.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to statements from reliable sources that British traders are placed under great disabilities owing to this delay?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the telegram in The Times this morning.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is sure to be right, then.

  The "Knight Commander."
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to abandon the claims against the Russian Government for the sinking of the British ship "Knight Commander."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY,: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year has elapsed since the matter was referred to the Russian Government? Cannot something be done to expedite a settlement?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have proposed it shall go to arbitration, and I have no doubt that in the long run that course will be adopted.

  Mr. Abbott's Ransom.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has as yet received any reply from the Turkish Government with regard to the ransom paid for the release of Mr. Abbott from brigands.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the Government would not take some steps to urge a settlement of this matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that what was in the mind of the hon. and gallant
  534
  Member had also been in his mind, and he had been looking back to precedents. In the two cases most nearly parallel the time was in one case one and a half year and in the other two and a half years. He intended to prosecute this case with the object of establishing, if possible, a better record; but at present he was well within time.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the money received in the past was not derived from the taxpayers of Cyprus.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that in any case it was money which would otherwise have gone to the Porte.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether he was to understand that the precedent would be followed.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No; because that precedent was established only after discussion had taken place as a last resort. Whether it will be necessary in this case to resort to any measure of that kind I cannot say until proceedings are further advanced.

  British Trade Route in Persia.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to state, in connection with the pending negotiations with Russia, that it is not proposed to include within the Russian commercial sphere in Persia the old-established British trade route from Baghdad via Kermanshah to the interior, and also the British road from the Karun to Isfahan across the Bakhtiari Mountains.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am unable to make any statement at the present stage of the negotiations.

  Egyptian Census.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent Egyptian census has been found to be imperfectly taken; whether, in consequence, it is proposed to take a fresh census; and, if so, when.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that the final figures of the recent census have not yet been issued.

  Khedivial School of Law.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that M. Lambert, a Frenchman, resigned the rectorship of the Khedivial School of Law through differences with Mr. Dunlop, the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Public Instruction, Egypt; whether he will explain the reason for the appointment of an Englishman to a Government post invariably held, since the establishment of the School of Law, by subjects of the French Republic, in view of the spirit of Article V. of the Anglo-French Declaration of 1904; and whether Mr. Dunlop will be requested to resign.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that Monsieur Lambert, whose resignation was not desired, resigned his post as Principal of the Khedivial School of Law in consequence of a misunderstanding with the Ministry of Public Instruction on the subject of his leave. In view of the growing demand to enter the English side of the school the Egyptian Government decided to promote one of the existing English Professors to the vacancy thus created; there is no ground for the suggestion that such an appointment is in any way contrary to the spirit of the Anglo-French Agreement of 1904, and no reason whatever for the reflection upon Mr. Dunlop contained in the Question.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked if M. Lambert's successor was qualified to give instruction in the French law?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: That is a matter for the Egyptian Government, who had before them the requirements for the post and the qualifications of the gentleman appointed.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Has not the appointment received the assent and approval of the French Consul-General?
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he was unable to add anything to the information he had given the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Adviser to the Egyptian Ministry of Education has refused to accede to the petition of a number of natives holding the secondary
  536
  education certificates that the evening classes of the Khedivial School of Law should be re-established; and, if so, what is the reason for the refusal?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Egyptian Ministry of Education has declined to re-establish these classes because the results derived from them previously were very unsatisfactory.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On what grounds have these evening classes been discontinued?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I believe because from an educational point of view the results were unsatisfactory.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They were too quick in learning the law.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: In what way were the results unsatisfactory?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will make-inquiry if the hon. Member wishes.

  Income Tax.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any approximate estimate of the difference to the Revenue if the exemptions and abatements of Income Tax were based on incomes under one thousand sterling a year, instead of two thousand, in this year's Budget.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH,: There are no official statistics of individual incomes exceeding £700 a year, and all estimates of the numbers, character and amount of such incomes are very largely conjectural. For the purposes of the Budget, I made the best estimates I could with respect to incomes from £700 to £2.000, but no attempt has been made to ascertain the proportion of those which fall between £700 and £1,000; and, in view of the very large number of incomes in the immediate neighbourhood of £1,000, any conjecture based on such data would probably be very wide of the mark.

  Income-Tax and Sewers.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his

  537
  attention has been called to a decision given by the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26th June, in the case of the Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Board and Benstead, 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 sewers 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.
  MR. ASQUITH: It would not be possible to give any estimate of the annual value of all sewers in the United Kingdom. There is, however, no reason to apprehend that the decision referred to will seriously affect the liability of sewers to assessment to income-tax. The sewer in question was not wholly an underground sewer. It was in part carried above ground, or along specially constructed embankments, and it had attached to it certain appurtenances in the shape of an outfall, with sluices and other apparatus. It had been held by a judgment of the Court of Appeal to be assessable to rates, and thereupon the Inland Revenue claimed that it was assessable also to income-tax on the principle that whatever is a proper subject of rates is also a proper subject of taxes. So far as sewers are concerned, the Board of Inland Revenue will be satisfied to treat the judgment of the House of Lords, as no more than an affirmation of that principle, and will not regard it as requiring them to depart from existing practice under which sewage works, pumping stations, and so on are assessed both to rates and to income-tax, but purely underground sewers to neither.

  Irish Loans.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can yet state the proposal he will make with regard to the terms for loans in Ireland, as promised by him last year during the discussion on the Labourers Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: The matter is being dealt with in the Public Works Loans Bill, which will shortly be introduced.

  Case of Albert Bach.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Albert Bach, who was sentenced on 9th January, 1904, at Middlesex quarter sessions to seven years penal servitude for receiving stolen goods to the value of 75s.; whether he is aware that this was Bach's first offence, although fifty-six years of age, and that the jury in the first instance recommended him to mercy; whether the ends of justice have been met by four and-a-half years imprisonment; and, if so, will he intervene.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE,: I fear I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South West Ham on 5th June, which was to the effect that after repeated and most careful consideration I have not found any sufficient grounds for recommending any interference on the convict's behalf; that articles forming part of the proceeds of three separate cases of house breaking were discovered in his shop, and that a receiver of stolen goods who has a good reputation is for that reason a more dangerous criminal. As my hon. friend is no doubt aware, the prisoner can by good conduct obtain his release on licence when he has served three-quarters of the sentence.

  Employment of Young People.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Order No. 680, making the employment of young persons under the age of sixteen years and children without a certificate of fitness illegal in certain scheduled industries, which came into force on 1st January, 1907, has yet been acted upon; and whether the forms necessary for putting this order into operation have yet been issued from the Home Office; and, if not, when this will be done.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The only form required for the purpose of the Order was a revised

  539
  form of the workshop edition of the general register; this has been on sale for some time.

  Training of Nurses.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a Government system of certificates and registration of trained nurses.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This matter has been under consideration for some time, but serious objections and difficulties stand in the way of the establishment of any such system as is proposed. I am not prepared to take any action in the matter.

  Private Burying Grounds.
  MR. H. BEAUMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what conditions the right to use private I burying grounds is granted to religious institutions; whether any record of such private burying grounds is kept; and, if so, how many have been applied for during the past five years.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I stated in Answer to a very similar Question a year ago, no permission to use such burial grounds as are referred to is required except in the case of a proposed new ground in a place where, in pursuance of the Burial Acts and Orders in Council there under for the protection of public health, no new burial ground may be opened without the approval of the Local Government Board. For any further information on the matter I must refer the hon. Member to the President of that Board.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right to use these grounds granted without any record of the conditions attached?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That question should be addressed to the Local Government Board.

  Gloucester Port Dues.
  MR. HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
  540
  aware that at the port of Gloucester it is the practice of the local pilotage authority, when collecting pilotage dues payable upon a ship's tonnage, to abstain from adding to the ship's register tonnage the tonnage of the space occupied by deck cargo; and whether he will direct such local pilotage authorities to charge pilotage dues upon the additional tonnage representing deck cargo, in pursuance of Section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in order that the pilots, on whose behalf such dues are collected, may receive an additional payment in respect of ships with deck cargoes, as directed by the said section.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am informed by the Gloucester Pilotage Board that their practice is as described in the first part of the Question. As I explained to my hon. friend the Member for North Somerset on the 11th instant, the Board of Trade have no power to issue directions to a pilotage authority, but I will communicate with the Gloucester Pilotage Board, calling attention to the provisions of Section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as affecting pilotage rates.

  County Court Fees.
  MR. FERENS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to fees at present charged by the county courts for plaints for the hearing of causes for administration matter; whether he is aware that the fees now charged are in many cases beyond the means of the poor for whose benefit county courts were, to a considerable extent, intended; and whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN,: As I intimated in my reply to my hon. friend the Member for Merionethshire on the 4th March last, I see no sufficient grounds for considering that county court fees in general are excessive, but if my hon. friend will indicate any particular fee which he regards as exorbitant, I will inquire into it.

  Hop Substitutes.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing

  541
  the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the recommendations of the 1890 Select Committee on the hop industry as to the compulsory declaration by brewers of all chemical hop substitutes used by them have been put into effect.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The declaration of hop substitutes has not been made compulsory on brewers. But in the Returns collected for inclusion in the "Brewers Licences Return" presented annually to Parliament, brewers are invited to state the quantities of hop substitutes used by them, and these are shown in a separate column in the Parliamentary Return.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Will the Government consider the desirability of making the Return compulsory?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Government do not think it necessary.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the annual Return of brewing materials includes all hop substitutes used by brewers.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Return is believed to include all hop substitutes used by brewers. For although the disclosure of the quantities of such substitutes is not compulsory, the Board of Inland Revenue do not find on the part of brewers any reluctance to give the information.

  Royal Gardens, Kew.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the gardeners employed in the Royal Gardens, Kew, do not at the present time attend lectures of any kind; and whether the Department is now paying the sum of £1 per lecture to certain officials of the Kew staff for lecturing to two men, neither of whom is in any way connected with the gardening section at Kew; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (SIR EDWARD STRACHEY,: The Answer to my hon.
  542
  friend's Question is in the affirmative. The lectures in question are provided for the benefit of the young gardeners, who are expected to attend, but who have recently abstained from so doing. The matter is under consideration, but I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

  The Public Trustee.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has yet made a rule constituting the office of Public Trustee, as required by Section 14 of the Public Trustee Act; if so, when such rule will be laid upon the Table of this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and whether he can explain how Mr. C. J. Stewart came to be appointed to the office of Public Trustee prior to such rule having been made and laid upon the Table.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON,: No such rule has yet been made. It is expected that the rule will be laid on the Table of the House by the end of the present month. The employment of Mr. Stewart has been provisional. He has not yet been officially appointed Public Trustee, and it is not anticipated that he will receive that appointment until September or October.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: If the rule is not laid on the Table until the end of the present month, how will there be an opportunity for the House to move to annul the rule within thirty days; and how, as the office of Public Trustee has not yet been established, is it that Mr. Stewart has announced his acceptance, and has resigned his connection with the brewery company with which he has been associated?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I anticipate there will be ample time before the House rises to allow discussion of the rule. Mr. Stewart has been provisionally employed to organise the office and the machinery which must be put into operation before the Act comes into use. The appointment has not yet been made, and will not be made until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the rule. It is not expected that it will be

  543
  necessary to appoint him until the date named.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that at the present moment the office of Public Trustee has not been established and, if so, is there any precedent for appointing a gentleman provisionally to an office which does not exist?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I entirely agree that the office has not been established, and that there is no precedent for appointing a gentleman to an office which does not exist.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can give the names of the other candidates for the post of Public Trustee which were before the Lord Chancellor when Mr. C. J. Stewart was selected for the office.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: Applications for appointment to a public office are usually made in confidence, and I think that confidence ought to be respected. I have not seen a list of the applicants.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Attorney-General tell us in confidence whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the applicants?
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, Sir; I am not seeking any Government appointment.
  At a later stage,
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. Member for South Donegal to impute to him a personal pecuniary motive in any Question he might address to Ministers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that if the hon. Member took exception to his observation he would at once frankly apologise. He interrupted the hon. Member on the spur of the moment, and he thought that no one but the hon. Gentle man himself would have imagined that he imputed any motive to him.

  Royal Flag.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the flag with the device
  544
  Or, a lion rampant within a double tressure flory counterflory, gules, is the personal flag of the Sovereign in Scotland; and, if not, when it ceased to be so used.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. BUCHANAN,: The flag as described was the personal flag of the Sovereign in Scotland, and in a sense may be held to be so still, but it has ceased to be so used since the time of the Union.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do I understand that the flag may be used now by anyone without qualification in Scotland?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman had better under-stand that.

  Cost of Police in County Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county council of Clare, having considered the claim of the Royal Irish Constabulary of £39 13s. 2d., costs of extra police in respect of the half-year ended 31st March, 1907, have refused payment of said claim as being an unjust taxation; and whether he will relieve the county from this charge.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL,: It is the fact that the Clare County Council have expressed the intention of refusing to pay the charge referred to in the Question. The extra police for which the claim is made consisted of a portion of the Reserve Force chargeable to a specified area, and there is no power to relieve the county of the cost. The necessary statutory certificate is about to be issued in order that the charge may be recovered from the county council.

  Golf Estate, Roscommon.
  MR. HAY DEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have in their possession a farm at Toneroe, county Roscommon, formerly portion of the Goff estate; whether a small portion of this was divided four years ago; whether the remainder is still in the possession of the

  545
  Commissioners; and whether stops will be taken immediately to have the rest divided among the small tenants on the estate and in the locality.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no land at Toneroe appears to be included in any estate purchased by them or in their possession.

  Irish Education Grant.
  Mr. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was the sum of £1,000,408 mentioned by him in introducing the Irish Council Bill the sum voted by Parliament for primary education in Ireland for the year ending 31st March, 1907; does the Report of the National Board for the year 1905–6 give the sum voted by Parliament for primary education in Ireland for that year as £1,390,833; was that sum voted by Parliament for primary education in Ireland for that year; and, if so, how has there been a difference of £390,425 between the sums voted by Parliament for the years 1905–6 and 1906–7.
  MR. BIRRELL: The sum which I mentioned, or intended to mention, as the amount provided by the Votes for national education in Ireland was £1,408,000, that is to say, the amount in round numbers of the estimate for the current year. It has only recently come to my notice that I am reported to have said £1,000,408, instead of £1,408,000.

  Earl of Dunraven's Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the case as between the Earl of Dunraven, of Adare Manor, county Limerick, and his tenant, Mr. George Spearing, of Baybus, Adare, for sale and purchase of Mr. Spearing's farm, has as yet been brought to an issue; and, if not, will the Estates Commissioners use their mediation in arranging the difference as to price consequent on the flooding of a portion of the holding as the result of hatcheries having been put down in the River Maigue flowing by, through the agency of the Earl of Dunraven.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have purchased from Lord
  546
  Dunraven certain property, including the holding of which Mr. Spearing is tenant. Spearing alleges that his holding has been injured by the diversion of a stream by Lord Dunraven. The Commissioners have fully inquired into the matter, and have come to the conclusion that mediation on their part would not be effective. Spearing urges his claim with the object of reducing, as against the Commissioners, the purchase money paid by them to Lord Dunraven for the holding, whereas his proper remedy is to assert his claim, if any, against Lord Dunraven, by legal proceedings for damages. Spearing has declined to purchase at the price paid by the Commissioners, and he is, therefore, simply a tenant to the Commissioners, who propose to take steps for the recovery of the rent which he is withholding.

  Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the numerous subjects which there is a desire to discuss on the Foreign Office Estimates including the Sugar Convention, Egypt, the recent Customs Agreement with Turkey, an opportunity for discussing which has been promised, and other subjects, whether he can see his way to devote more than one day to the discussion.
  The following Questions were also on the Paper:—
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number and importance of the subjects to be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote in Supply, he will extend the time allotted thereto.
  MR. REES: To ask the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the wide interests dealt with by the Foreign Office Vote, he can see his way to devote two days to its discussion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: Perhaps I may answer the Questions of my hon. friends the Members for Tyneside and Montgomery Boroughs at the same time. I am afraid I cannot see my way to affording more than one day to the Foreign Office Vote. With regard to the Sugar Convention, that is a

  547
  matter of fiscal policy which does not specially concern the Foreign Office Vote.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERreminded the Prime Minister that there was a desire to discuss the question of the Congo, and asked him to reconsider his decision.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANcould not promise any more than one full day.

  Worcester Election Petition.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the overseers of the city of Worcester have levied a rate of 3½d. in the pound on the municipal ratepayers to meet the cost of the election petition proceedings, and that women ratepayers are being called upon to pay this rate; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing early next session legislation which will relieve women from having to pay for the consequences of male political corruption, or a measure by which women may have the rights as well as the duties of citizenship.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any promise on this subject.

  Pacific Islanders Act Amendment Bill.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Pacific Islanders Act Amendment Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are difficult legal questions involved in this matter which are under reference to the Law Officers, and I cannot give any reply to the Question.

  Supply.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to give any extra days for discussion in Supply over and above the three days which still remain, in view of the restricted occasions which the House has enjoyed up to the present time for debate in Supply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid this cannot be done. The ordinary opportunities will have been given. I may mention with regard to a
  548
  somewhat cognate subject, namely the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, that although the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not amount to a pledge it involved an acknowledgment of expediency; and an opportunity for the discussion of the Report will be given, but I am afraid it will be in the expiring hours of the session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what would be the business for Monday, and whether any information could be given as to the business next week.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think it would be safe to prophesy beyond Friday. On Friday the business will be the Criminal Appeal Bill and other Bills.

HONOURS AND PARTY FUNDS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLgave notice that at the earliest opportunity he would direct the attention of the House to the brokerage and sale of peerages under the late Administration, and would move a Resolution condemning peerage preference based on gross metallic corruption.
*MR. LEA: I desire to make a personal explanation to the House as regards what happened yesterday. An accusation was brought against me of having been guilty of a breach of privilege in publishing a letter in which I stated—first, that honours are bought and sold, and secondly, that out of that war-chest grants are made to candidates who, if elected, are looked upon as secured; and should the Member rebel, he is reproached by the Party whips for not having held to what they looked upon as a bargain. That letter was written because your statement, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is not responsible to this House for any advice he may give to the Sovereign as to recommendations for honours seemed to preclude any power of calling attention in this House to the subject. If you, Sir, on consideration, adhere to that statement—
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is going to cross-examine me about statements made last week I am afraid I cannot allow him to intervene now. I understood from him that he was going to make some personal statement and apology. I cannot permit him to raise any question of order and cross-examine me on my ruling.
*M R. LEA: I am endeavouring under great difficulty to make a personal explanation. In view of the fact that I was precluded from attending the debate yesterday, and had to depend for learning what transpired on the reports in the papers this morning, I now desire to say that my explanation was made under a misapprehension. I conceived that the breach of privilege, if any, could not be in the second and minor allegation referred to by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, but in the far more serious allegation that honours are bought and sold. It was to that allegation, therefore, that I addressed the defence I made, without having heard the whole case against me. Upon referring to the reports in the papers, I find that the case made against me, and relied upon, was based on the second, and, as I think, relatively minor allegation I made. I find that upon that allegation alone the debate was conducted, and the House was advised by the Prime Minister not to proceed with the charge, while, with unusual readiness, the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to say that his Party did not intend to proceed against me. With that charge I need no longer concern myself, but the other charge, while kept out of the debate, was not kept out of the division on my conduct. The noble Lord who raised the question took the same view as I took, that the allegation required investigation.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has misconceived the whole of the effect of the debate which took place yesterday. I think, if he had listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Lord, he would have seen that the only point in the letter which was charged with being a breach of privilege was that which conveyed an imputation upon his colleagues I am sure that, if, the hon. Member has anything to say upon that point, the House will hear him.
*MR. LEA: I bow to your ruling.
MR. MARKHAM: May I also make a personal explanation? In what I said yesterday I did not wish to impute the smallest dishonest motive to the Prime Minister or anyone on the Front Benches. The point I raised was purely a political and Party one, and was not intended to call in question the conduct of any right hon. Gentleman.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Hodge and Mr. Gill; and had reinstated on the Committee: Mr. Shackleton and Mr. John Taylor (previously discharged in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Jowett; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. George Roberts.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  LARCENY BILL.
  "To amend The Larceny Act, 1861," presented by Mr. Courthope; supported by Sir John Dickson-Poynder, Mr. Warner, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Everett, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Acland, Mr. Brace, and Mr. Verney; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.
  MR. C. E. PRICEmoved a new clause providing that

  551
  notices of assessment of income-tax shall be issued as nearly as may be in the same terms on or after the first day of December in each year, and the same shall become payable and shall be collected in the same form and at the same time in the United Kingdom, and legal proceedings in the respective countries for recovery of income-tax shall also be taken as nearly as may be at the same time. So far, he said, nothing had been done to remedy the inequality which existed in the matter of the levying of the income-tax in England, Scotland and Ireland. Broadly speaking, the tax should be levied in the three countries in precisely the same way. It was a common and just principle that each country should be treated alike. In recent years there had been a great deal of resentment felt at the way in which the tax had been collected. The notices of assessment differed in the three countries. In Scotland the notice was printed with the words "Notice to pay" in bold type and underlined, whilst in England the demand was simply a polite intimation that the tax was due. In Scotland the notices. were issued in September, October and November, while in England they were not issued till the end of November or the beginning of December. He had in his hand a list of notices sent out in the two countries. In Scotland the first was issued on 22nd September and the last on 7th November; of these, thirteen were received. In England, the first was not sent out until 30th November and the last on 24th December, during which time nine were received. He failed to see why there should be this difference in the collection of the tax. It was not due until January, and there was no need at all why the notices in Scotland should be issued as early as September. Of all countries in the world, in Scotland this was the least necessary. Unless this new clause were accepted the Scottish income-tax returns would continue to be received into the Exchequer at an earlier date than was the case with England. Another point he wished to bring out was that of enforcing payment of the tax. A friend of his received a notice that the tax was due within seven days. Unfortunately he was ill in bed at the time and the matter escaped his attention until after the prescribed date. He sent a cheque immediately to the income-tax collector,
  552
  but it was returned, and he was informed that it could now only be paid to the sheriff's officer. This he did, together with 10 per cent. added for the extra cost of collecting. That was the sort of thing which had been going on in Scotland for many years. Inasmuch as the tax is an Imperial one, he contended there should be no greater pressure in Scotland than in England or Ireland, and he sincerely trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept his new clause. On 8th June, 1901, the Secretary to the Treasury stated that Scotland and England should be treated alike and that no pressure should be used in one country which was not also used in another. Since then the question had been brought before Parliament, but no difference whatever had been made in the collection of the tax. The pressure had been going on in Scotland while England had been allowed to lag behind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he was anxious to establish equality between the two countries, and all that this new clause asked was that there should be common justice in the matter. He begged to move.
  *MR. J. M. HENDERSONseconded. He failed to see why there should be any difference between the collection of the tax in Scotland and the collection in England. For 200 years England had been joined to Scotland, and during the whole of that time instead of trying to assimilate the law of the country and its procedure Parliament had been engaged in passing separate laws in the two kingdoms. He saw no reason why the Scottish people should be pressed for their income-tax to a greater extent than the people of England. It seemed to him monstrous that in Scotland notices should be sent out in September reminding a man that he had got to pay a tax in January, whereas in England no such reminder was issued until December. Much of this pressure would seem to arise through the extra vigilance of the Scottish excise officer. The income-tax collectors in Scotland were much more stringent and arbitrary than was the case in England. In the latter country the method of collection was more gentle and reasonable. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give effect to his hon. friend's new

  553
  clause so that the process of collection in the two countries might be the same.
  New clause—
  "Notices of assessment of income-tax shall be issued as nearly as may be in the same terms on or after the first day of December in each year, and the same shall become payable and shall be collected in the came form and at thee same time in the United Kingdom, and legal proceedings in the respective countries for recovery of income-tax shall also be taken as nearly as may be at the same time."—(Mr. C. E. Price.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH,assured his hon. friends that he was entirely in sympathy with them in their desire to remove any disabilities under which Scotland lay in regard to this or any other matter. He hoped, however, that the new clause would not be pressed. In the first place, the hon. Member proposed to prohibit the issue of notices before the first day of December, and he did not think that that was at all a desirable thing, He was aware that the system of collection in England and Scotland was not uniform. He thought the hon. Member would find that upon many estates in Scotland it was the practice to deduct the in come-tax from the November rent, and it would be very inconvenient to disturb that arrangement. With regard to the main purpose of the Amendment he entirely agreed with the hon. Member. He did not think the machinery for the collection of the tax should be more stringently enforced in one country than in the other, but what he was anxious to do was to bring England up to the level of Scotland. He had already expressed his opinion on this point, and he trusted that by rigorous and effective administrative action he would be able to get the income- tax in at an earlier date. Scotland had led the way in the matter. He could assure his hon. friend that everything was being done to bring about an assimilation of the dates of collection, and certainly, no preference would be shown to the southern side of the border.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINhoped the fact that they
  554
  had at present a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer would somewhat allay the anxiety of hon. Members opposite on this point. He agreed that it was desirable to expedite the collection of the income-tax, although he was inclined to believe that the grievance in Scotland was largely an imaginary one. Whilst he was at the Treasury attention was specially directed to what were called the threatening notices. It was not possible for all those notices to go out on the same day, but the collectors might all begin on the same day to send them out. He thought the pressure should be brought to bear equally in all the three kingdoms, and he wished success to the efforts the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making in that direction. He thought something more might be done to expedite the collection of the income-tax in England, although in his opinion the greivance alleged on behalf of Scotland was very largely exaggerated, and such foundation as existed for it was not a sufficient basis for the superstructure which some hon. Members had tried to place upon it.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid he could not agree with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was an imaginary grievance in Scotland. They had had a long fight in regard to it. He raised the same question five years ago, and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had promised to do their best to bring about an equality. The two predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman had said they could not make the change while the war income-tax stood at 1s. 3d. in the £, but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer set himself to redress the grievance and accelerated the collection in England, with the result that within the financial year he got in an extra £800,000. That was the point he wished to impress upon the House. He had more faith in the regeneration of England than his hon. friend. He thought they ought to direct their attention to bringing up England to the standard of Scotland. Two legitimate grievances had resulted from the present system. One was that the large amount of income-tax outstanding for two months after it was due in England, amounting to £11,500,000, necessitated a great loss to the State in interest. He calculated that in this

  555
  way there was a loss to the revenue of £30,000 every year. On 18th March they had a very definite pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said—
  "I think any change ought to be made in the direction of increased stringency in England rather than increased laxity in Scotland."
  They ought to accept that as a pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman. The second grievance resulted from the income-tax not being collected within the financial year, which was very detrimental to their financial system. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach put an extra 4d. on the income-tax in one year, and he expected to raise by that another £10,000,000, but owing to the loose system, instead of getting £10,000,000, he could only calculate on getting £8,000,000 within the financial year, and the State had to lose the benefit of the £2,000,000 for that year. Therefore, from the point of view of equality of treatment and making good this loss of interest, he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the pledge he had given. They did not want Scotland dragged down to England's level, but they wanted England brought up to the Scottish standard. If they issued the notices in December the tenant would have to pay his landlord's tax, and at the very latest would have to pay it in the second week in February; consequently he would have to wait for his money for twelve weeks till the Whitsunday term. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider whether the tax under Schedule A should not be levied directly upon the landlord. He could point to municipal administration where a system obtained under which the occupier had to pay the landlord's share and deduct it from his rent. That system had now been abolished and the collection had not suffered. He thought it was equitable that the landlord who owed the debt should pay it in the first instance. For these reasons he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment, because in its present form it was a step backward. They were now within sight of port after five years fighting, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assurance would be accepted.
  MR. WATThoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment
  556
  to a division as a protest against the existing inequality. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them that he was trying to bring England up to the Scottish standard. That was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors had promised but had always failed to carry out. It was a very difficult task to bring England up to the level of Scotland, and he thought it would be better to drop Scotland down to the level of England. They also had a grievance in the tone of the notices sent out in Scotland, which was arbitrary and almost insolent. In the Scottish form the words were, "To the person on the back hereof. Take notice." He thought that tone indicated that the income-tax collector had the view that Scotland was a nation to be overridden easily. He would vote for the new clause if it was pressed to a division.
  *Mr. ELLISsaid he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in desiring that England should be brought up to the standard of Scotland. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow had alluded to the manner and tone of the tax collectors. He himself thought that, at times, there was something left to be desired in that matter. He remembered bringing under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, a grievance of his own. He happened to pay taxes in various parts of the country, and he had always paid his income-tax before the end of January. In the particular year to which he referred he received a somewhat peremptory notice, and when the matter was looked into the right hon. Gentleman found that similar complaints had been received from other Members of the House, who had always paid their income-tax regularly. He hoped that such instructions would be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his subordinates of the Inland Revenue as would secure that, in the sending out of the notices, due regard would be had to what was reasonable and proper, so that people might not be harassed and troubled unnecessarily. He was quite willing to increase the stringency of the collection

  557
  provided this was made uniform and the matter was conducted with reasonable courtesy.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that the debate had fully justified the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh in moving the now clause. This was not an imaginary grievance. Some of his own constituents had been harshly treated in the matter. He received almost every year communications which had convinced him that the taxpayers of Scotland were treated in a different manner from those of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered a speech which many hon. Members thought indicated that he had at last made up his mind to deal with the question, and that in the following year there would be no further ground of complaint. The grievances still existed, and his hon. friend's contention that the systems in England and Scotland should be assimilated was fair and reasonable. If that was really the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would advise his hon. friend to be content with that for this year, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity of seeing what could be done before bringing forward next year's Budget.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONthought the income-tax payer who was placed at the greatest disadvantage in Scotland was the man in a country district; he got an additional notice-paper when the term came round in November, and he very often paid three months ahead of the corresponding taxpayer in England. So far from wishing that there should be any slackness in the system of collection, he thought the bringing up of the "predominant partner" to the level of Scotland would be the proper solution of the question.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid his hon. friend the Member for the College Division had referred to the tone of the income-tax notices. Manners were a matter of taste and opinion. He had known Ministers accused of ''slamming the door.'' The office of tax-collector was not a very happy one, and he could only say that he would either by example or precept
  558
  endeavour to infuse a little more amenity into the manners and customs of the tax collectors in Scotland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the case to which the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division called his attention was one where through absence from home the right hon. Gentleman had been treated by the tax collector as if he were a person who might decamp and disappear. He thought the difficulty might be met if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would arrange for a little more intercommunication between the collectors. If that could be done a great deal of friction would be saved. He found that wherever he was living for the moment he received a demand to make a return of his income. If he appeared in a district for the first time and had never made a return before, that would be natural, but year after year he was asked to return his income in every place where he might possibly reside. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether some clearing-house system could be established which would enable the tax collectors to ascertain where a person who had a number of addresses paid the tax.
  MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say that the suggestion would be considered.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he gathered from what had been said that the tax-collectors in Scotland were lacking in the suaviter in modo which all desired. As the Scottish taxpayer was particularly sensitive, he would suggest that the Scottish collectors should be removed to England and the English collectors sent to Scotland.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an indication that the tax would be collected in the same way in Scotland as in England. On the understanding that the forms for both countries would be printed in precisely the same way and that the collection would be identical, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRETTONmoved a new clause to provide "that as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eight, the duties imposed by Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1901, and by the First Schedule to that Act, shall each be reduced by one-half in respect of British and British Colonial grown sugar." He pointed out that proposals for the total repeal and for the reduction of the tax by one-half had already been considered and rejected, and expressed the hope that the House would favourably consider the proposal he now made. The conditions with respect to the sugar trade had been altered during the last few months by the announcement that the Government would not renew the Brussels Convention in its present form. There was some doubt as to the exact form which the Government action would take. He did not propose on the present occasion to go into all the arguments which could be stated for and against that Convention. The purpose of it, as he understood, was to do away with sugar bounties and cartels, and to equalise the price of sugar in the countries which were parties to the Convention. According to experts, the withdrawal of this country from the Convention would mean the revival of bounties and cartels, and that was not objected to by those persons in this country who had been advocating a change in the Brussels Convention. His proposal had the advantage that it would not increase the cost to the consumer in this country, whether he was a manufacturer or a householder. He admitted that the influence on the price of sugar would be small, but such as it was, it would be to reduce the price to the consumer. There had been a considerable revival in the sugar industry in the West Indies, and it was expected that the industry would be extinguished by the revival of bounties. It was therefore only just and right that they should take some measures by which an important industry in a struggling Colony, and one capable of vast expansion in many other parts of the Empire, should not be stamped out. He admitted that his proposal was, on the face of it, one of Colonial preference. That presented no terrors to him or to a
  560
  large number of persons in the country. Colonial preference was a policy which had received the support of vast sections of the people and one which many of them desired to see make headway. At any rate, it was a policy worth discussion in that House. They were taunted the previous night by a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench that they had no concrete proposal to make. That complaint could not be made to-day, because this was a definite and concrete proposal to give Colonial preference in a very important article of consumption in this country. The sugar industry on the Continent of Europe had been developed by a system of giving preference to the home growth. He knew that preference was called protection; but protection might be necessary in cases of this kind. It had certainly been a great drawback to the agricultural and many other industries that no serious effort had been possible hitherto to produce sugar in this country for the home consumer. Under the Brussels Convention, which was now in danger by the announcement of the change of policy of the Government, certain persons, gentlemen of great experience in agriculture, had made experiments in the neighbourhood of Sleaford in Lincolnshire, with a view to starting the cultivation of beet sugar. Experiments made with many different classes of beetroot on different soils, differently treated with manure, showed that beet sugar could be economically grown in this country. The experiments were carefully checked by competent experts, and there was no doubt that an industry of great value to agriculture might be established. The gentlemen who had made the experiments were of all shades of political opinion, many of them being ardent supporters of the present Ministry, so that there was no suspicion that they were made with any Party object. These gentlemen were prepared to establish a factory and to invest a sum of money in the industry, but in the present circumstances they decided on 25th June that the whole experiments must be abandoned and that they could make no further progress unless the Government made some change in their policy. The experiments were made by agricultural associations on subscriptions

  561
  by their members, and the money for the factory which was to be erected would have been subscribed by tenant farmers and others, not landowners, interested in the cultivation of the land. Contracts had been made to grow beet on 1,500 acres, nearly all of which were small holdings. Not one large landholder had entered into any contract to supply beet. It was a spontaneous movement made by enterprising agriculturists in a large district, and it was free from any speculative character. It was made entirely for the benefit of the land and the cultivation of the soil. The cultivation of beet sugar had enormous advantages. It was very profitable, the least estimated profit being, he believed, £3 per acre; it was a crop which could be advantageously grown continuously without deterioration to the soil; the manurial effect was of great value to the field; and it tended to employ an increased number of people. The House were considering two Bills, one for England and one for Scotland, under which a vast amount of time and a large sum of money were to be spent in the endeavour to keep the agricultural labourer on the soil. Here was an industry by which they could find employment for many on the soil, and prevent land going out of cultivation. It was no use establishing small holdings except on an economical basis, and the cultivation of beet sugar was especially suitable for small holders, who wanted an occupation in which they could profitably employ themselves and be certain of paying their way.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he had listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had said, but he could not connect his remarks with the clause he proposed.
  MR. GRETTONthought he could explain. If the tax was maintained as at present, the home grown sugar industry could not be started.
  *Mr. SPEAKERcalled the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that there were no Customs, and so far as he knew, no Excise duties upon home grown sugar, and therefore he thought his remarks were out of order.
  MR. BONAR LAWinquired whether it was not admissible for his hon. friend to leave out the words "British and" so that the new clause would be limited to Colonial grown sugar.
  SIR F. BANBURYalso suggested that if his hon. friend left out the words "of British and" his Amendment would be in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not say that the Amendment was not in order. I said the speech was not in order.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he was sorry if he had been speaking out of order, but he thought he was urging a view which ought to be put before the House. He would endeavour to confine himself to points which were strictly in order with regard to his proposal to give some discrimination in favour of Colonial production and of home products. On the previous evening the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, when speaking quite guardedly, made a remark which was received with cheers and approbation from the other side of the House. While he declared against discrimination generally he said that discrimination involved a reduction of tariff or a differentiation between the sum which involved a sound and that which involved an unsound operation. That was exactly what he had given his attention to, and his Motion was one to reduce taxation and not to increase the duties on the sugar consumed by any person in this country whether he was a householder or a lodger. He thought he had shown that there were some grounds for encouraging the production of sugar in our Colonies and at home, while the action of the Government would lead to a curtailment of the experiment in regard to the product, which must lead to the ruin of the industry in the Colonies. He begged to move.
  *SIR FRANCIS LOWEin seconding the new clause, said that the word "preference" seemed to act as a sort of bogey to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the very mention of it seemed to frighten them out of their lives; but if only they got to closer quarters with is in operation they would

  563
  get used to the idea and probably they would be willing to extend it to many articles other than that included in the proposed clause. The adoption of this proposal would afford an excellent opportunity of testing this on a small scale, and the experiment could do no possible harm to the people of this country, whilst it might do a great deal of good to some of our Colonies. It would be, for instance, of great advantage to our West Indian possessions, which had suffered so much from the untoward events which had recently taken place in Jamaica. As to home-grown sugar, there were, no doubt, great possibilities open to us in the way of producing beet for sugar in this country, and its production should be encouraged in every possible way. If, as seemed probable, the Government were about to withdraw from the Brussels Convention, it would mean that bounty-fed sugar would once more be allowed to be imported into our markets, and it would then be impossible for sugar to be produced in this country at a profit unless some preference in the way of duties such as that indicated in the new clause were given to the Home producer. At all events the acceptance of this clause would indicate a desire to encourage the people of the United Kingdom to embark upon this new form of industry, which if it were successful would afford employment to large numbers of labourers, especially in connection with small holdings.
  New clause—
  "As from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eight, the duties imposed by Section two of the Finance Act, 1901, and by the First Schedule to that Act, shall each be reduced by one-half in respect of British and British Colonial grown sugar."—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it had been pointed out by Mr. Speaker that there were no customs or excise duties on this class of sugar, and therefore the question appeared to be irrelevant altogether, because it was not a subject upon which any discussion could possibly arise. On
  564
  the other hand, he had no hostility to extending the cultivation of beetroot in this country with a view to the production of sugar. But whatever the merits of the case were we were absolutely bound by the treaties and obligations into which we had entered with other countries of the world. Up to the present moment the Sugar Convention had not been denounced, and it could not come to an end for any purpose till 31st December, 1908. In effect, over nine months must elapse before we could take steps which would involve any violation of our Treaty obligations, and to reduce the tax now would be against our obligations under the present Convention which had to remain in force for five years, and in regard to the termination of which six months notice had to be given. Therefore, until the expiry of the prescribed period he could not assent to the proposal before the House, as it would be a breach of the Convention.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINquite agreed with the effect of the Convention as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and doubled whether his hon. friend had the details of it in his memory. He doubted whether he would have made any effort to raise the question except that it was the only way of bringing forward the treatment of Colonial and British-grown sugar. As regarded Colonial sugar they were prevented from giving it preferential treatment as long as the Convention remained in force in its present terms, unless the signatories were prepared to release us. No doubt the matter was one for consideration. His hon. friend recognised that the Government had taken action, but the action was imperfect. What his hon. friend desired was that we should at the earliest possible date set ourselves free from one of the terms of the Convention. We ought to set ourselves free also from the condition that we should not grant a preference to sugar produced by any of our Colonies. He was not concerned now as to whether the Government we e inclined to give preferences or not. The present Government would not give a preference if they could. But except for the special reasons given at the time

  565
  this Convention was signed we should not admit in any treaty with foreign powers any clause or condition which bound us in regard to our relations with our Colonies. We ought not to bind ourselves to a certain course with our Colonies in any treaty we made with other Powers. When we revised the convention we ought to strike out the part of the protocol which limited our freedom in that respect, even if there was no intention of granting a preference. These was no excise on Colonial sugar, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he would be bound to exact an excise if any sugar was produced in this country. It was in the knowledge of the House that in the matter of tobacco grown for experimental purposes in Ireland most special exceptions were made. It was thought likely there would be a lucrative crop if firmly established as in the same way sugar beet was regarded in this country, and in order to allow the experiment to be made effectively the Inland Revenue waived its prohibition against the growing of tobacco, and lowered the duty on all Irish-grown tobacco. Would the right hon. Gentleman do the same with regard to the growing of sugar beet?
  MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say he was quite prepared to do that. At the present time sugar could be grown in this country with perfect safety for experimental purposes. If it were to be grown for commercial purposes he would have to impose an excise. In the case of tobacco in Ireland there was a statutory prohibition which had only lately been got rid of. He thought the Inland Revenue went very far, but the concession was subject to very stringent conditions. It was made for experimental and not for commercial purposes, and if sugar was to be grown in that way he would be prepared to extend the same facilities.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOONsaid that if this convention was denounced it would be found that the condition of the West Indian Colonies, which had embarked in a vast enterprise in the growing of sugar cane, and incurred considerable outlay, relying on the bona fide spirit of this country, would be worse than in
  566
  the pre-convention days. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that when there was a question of taking any fiscal step that incidentally would benefit the Colonies without hurting anybody the Government seemed paralysed by some fiscal atrophy. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the matter in a large-hearted way, and to give our West Indian Colonies some encouragement.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid the hon. Gentleman who moved this clause, and many of those who supported it, also supported him in the lobby when he moved to abolish the sugar duty. He thought on that occasion they supported him because they desired to see the duty abolished and not merely because they desired to attack the Government. He certainly could not reconcile the two attitudes. At the present time they were arguing in favour of a thing which if it were carried would make impossible that for which they voted the other day. If they got rid of the sugar duty it would be impossible to grant a preference to the Colonies, who would say, "You are depriving us of the preference which you promised us. You are robbing your own flesh and blood." He certainly hoped hon. Members opposite would pause and think a little before they supported this clause. Those who supported the Sugar Convention a few years ago would now find out the result of the revolver practice recommended by Lord Lansdowne. We had fired our revolver, with the result that we had made sugar dearer in this country, and were prevented giving a preference to our Colonies. Hon. Members had evidently forgotten that we had tried the system of preference years ago, and abandoned it in disgust. As recently as 1842 Colonial preferences in sugar were in full force, and in that year we were paying double as much for West Indian sugar as we could buy Brazilian sugar for in the markets of the world. Not only did we not obtain that expansion of the Colonial industries that was now desired by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the export from the West Indies actually fell in eleven years from 4,000,000 cwts. to 2,500,000 cwts. What happened was that the West Indians got so much for so little

  567
  that they became lazy, and cultivation instead of being stimulated went down. At the same time our exports to the West Indies declined. It was calculated in 1840 that if our exports to the West Indies were given for nothing and this country had been allowed to buy her sugar in the markets of the world, £1,000,000 a year would have been saved to this country. The abandonment of the system of preferences naturally caused disappointment in the Colonies and would again do so. Soon after their abolition in 1846 a mass meeting was held in Montreal, now one of the most loyal of our Colonies, at which a resolution was passed for annexation with the United States as a punishment to the Mother Country for the fiscal action she had taken. The smaller the tax, the smaller, of course, the effect. He gathered that the argument was that by reducing the duty on Colonial sugar they would reduce the price on the whole volume of sugar supplied.
  *SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that was not his contention. He did not consider that the reduction of the duties on Colonial and Home grown sugar would necessarily lower the price to the consumer in the first instance.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid there would, in that case, be no benefit to the consumers here, and all the arguments used by hon. Members opposite as to relieving the British consumer were irrelevant. He had rather understood the argument of the mover of the Amendment to be that there would be a general benefit, because if they reduced the tax on a portion of the sugar, to some extent they made a reduction in the price of the whole supply.
  *SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that the whole object of Colonial preference was to stimulate trade between us and our Colonies.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was glad to understand that, but the attitude of hon. Members opposite had been completely changed within the last three or four days. It was now no longer the British consumer, but the Colonial producer they were pleading for. That was a very remarkable change of attitude,
  568
  and he could only express the hope that hon. Members who wished to be true to their pledges in favour of the abolition of the sugar duty would vote against the Amendment.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he wished to enter his caveat against it being assumed as absolutely established that the provisions of the Sugar Convention were a bar to this Amendment. It was quite true that Article 5 of the Convention said that we should charge the lowest rate of duty on the imports from the contracting parties, but that might very well be construed to mean our imports of sugar from foreign countries. That appeared to have been the meaning attached to Article 5 by the framers of the Convention, as would appear from article 11, because there was a curious provision in the protocol which preserved our relations towards imports on Colonial sugar. It was a somewhat obscure reservation embodied in the words giving entire liberty as regarded the fiscal relations between the United Kingdom and its Possessions. The reservation probably meant that so long as it was a question of the action of the Mother Country herself, she was bound by the words of the protocol; but that if and when the Colonies proceeded to move for definition of our fiscal relations with them, we should be considered free under the general, though somewhat obscure reservation in the protocol to which he had referred.
  MR. GRETTONasked leave to withdraw the clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HICKS BEACHin moving a new clause to the effect that a landowner farming his own land might be assessed under Schedule D in lieu of Schedules A and B, said he submitted it with the object of raising a question which was referred to during the Committee stage of the Bill. The point of the clause was that a person who invested his money in land was just as much entitled to make his return under Schedule D as was the

  569
  ordinary business man, and was entitled to be fairly assessed and to obtain relief under the Act just as much as the person who invested his money in business. The effect of the landowner who farmed his own land coming under Schedules A and B was that he really paid the income-tax twice over. He paid it under Schedule A, which represented his capital, regarding the land as capital, and he paid it again under Schedule B in regard to profits arising from farming his land. That, he submitted, was unfair to the person who invested his money in land, because the business man only paid on his net profits which were assessed under Schedule D. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt tell him that his Unionist predecessors had not seen fit to remedy this state of affairs, and no fresh circumstances had arisen which should cause him to do so; but in his opinion the present Budget had introduced additional features which aggravated the injustice, because, in the first place, it appeared to be pretty evident that the income-tax on unearned income was not likely to go below the rate of 1s. in the £ for a good many years to come; and secondly, by the differentiation between earned and unearned income the Chancellor of the Exchequer had caused people to think whether they were properly assessed, and whether they could not come under the words "earned income" like others. Under Schedule A the landlord was very unfairly assessed, and did not get the same allowances by any means as the person who invested his money in business. That point he had brought up on the Committee stage, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been very sympathetic to that argument? he had expressed his intention of looking into the matter. So he hoped that if he could not accept the clause to-day, before another Budget statement the right hon. Gentleman would go carefully into this point also in order to see whether the landowner who farmed his own land could not at any rate have the same treatment as the person who invested his money in any kind of business. Large landlords, for some reason or other apparently, were looked upon with disfavour by the Party opposite, but, if his proposal was accepted, people with
  570
  an income of less than £2,000, who had invested their money in land which they farmed themselves, would benefit. He submitted that these people were worthy of this encouragement just as much as the man who invested his money in any kind of business. The man who farmed his own land spent as much time, money, and energy in that work as did the man in business. If he did not do so his farm would go to ruin and he would certainly lose his money, just as would any man who neglected any other kind of business in which he was engaged. He submitted that this was a case for the indulgence of the House, and that the class for whom he spoke ought at any rate to be put on an equal basis with other classes of people who earned their money in different kinds of businesses. He begged to move.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEYin seconding, said he did not see why the landowner farming his own land should not be put upon the same terms as any other business man. At the present time such landowner had to pay under Schedule A on a fixed assessment for landlord's profits, and also under Schedule B, where he farmed his own land, on the profits of farming that land. If he, were running a business, he would only have to account under Schedule D for the the actual profit he made. It therefore seemed to him that such landowners ought to be treated on the same lines as those engaged in business concerns. It was well known that in a great many of the light lands farming operations were not a success, and that landlords having at heart the interests of the community amongst which they lived kept these lands tilled even at a loss. It might be said that the landlord farming his own land unsuccessfully could make application for the return of the tax paid under Schedule A. But everybody knew that that was a very cumbersome and difficult operation, and a good deal more trouble than it was worth. Furthermore, if that course were taken in one year, it had to be all gone through the following year. It was much simpler that the people who wished to do the best they could for their land, who were ready to expend

  571
  large sums in putting up buildings and in keeping the land in good fettle for the benefit of themselves, their neighbours, and the whole community, should come under the same arrangement as any other business man. In all cases where a landlord farmed his own land he ought to be allowed to make his assessment under Schedule D, and not be made to pay under Schedules A and B.
  New clause:—
  "A landowner farming his own land may be assessed for income-tax under Schedule D in lieu of under Schedules A and B."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he had endeavoured to explain in Committee the grounds on which it was impossible to accept this clause. He could not admit that anything he had done this year had made this anomaly more urgent. He had already told the hon. Gentleman who moved the clause that he would very carefully consider the effect of the case he put forward, and if on investigation he satisfied himself that there was a real grievance that he could properly deal with, no prepossession on his part would stand in his way. He thought the hon. Gentleman was content with that assurance; at any rate, he hoped he would he satisfied with it now.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he hoped his hon. friend would be content with that assurance. He did not understand when they had a short discussion on this subject on a previous occasion that the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman applied to this point as well. He thought there was a new reason for considering the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that nothing he had done this year affected the question, but he wished to remind him that the change in the income-tax, by which a differentiation was made between earned and unearned income, did very materially affect the matter, and made the grievance of the landowner farming his own land a very real one. The right hon. Gentleman was going to
  572
  say to such a landowner that so much as represented interest on capital was unearned, and only so much as represented the reward of his exertions was earned income and assessable at the lower rate. That was to deprive him of relief which was given to the man in an exactly similar position, who invested his money in business instead of in land. The right hon. Gentleman would see that the concessions he had made in the present Budget had introduced a new condition of things, and if there was no reason existing previously for relieving the landowner farming his own land, there was every reason for doing it now. They would be doing a great injustice unless they gave this class of landowners the same relief as they gave to the townsmen.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not very hopeful of the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's consideration of this subject, because the right hon. Gentleman had said that in his opinion there was no grievance. When a landlord farmed his own land he had to put into it capital for live stock and implements, and that capital was not, assessed for income-tax unless it made a profit. All they asked was that the landowner farming his own land should be treated in exactly the same way as a man who carried on any other business. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to consider the point from the practical point of view, and to deal with it with justice and impartiality, he would ask his hon. friend not to press the clause.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the distinction drawn between earned and unearned income was so fine that it was almost impossible to carry out this proposal. He understood that this question was going to be considered upon its merits, and he hoped the point would be cleared up. He did not at all agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, when he said that labourers did not work for yeomen as they did for the tenant farmers.
  SIR F. CAWLEYsaid it seemed a double hardship that a landowner who was farming his own land should have to pay income-tax which he did not earn. A landowner with a farm to let very often took it into

  573
  his own hands to get it into good condition, and employed more labour, while more often than not he lost money on it. He thought that it should be so arranged that if the landowner made a profit he should pay income-tax on it, but if he did not he should not be called on to pay anything.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that, in view of the Answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FELLin moving the following clause:—"It shall be lawful for any company registered with limited liability, in estimating the amount of profits chargeable to income-tax, to deduct from such profits the expenses incurred in any issue of debenture or other capital, which expenses have to be, in whole or in part, paid out of the profits of that year," said he wished to draw attention to a grievance which arose when discussions took place before the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to what deductions should be allowed on these properties. The matter did not arise specially in connection with the present year's Budget, except in so far as it was a fact that there was a tendency more and more to turn business concerns into limited companies, the result being that the question came up more frequently now than before. There were hardly any companies which did not at some time or other make an issue of debentures. If a company was successful, it made an issue of, say, £100,000, and if it was not successful it was equally in need of money, and an issue of debentures was made. In practice the issue of £100,000 of debentures meant a cost of £3,000 or £4,000, but there was no asset representing that amount in the company's funds as shown by the balance sheet. From the other side of the account it appeared that only £96,000 had been received. The auditors naturally said that some provision must be made for the extinction of the £4,000 which represented the cost of issuing the debentures; they said that it must be extinguished over a period of two or three years, or paid off at once, out of profits. If the money was paid out of profits that
  574
  year, the profits were reduced by that amount, but the Income-tax Commissioners would not allow a deduction in respect of it. That was a grievance which was felt by companies, and when the question came before directors they would scarcely believe that the Commissioners insisted on payment of the assessment on profits which their companies did not receive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated more than once that it was the grievances which were felt in connection with the assessment of income-tax which were most detrimental to the collection. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would consider the whole question as to what should be deducted before profits were arrived at. The case to which attention was now called was one of the most glaring.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERin seconding the Amendment, said the expense of an issue of capital was a proper deduction to make in connection with the assessment of income-tax, and it ought to be allowed. Though he did not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the clause at once, he hoped that this would be one of the items he would allow next year after a careful survey.
  New clause—
  "It shall be lawful for any company registered with limited liability, in estimating the amount of profits chargeable to income-tax, to deduct from such profits the expenses incurred in any issue of debenture or other capital, which expenses have to be, in whole or in part, paid out of the profits of that year."—(Mr. Fell.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY, BUXTON,said the question was whether these charges arose in connection with the capital of the company or in connection with its annual profits. His right hon. friend was prepared to consider the question with others with a view to ascertaining whether there was any justification for the demand made. So far, however, as he had looked into it, he did not think there was any justification, because the expenditure

  575
  referred to was a capital expenditure, and ought not to be deducted from profits. When they raised the subject of debentures they raised at the same time a large number of other matters in connection with which the question arose as to whether the cost ought or ought not to be allowed in assessing income-tax. The Government resisted the Amendment on the ground that this was only one portion of a large question, and that a debenture issue had no particular claim over other issues of the same character.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was quite clear that the money spent on raising capital was not an asset of the company. If a man in business unfortunately became bankrupt, he would be told by the Court that the amount of the cost for raising capital should have been deducted, and ought not to have been shown as profits. On the other hand, if the man remained solvent, he was told by the Income-tax Commissioners that the same amount represented profits, and that no deduction could be allowed in respect of it in the assessment for income-tax. If the man was landed in bankruptcy, he might be censured, or perhaps even sent to prison, for showing as profits what he was told he ought to have written off, while, on the other hand, the Income-tax Commissioners would not allow a deduction to be made for the sum because they held that it was profits. He, however, admitted the complication of the subject, and did not desire to secure from the Government anything more at present than an undertaking that they would look into the matter.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that no one was more ready than he to admit the difficulties and complications which arose in connection with these matters. Our income-tax legislation had been framed on the plan of saying what deductions should not be allowed, instead of what deductions should be allowed. That he thought led to a great deal of obscurity, and probably to some amount of injustice. This matter was the subject of a legal decision in 1894. He deprecated, as his right hon. friend had said, dealing piecemeal with questions of this kind. It was germane to a number of other questions raised in the course of other debates in Committee, and as to which the real difficulty was in determining what they must do before
  576
  they arrived at the taxable profit. He thought both hon. Gentlemen had put forward arguments which made the case one worth further consideration, and, if they would be content with his assurance, he would undertake to consider the matter in connection with other points already raised in Committee.
  MR. FELLsaid that under the circumstances he would withdraw the clause. He might add that it was a matter of increasing importance, and he hoped it would have full consideration.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved the following clause:— "Incomes of husband and wife shall be added together and divided by two for the purpose of ascertaining the exemption from or abatement of income-tax to which they are respectively entitled." He said that his purpose was to remove not only an admitted anomaly, but also a great injustice and hardship upon a class of people who could ill afford to pay the extra taxation imposed upon them. Before marrying both a man having £400 a year and a woman having £350 a year were entitled to abatements, but after marriage for some anomalous reason their incomes were treated as one, and they were not entitled to any abatement, because the total exceeded £700. There was a case of even greater hardship. A man in receipt of £150 and a woman in receipt of £150 a year, so long as they remained single, were exempt from income-tax, but directly they married they became liable to pay income-tax upon the excess of £160 per annum of their joint incomes. That was a great hardship and gross injustice to people who could ill afford to pay extra taxation. A single man with £150 a year and a single woman with £140 a year were well off compared with a married couple with their joint incomes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had always refused the Amendment on the ground that previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had taken the same line, and he had said that the expense would be very considerable, though it was difficult to say what it would actually be.

  577
  He (Mr. Rawlinson) submitted that that was not a satisfactory argument. It was not absolutely clear that the amount of loss to the Exchequer would be very large. Even if it were as much as had been suggested, he submitted that it was essentially a case where relief of taxation ought to be given. Surely, so far as married couples with limited incomes were concerned, it was a case for relief instead of imposition of taxation. The state of the law as regarded the income of husband and wife had been gradually altering for some forty years, and, whereas forty years ago the incomes of husband and wife were looked upon as one, now under the Married Women's Property Act, they were separated for most purposes. They had, therefore, this anomaly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took advantage in the death duties that the incomes of husband and wife were not one for all purposes, but for the purposes of the income-tax they were treated as one. He moved the new clause for the purpose not only of removing an anomaly, but also of relieving what he suggested was a great hardship on married couples with limited incomes, both in regard to the question of abatement on higher incomes and total exemption in the case of lesser incomes.
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded. It seemed to him that there were no arguments by which the statement of his hon. friend could be met. The only argument which he was evidently afraid would be adduced was that a man and wife were one. He ventured to say that in this case they were not one. In view of the alterations in the law made by the Married Women's Property Act, he thought everyone would agree that if a man with £150 a year married a woman with £140 a year, he would soon find out that they were not one if he tried to take away his wife's income. For the past forty years they had tried to preserve to the woman the right in her own property, and, having done that, they must go a step further, and say there was no reason why she should be prevented from gaining the benefit of exemption from income-tax because she had married a man whose income, added to hers, brought the
  578
  amount over £160. His hon. and learned friend had said truly that the expenses of a married couple were necessarily larger than the expenses of a single man and a single woman. That was unanswerable, and it therefore seemed that they were seeking out people who were desirable of entering into what was always considered an honourable state, and endeavouring to put every possible difficulty in their way of doing so. He thought it would be very hard if the legislation acted as a deterrent to marriage. It was, however, on the ground of the injustice of the present law more than anything else that he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was most absurd that persons should suddenly lose their exemption because they had got married and their expenses had increased. Under those circumstances he really thought the only argument brought forward against the proposal of his hon. and learned friend was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose a little money. He sympathised with him in that position, and he quite recognised the difficulty of providing the large sum required for the administration of the country, but they must have some regard to justice, and even sacrifice a little money in order to see that no injustice was done to deserving people. They might in this matter have the support of the hon. Members below the gangway, because it could not affect the people so much who had incomes over £700, and they were not laying themselves open to the charge that they were acting in favour of trusts and monopolies. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.
  New clause—
  "Incomes of husband and wife shall be added together and divided by two for the purpose of ascertaining the exemption from or abatement of income-tax to which they are respectively entitled."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that this was a very familiar topic and occurred annually with the same regularity as the Budget

  579
  itself. He doubted whether the existing law was as serious a deterrent to marriage as the hon. Baronet imagined. He had never come across a couple, young or old, who, animated by a sincere and ardent affection for one another, had been prevented from joining their lots together in life by the fact that their incomes would be aggregated for the purpose of the income-tax. Of all the forms in which this particular Amendment had been presented, that adopted by the hon. and learned Member struck him as being the most peculiar. Under it a husband's income of £999 and a wife's income of £1 would be treated as two incomes of £500, each of which would become entitled to abatement. The proposition was incapable of being defended, and he could hold out no hope of being able to make a concession on the point. All the cases of real hardship were met under the Finance Act of 1897, under which, where the total income did not exceed £500 and was made up partly from profits of business carried on by the wife and partly from business carried on by the husband, the two things were separately assessed. As to the practical consequences to the Exchequer, all the best authorities agreed that the loss would be very considerable indeed, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever felt himself justified in agreeing to it.
  MR. FORSTERsaid that possibly there might be good reason for considering whether or not the limit of £500 as it existed at present should be extended so as to cover a total of £700. He did not, however, wish to press the point now, but he hoped the matter would be considered in later years.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved a new-clause to the effect that incomes which had already paid income-tax in the Colonies should not be liable to be assessed for income-tax in Great Britain. The hon. Member said this proposal had also been brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer before and argued that it was unjust that an income which had already paid income-tax in the Colonies should also have to pay it here. He would take the
  580
  case of a man who received an income from South Africa, in which place he had to pay an income-tax. Under the present system he would have to pay income-tax here also; that was to say, he would have to pay it twice over. It was that anomaly that he proposed to remove by the Amendment. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was a question of expense and the Exchequer could not give up this amount of money. In his judgment, however, the present situation was an unfair one. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTHOPEseconded the proposed new clause. Last year he alluded, in connection with this question, to the case of an officer who was at home on furlough and who might be called upon to pay the income-tax—once, say, in India and once in this country. He thought that was a case of hardship which should be met and the new clause of his hon. friend would meet it.
  New clause—
  "Incomes which have already paid income-tax in the Colonies shall not be liable to be assessed for income-tax in Great Britain."— (Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHwas not able to accept the proposed clause. Since this matter was discussed last year he had had the opportunity of going into the question very thoroughly at the Colonial Conference, in the presence of the Colonial Premiers, including Mr. Deakin and Dr. Jameson, and he was rather disposed to flatter himself that he succeeded in persuading them that it was quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to make any change in the income-tax law in this direction. He did not think the case of the officer came within this provision. He did not know of any such occasion, but if the hon. Gentleman would call his attention to anything of the kind he would consider the matter. The real question had arisen in regard to the De Beers and other South African companies which paid income-tax in Cape

  581
  Colony and had also been held liable by the House of Lords to pay income-tax in this country, because they had their registered offices here. He could not agree that any grievance existed as regards individuals. If a man, for reasons of his own, resided in this country and enjoyed the protection of our laws, it was only fair that in consideration of that voluntary act on his part, and the Government protection extended to him, he should contribute income-tax on the whole of his income, where so ever that income arose. That was the root principle which went to the basis of the whole matter and he could not recede from it.
  SIR SEYMOUR KINGsaid, in supporting the Amendment, that anybody in this country who bought rupee paper had the English income-tax deducted by the person who cashed it, and he also had to pay the Indian income-tax. As he had to pay the charge here, he could not understand why he should also have to pay it in India.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERalso supported the Amendment, and said the question was worthy of consideration in regard to both individuals and companies. He knew of one case where the whole of the trade of the company was done in a colony and all the shareholders except 10 per cent. resided there, and yet because the company had a registered office here, while its property was in Natal, they had to pay income-tax here. Therefore it seemed to be against the interests of the company to be registered here and to have an office where only office and secretarial work and the work of distribution was carried on. The question was quite as important to a company as to an individual.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was only where a company found it worth while to keep its head centre here in England that it became liable to pay income-tax out of the whole of its profits; when a company was substantially controlled and directed in a colony or foreign country income-tax was only payable on that part of the profits which was remitted.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
  582
  regard to this matter. If a company carried on business abroad and had an establishment here he thought there was no hardship in its having to pay income-tax.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed with his hon. friend who had just spoken, and hoped that his hon. and learned friend who had moved the new clause would not press it to a division. The contribution which a company made for income-tax in this country and in the Colonies, although it was no doubt collected on the same income, was paid in respect of two services, because the company had interests in two places. Where a company contributed to the expenditure of a Colony in regard to a business carried on there that was no reason why they should not pay income-tax in this country for a different service.
  MR. FELLdrew attention to the fact pointed out by Sir Joseph Ward at the recent Conference that travellers to New Zealand who were domiciled here and resided in New Zealand for a sufficient time to become assessable there in regard to income-tax invariably protested on the ground that income-tax had already been paid in England. He suggested that there should be some reciprocal arrangement between the Mother-country and the Colonies in the matter. It was very hard that such persons should pay income-tax twice over. The question of charging companies income-tax also raised a most important point. He believed that if companies were assessed for income-tax the revenue would suffer. The De Beers' Company, for instance, would have to pay both here and at Cape Colony on all their profits, and he saw from a statement in the papers that they proposed to remove their London office to New York in order to avoid that. They would never get a company to pay income-tax twice over in two countries on the same income, and the result, if it was attempted, would be that other companies like De Beers would close their London offices.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid the law at present seemed rather anomalous. As he

  583
  understood, a company which, had its head office in the country where it carried on its business and an office in this country had to pay income-tax in both countries. But he could imagine a company for the purpose of evading the income-tax using an office in a colony and doing all its business in this country through an agency. The agency would then pay all the profits over to the office in the Colony, which would divide them among the shareholders, who would then pay no income-tax at all. He did not know whether this question arose out of the new clause, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should endeavour to insist upon foreign and Colonial companies paying the same income-tax as was imposed on the English companies with which they competed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. COURTHOPEmoved the following clause:—"All death or succession duties payable in respect of land shall be payable, wholly or in part, in land which shall be valued at the assessment at which it was assessed for the purposes of such duties before any deductions whatsoever were made from such assessment." He said that the proposal was introduced in a more elaborate form by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon in 1894, and the lack of argument against the proposal adduced by Sir William Harcourt on that occasion was somewhat remarkable. Unless the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had some more pertinent argument to bring against it, he should, he thought, be justified in pressing the clause to a division. It was not a good argument to compare the death duty to a debt to one's butcher or baker. The death duty on landed estates should be dealt with as a definite charge on the land, and not as a personal charge on the individual who happened to inherit the land. At the present time it was very difficult to raise money on agricultural land, and an individual with no large means of his own who inherited a landed estate would undoubtedly experience great difficulty in raising sufficient to meet the death and succession duties, and the result might be a forced sale of the most disastrous character. He thought
  584
  the Government might meet this state of things by allowing a portion of the laud to be handed over to them at the amount at which it was assessed for death duties. Such a thing would be. particularly desirable at the present time, when they were complaining of the difficulty of obtaining land for small holdings. He would suggest to hon. Members who were in favour of the nationalisation of the land that it would be a good opportunity for them, because the proposal would tend inevitably to decrease the size and increase the number of holdings on estates, which would enable land to be more easily bought and sold. It would certainly place a great deal of extra land at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for allotments and small holdings or other purposes. It was objected that his clause contained no elaborate provision for assessing the value of the land. He thought it did. The mere fact of its assessment to the death duties was security in the long run both to the Crown and the individual, and he thought it would be very rare that any injustice would be done to either. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give this proposal more favourable consideration than was given to it by his predecessor in 1894, and if he was not able to entertain it from the Government's point of view, that he would adduce more serious arguments against it than had already been offered.
  SIR F. BANBURYin seconding the new clause, said he thought it an excellent one, though it ought to have a provision which would leave it open to the executors to pay either in money or in land. When the clause had been read a second time, however, an Amendment could be submitted to that effect, and he hoped his hon. friend would accept it. He thought this proposal ought to appeal to hon. Members below the gangway opposite. One hon. Member opposite had said that there was nothing more unfair than the manner in which land was assessed for the death duties—that the land was taken on exceptionally favourable terms, and that the valuation put upon it was very much below what it ought to be. He did not agree with him; but if it were so it was a very strong reason for his supporting the Amendment,

  585
  because, the State would obtain payment not only quickly and without trouble, but in a way which would render that payment, when it was received, very much more valuable to the State than if it were made in a lump sum down, the land would be very much more valuable than the nominal amount at which it was assessed. That seemed to him an unanswerable reason why hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite should support the clause. On the whole the valuation of the land was taken very fairly; if it erred, it was in the contrary direction— that was to say, that the valuation was higher than the real value of the land, and that made it difficult for people to sell their land in a hurry. For instance, a property might be worth £20,000, or £30,000 or £50.000; but they could not realise that at once; it might be two or three years before they could find a purchaser. Unless this clause was passed, the unfortunate heir would have to borrow money in order to provide for the death duties. It would be difficult to borrow money on a landed estate if they were to have much more of the legislation which was desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made reassuring statements in the City, hut he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's followers had done enough to justify those statements, because they were still pursuing their predatory legislation in the Grand Committees. He thought, in view of this, that it was very necessary that some facilities such as wore foreshadowed in the new clause should be granted to those people who were unfortunate enough to succeed to property in land. Supposing the land was over-valued, the State would benefit; if, on the other hand, the land was properly valued, then nobody would be hurt; and, if the land was under-valued, owing to the legislation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, then they would suffer, and. he would say, ''Serve them right." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he understood, was getting better terms under the existing system than he would obtain if the clause was carried. It might be that the State was making rather more than it ought out of the valuations as at present conducted;
  586
  but if that were so, he was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to take advantage of the unfortunate person who succeeded to a property which he found it difficult to realise, and on which he already had to pay a heavy duty. The right hon. Gentleman would not desire to mulct him to a greater degree than was contemplated by the law when it was first established, and therefore the scrupulous way was to take over the land itself at the valuation given. He would suggest to his hon. friend that there should be the option to pay either in cash or in land, for there were a good many people desirous of retaining properties because they were ancestral or in desirable positions, or for other reasons, and he was sure his hon. friend would not desire to prevent their doing that. On the understanding that such an Amendment would be accepted, he seconded the clause.
  New clause—
  "All death or succession duties payable in respect of land shall be payable, wholly or in part, in land which shall be valued at the assessment at which it was assessed for the purposes of such duties before any deductions whatsoever were made from such assessment." —(Mr. Courthope.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the subject of this clause was last brought forward in 1894, when it seemed to have been lightly brushed aside by the late Sir William Harcourt, and he did not recollect its having again appeared since. It was quite impossible for him to accept the clause in any shape or form. It was absolutely without precedent, so far as he was aware, in the whole of our legislation, that a man should pay his taxes in kind. And not only that, but the clause now proposed was compulsory in its terms. It said that the duties "shall" be payable in land; it was an absolutely mandatory clause; it did not even give the wretched executor a chance of paying in money. They were not in the habit of receiving taxes in

  587
  kind, either in land or in any other form. As the proposal would work out, the tax-payers could go about their estates, and pick out a little bit of land here, or a bit there, to be handed over to whom? He did not know. Who was it to be vested in, the Crown, the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They were entirely in the dark. It was to be handed over to some person who represented the State, and a nice job that person would have. He would have cast upon his hands isolated bits of land, of which he would have to make the best he could in the interests of the country. It was really not a proposition on which he ought to detain the House, but he could assure them that every payment of death duties on land would be equitable, fair, and easy. He could not possibly accept the clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was the last person to deny that the clause could not be accepted in this particular form, but they were only on the Second Reading of it, and not on the details, and the right hon. Gentleman had referred rather more to the general principle, than to the details of his hon. friend's proposal. He was not going into the general question. The ease for a clause of this kind had strengthened since 1894. There had been legislation in favour of increasing the number of small holdings, schemes for the compulsory acquisition of land, and the old views had been widely departed from. According to the modern ideas held by many Members, the value of land was perpetually to increase under the force of social laws, and the benefits that thereby accrued to the landowner should belong to the community generally. Land, unlike any other property, was peculiarly susceptible to State ownership, according to the opinion of many of the Government supporters, and he could not understand why the Government should not seize the opportunity for increasing State ownership of land. He quite agreed it might be inexpedient to compel a Government to take the tax in this form, and would recommend the leaving open of a voluntary arrangement. Peculiar difficulties stood in the way of those who had to pay death duties, and he did not know how the Inland Revenue would deal with property which had been
  588
  reduced in value by various legislative projects, but surely it would be well to allow this silent voluntary method of transfer agreeable to owners. Those were some of the grounds which did not exist to the same degree when this subject was discussed in 1894, and he ventured to say that they constituted a real reason why the clause should be read a second time, so that the details of it might be dealt with later. He did not associate himself with the particular terms of the clause, but if it was pressed to a division he should certainly support it on the distinct grounds not that this special proposal was one which the House ought to accept, but because it was one which deserved a Second Reading, taking into account all the new conditions which, according to the majority now ruling, ought to govern the relations between this House and landed property.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdrew a distinction between the words in the clause "shall be payable" and a mandatory declaration "shall be paid."
  *MR. YOUNGER, in supporting the Amendment, said it gained force in view of what was going on in the Scottish Grand Committee. It was clear to all that great difficulties would in the future confront the landowner, who had to sell land for the purpose of paying duty in many cases. He would have to accept a diminished price, and in many cases would have difficulty in attracting any price at all. Moreover, he could not sell his feu duties as the danger and risk of a future taxation of feu duties rendered that difficulty greater. It was true that the Prime Minister had said that it was no part of the policy of the Government to rate feu duties for local purposes, but he had never said that ho did not propose to tax them for Imperial purposes.
  MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that the difficulty in the way of carrying out schemes for creating small holdings or providing houses was that of borrowing money for the purpose, and the acceptance of this proposal or some modification of it might prove most useful to an embarrassed Exchequer. The fundamental difficulty was that of getting anybody to lend money on such terms

  589
  as would enable small holdings to be established at a profit. He thought if the Government could see their way to accept this emendation of their proposal they would do a great deal to relieve that difficulty. When a landowner had to borrow money on his estate to pay the death duties he came into the money market and had to compete against the Government. Consequently, by accepting this proposal the Government would be killing two birds with one stone.
  MR. PARKERsaid that -much as they desired to obtain land the Labour Members felt they had no wish to have small patches hero and there in estates all over the country. He did not pretend to discuss the

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Pee

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Roberts-.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell. Arthur

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gretton. John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Banne, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Beckett. Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir JohnH.

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

  Cavendish,Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

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

  Wortley, Rt, Hon. C.B.Stuart

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cecil, Lord R, (Marylebone, E.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Collings,Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingham

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLER FOR THE AYES—

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Mr. Courthope and Sir

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Frederick Banbury.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cameron, Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romford

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Allen, Ovules P. (Stroud)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Asquith,Rt.HonHerbert Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bright. J. A.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barlow,Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cory, Clifford John

  Bell, Richard

  Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buxton,Rt.Hon.SydneyCharles

  Cox, Harold

  difficulties of those who succeeded to big estates, but whatever those difficulties might be it was ridiculous to suggest that the Chancellor should take the duties in kind. Whether it was seriously meant he did not know. Probably it was not. They might as well propose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should on the death of a whisky distiller go to the distillery and take the duties out in whisky. Certainly hon. Members below the gangway would not vote for this clause.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes. (55: Noes, 275. (Division List No. 284.)

  Craig,Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Crombie, John William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Crooks, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robinson, S.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lamb. EdmundG.(Leominster)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rose, Charles Day

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lloyd-George Rt. Hon. David

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lough, Thomas

  Seddon, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Snowden, P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kenda')

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Crae, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Summerbell, T.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Glover, Thomas

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

  Marnham. F. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

  Meagher, Michael

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Walters, John Tudor

  Halpin, J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mond, A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harmsworth. Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harwood, George

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitbread, Howard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Myer, Horatio

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hazel, D. A. E.

  Napier, T. B.

  White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs Leek)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hogan, Michael

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

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

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

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

  Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hudson, Walter

  Priestley,W.E. B. (Bradford,E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Radford, G. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Young, Samuel

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Jones, Leif (Appreby)

  Richardson, A.

  Pease.

  MR. ASQUITHmoved an addition to Clause 8 in order to carry out a promise which he gave when the Bill was in Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 28, at the end, to insert the words" (3) Section eleven of The Finance Act, 1899 (which relates to policies of insurance in respect of injury to workmen), shall be read as if two pounds were substituted for one pound as the amount of the annual premium therein mentioned.—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, to leave out Clause 9."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," Question put, and negatived.
  The following Amendments were proposed by Mr. Asquith and agreed to—
  "In page 3, line 39, to leave out the word 'passing,' and to insert the word 'commencement.' "
  "In page 4. line 18, after the word 'the,' to insert the word; loan.' "
  "In page 4, line 24, after the word 'existing,' to insert the word 'loan.' "
  "In page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that if as respects any such deduction the person by whom the duty is payable requires the Commissioners, on the first delivery of his account, to calculate the deduction as if this section had not passed, the deduction shall be so calculated.' "
  "In page 8, line 33, after the word 'claim,' to insert the words 'for relief under this section.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  MR. ASQUITHmoved the insertion of words in Clause 20 for the purpose of giving effect to promises made in Committee with respect to the relief to be granted to persons in receipt of pensions. The joint effect of the Amendments was to include "compensation for loss of office" in the expression "earned income," and to bring in under the same expression pensions enjoyed by widows and children.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In Clause 20, page 9, line 11, at beginning, to insert the words 'any income arising in respect of.' "—(Mr. Asquith)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. MORTONsaid that as he understood the question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that all pensions, whether any contribution was made towards them by annual deduction or not, should be considered as earned incomes. That promise ho had carried out by the proposed Amendments, and he (Mr. Morton) desired to thank him for the way in which he had met them.
  *MR. SMEATONsaid he was afraid the clause as now amended by the right hon. Gentleman did not cover the case of a pension to a family towards which a deceased husband or parent had contributed. He had an Amendment in manuscript, to insert after the second word "profit" the following: "Where the individual or the—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait until he reaches that point of the Amendments to be proposed and then raise his Amendment.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that he also had an Amendment which arose on that same question, viz., the case where a person had been in the employment, say, of a railway company and got from that company a pension towards which he himself had contributed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will wait till that Amendment is reached he will then have an opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,on a point of order, asked if it would not be more convenient for the House to take something like a general discussion of the subsection as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to amend it. It was very difficult to follow the exact effect of the insertion of each of these Amendments as they went along, and might very easily be that they would pass the point at which the amending words ought to be introduced.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought it was better to wait until they reached a further stage of the Amendments.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire and the hon. Gentleman opposite had been carefully borne in mind, and the words were drawn up in such a way, he was advised, as particularly to cover that case.
  *MR. SMEATONasked if he was now in order in speaking with regard to his Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I still recommend the hon. Member to wait. I will call upon him when we reach the point in the Bill where his Amendment comes in.
  The following Amendments were also agreed to:—
  "In page 9, line 12, to leave out the word 'including,' and to insert the words 'or in respect of.' "
  "In page 9, line 13, after the word 'superannuation,' to insert the words 'or other.' "
  "In page 9, line 13, to leave out the word 'or.' "
  "In page 9, line 13, after the word 'pay,' to insert the words 'or compensation for loss of office, given.' "
  "In page 9, line 14, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'the.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 14, after the word 'services,' to insert the words 'of the individual or the husband or parent of the individual.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR SEYMOUR KINGthought that the right hon. Gentleman had hardly carried out the whole of the promise he understood him to have made and which was contained, he thought, in the Motion of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. He said he would extend his generosity to the widows and children of pensioners, as he understood, either of the Army or Civil Service. But the Amendment now proposed did not really carry that promise out in any way whatever. He would be very glad to be told he was wrong. He thought that for nearly every pension enjoyed by a widow or a child of a member of the services, either military or civil,
  596
  that member had paid during the whole period of his service or had had to contribute to a specific fund. It was from that source that the pension was derived, and he was afraid the income-tax authorities if they followed the strict sense of the words of the Amendment would find in some cases that it was not in connection with services but in connection with savings. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman corrected him, but he was most anxious to see that the pensions of the widows and children of military officers and civilians in the employ of India should be treated as earned income.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid they were not dealing merely with India, but with all sorts of pensions for all kinds of services, to the State, to the railways, or anything else; all classes were to be put exactly on the same footing. There was no pension of any sort which was not in respect of services. A pension was given in respect of services, not in respect of a man's contribution, although that might be in some measure the amount of his pension. These Amendments were for the purpose of giving the widest possible fulfilment of the pledge he gave in Committee on the Bill.
  *SIR J. JARDINE, speaking as a former secretary a d manager of the Bombay Civil Service, Fund, said that on appointment to the Indian Civil Service an officer was required to enter into a covenant that he would subscribe to a superannuation fund for officers and a pension fund for widows and children, and he did both from the moment he arrived at Bombay until he retired from that service, and while a bachelor and afterwards. When he married he had to ray as increased subscription to provide a pension for his widow, if he ever had one, and as soon as any children were born a separate subscription had to be paid for them, and if in the interval he died, what he had paid in lapsed into the fund and did not go to the benefit of his heirs. It might possibly be contended that the pension he was providing in that way for widows and children originated in the covenant and thus was separate from that which was awarded at the end of his service for his

  597
  own services and to keep him going after he had retired. He thought those facts were not generally known—the fact of the lapsing of the payments which were made into the general funds so that his heirs got no value for them if he died, the fact, that if he was a bachelor all his life what he had paid towards that contingent potential liability, namely a widow, also lapsed, and that if his children died the same thing happened to what he had I paid for them.
  *MR. SM EATONsaid there had been a doubt expressed as to whether the clause as amended covered the case of a contribution by the deceased pensioner towards a pension for his widow and family.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will only have a little patience, I will call upon him when we reach the point where his Amendment comes in.
  The following Amendments were also agreed to—
  "In page 9, line 14, to leave out the word 'that,' and to insert the word 'any.' "
  "In page 9, line 14, after the word 'employment,' to insert the words 'of profit.' "
  "In page 9, line 16, to leave out the word 'such.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  *MR. SMEATONsaid he apologised for hiss anxiety about this clause, but this was the last and only opportunity of clearing up a doubtful matter, and he hoped the House would grant him their indulgence. The only reason he had for proposing those extra words was because of a doubt n it only felt by lay men, but even by lawyers as to whether this new clause covered the case of a contribution of a deceased pensioner towards the allowance to his widow and family. If the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that he would instruct the Inland Revenue Office that such was the proper construction of the clause, he would be quite prepared to withdraw his Amendment. His suggested Amendment was "to add, after the second word 'profit,' the words 'whether the individual, or the husband or parent of the individual, shall have contributed to such pension,
  598
  superannuation allowance, or deferred pay or not.' "The only reason he had in putting forward the Amendment was to make perfectly clear that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was expressed in terms about which no possible doubt or dispute could arise.
  *MR. ASQUITHconsidered the Amendment was unnecessary. In conjunction with the Revenue officers he had chosen form of words which he thought completely covered the case made by the hon. Member who had just spoken.
  MR. RAWLINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not see his way to make absolutely clear what was his expressed intention. He had the greatest faith, in his own opinion and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to adopt one of the Amendments on the Paper to make the mutter clear. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
  *MR. ASQUITHsaid that of course, if the hon. Gentleman entertained any doubt as to the construction of the clause as he proposed to amend it, he would accept the words suggested. If he thought there was a shadow of doubt upon the question he would do so, especially as this was the last occasion on which they could effectively amend the framework of the Bill.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose to protest against the tone adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards his hon. friend whose suggestion he had pooh-poohed and afterwards accepted at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Those who were interested in the freedom of debate were not prepared to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set himself up as an infallible pope in these matters.
  MR. RAWLINSONthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his great courtesy and said, although he agreed with him in his construction of the sentence, he thought it might he construed by the Courts in a different way. He did not like to take the risk of letting the clause go through as it stood, and although

  599
  he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view he thought if he could see his way to adopt the Amendment to the Amendment it would do no harm and make things clearer.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that after the speech to which they had just listened he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. SMEATONexpressed his thanks for the great courtesy which the right hon. Gentleman had shown him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FELLmoved to add as a new subsection the following words "(d) Any annuity which has been purchased out of savings from income derived from the exercise of any trade, profession, or vocation." He thought that annuities purchased out of earned income should be treated favourably in the manner he suggested. It was more difficult for a man himself to save money out of his income and invest it than it was for a man in a situation where a certain portion of his income was deducted perforce by his employer and invested for him. Therefore he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best for persons possessed of such annuities in order that he might safeguard savings of this kind. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would include them in the same category as pensions for long and faithful service and deal with them as earned incomes. He begged to move.
  SIR F. BANBURY,in seconding, said a similar Amendment was moved in the Committee stage, when he pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless he accepted some such Amendment as this he would inflict a great hardship on a certain class. He did not blame the House for safeguarding pensions received for civil, military, naval, or other services. He thought all pensions should be safeguarded, and that if a man was in receipt of an income of under £2,000 a year he was entitled to the benefits of the; clause. But if those persons were entitled to these benefits professional men and those engaged in trade or commerce were doubly entitled. The Indian civil servant in receipt of £1,500 or £2,000
  600
  a year knew that so long as he did his work he would receive his income; he need not put by anything because the State was putting it by for him. On the other hand, the struggling barrister, the doctor, or other professional man had perhaps a small capital embarked in a profession in which there was enormous competition. He might make £600 one year, and the next, owing to illness or some other circumstance over which he had no control, he might earn only £300 or £400 or he mid t make no profit at all. If by great assiduity and hard work he at last succeeded in making a small competence, and out of that competence he-put something by for old age, he had to exercise a great amount of self-denial. Everybody regarded a man who exercised such self-denial, and out of the money he had earned put by something as a provision against bad times and old age, as a man who did a great service to the State. What sort of a reward for that man was it if, after the exercise of that self-denial and thrift, having purchased an annuity of £ 1,000 a year, he had to pay 1s. in the £ income-tax, whilst the civil servant who had had a much easier time and had not to exercise that quality of self-denial was at once met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and allowed this deduction? If the right hon. Gentleman had said that such men as these were to be exempt and that the civil servants were not he would have thought it hard, but that on the whole the right hon. Gentleman had done the right thing; but as it was. unless the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment, he had done the wrong thing. He had favoured a class already favoured to the exclusion of a class equally deserving. He however, recognised the fact that the right hon. Gentleman desired to do what was fair and so far as possible to put everybody on an equal footing. But he desired to point out that it would be very difficult to justify the selection for this benefit of a class which had had by far the easier time. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 24, at the end, to insert the words '(d) any annuity which has been purchased out of savings from income derived from the exercise of any trade, profession, or vocation.' "—(Mr. Fell.)

  601
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. ASQUITHreminded the House that this matter was fully discussed in Committee, and he declined, for the reasons he gave then, to accept the Amendment. An annuity was a form of investment, and who was to tell from what source any particular investment had been derived? He admitted that pensions were an exception or an excrescence upon the scheme, but he found it impossible to make an exception in favour of annuities, which were only one form of investment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he failed to see the distinction in point of principle or equity between pensions and annuities, though he quite understood the administrative difficulties. The Chancellor, having admitted pensions, had no longer a logical principle to stand upon, the governing consideration being, not the equity or inequity of the claim, but the convenience or inconvenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LEITH BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Read a second time.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONmoved, "That this Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons." He said he did not desire to burden the House with the details and merits of this question, which was whether the 9th Section of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act was to be operative. The House was conversant with private Bill procedure, and knew that either party had the right of going before a second Committee for a hearing. But under the Scottish procedure they had no right to a second hearing except by leave of the House. What took place in this case was that after the Bill was submitted
602
to the Commissioners, four in number, drawn from a panel under the terms of Section 4 of the Act, and inclusive of Members of both Houses, a local inquiry was held in Edinburgh last April, and counsel and witnesses were heard for [a period extending over three days. As to the decision of the preamble of the Bill the four Commissioners were unanimous on all points except one. and on that point they were equally divided. On that point the petitioners asked that the Confirmation Bill should be remitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses as provided by the Act. The Procedure Act provided that the chairman should have a casting vote in the case of an equal division of opinion. He did not suggest that the chairman in this case did anything but what was right; he did not suggest that there was any partisanship or partisan spirit manifested in this decision; it could not be so because in all cases except this one the Commissioners were unanimous. But it was a very serious matter that one man's vote should alter the whole of a procedure which was very nearly a century old. The 9th Section of the Act would appear to him to be a dead letter unless it applied to a case of this kind. In an ordinary private Bill the parties had the right to a rehearing, and surely a Scottish private Bill should not be deprived of the right which the parties to all other Private Bills possessed whether for or against. It did not seem to him to be doing any great favour to Scotland to give it a special Act for its procedure on Private Bills if this were the case. A legal decision in any Court of law, or indeed in most commercial matters, where there was an equality of votes, was that the status quo ante obtained. It was so in a Court of law, and it was so in any case where there was a serious matter such as this involved. What they had to do in this instance was to show that there was a prima facie case for the reconsideration of the matter. The petition set forth a very serious case for substantial inquiry. The Dock Commission for very nearly a hundred years had been under an Act of Parliament which freed them from assessments to certain rates. They did their own policing; they had about two and a half miles of roads outside of the docks

603
which they maintained, paying men to do the work, for which a rate would have had to be made. The Dock Commission were free from the rate not out of charity but as a quid pro quo under a certain Act of Parliament. Effort after effort had been made to get rid of that position, and to bring them subject to the rate, but effort after effort had failed. They were told that railway companies were subject to the same rates, but railways belonged to private owners and were run for profit. This dock company had no shareholders to whom it paid dividend; it was a public body which carried on a public-work for the public benefit; it was outside the ranks of private companies earning and paying dividend to shareholders. They were told that other docks had to pay these rates, and no doubt they had, but other dock companies had not to pay what this Dock Commission had to pay. They had to pay the cost of policing, lighting, cleansing and maintaining roadways, together with about two miles and a half of roadways outside of the dock, out of dock revenues. The annual cost was about £11,500. The Dock Commission had actually half as many policemen as the whole of Leith itself; it had forty odd police, while the rest of Leith had ninety odd police. The dock revenue also paid the poor and school rates, and a number of minor rates, amounting with the public health rate to £9,000, with, in addition, the property and income-tax, say £3.000; that was to say, they subscribed £23,600 for local purposes. Further than that, their revenues, the estimates of which were grossly exaggerated, were burdened with a capital debt of £247,000, representing the redemption price of other public burdens placed on the dock revenues. These burdens were annuities of £8,000 a year for public purposes, while the yearly service for the redemption of the debt was £11,000 a year. Originally this dock did not belong to Leith at all; it belonged to Edinburgh; Leith had nothing to do with it; Leith never subscribed a penny piece to put the dock there; it had never subscribed a shilling for any policing or cleansing that went on in the place. What was the position? It had got an indebtedness for building other docks of £800,000. How was that money raised? How could they raise any money of that kind
604
unless they satisfied the investor that he had a large margin to come upon as security for his so lending? This £800,000, with which were built the last docks, was borrowed on the faith of the Act of Parliament which gave these Dock Commissioners immunity from this rate. It would be a breach of faith that this additional taxation should be put upon them for work which they did themselves. He said, without going into the merits of the case, that the mere fact of there having been a division of opinion and a vote of two and two should at least form a ground for further consideration before a Joint Committee, as he moved. Every burden that they placed on the Dock Commissioners would be just so much off their power to be of practical use. Let the. House remember that there was great competition with foreign docks, and unless the English and the Scottish docks could keep themselves up to the mark by giving rebates, which were so considerably reducing the incomes, unless they could keep up every improvement and every facility, all of which were supplied with borrowed money, their dock business would go down. Every shilling which these Commissioners made was not put into their own pockets, but was used for developing the docks and in helping to draw the commerce of the world to Leith. He said advisedly that it was foolish for the town of Leith and for the corporation of Leith to try and harrass the Dock Commissioners, and to try to put additional burdens upon them. If the dock business were to go down and were to be lost, where would Leith be? It would become a wilderness. Everything possible ought to be done to increase the trade of the port instead of injuring and harassing it. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
*MR. W. R. REAseconded the Motion. He did so in the first place on the grounds presented to the Committee; which sat in Edinburgh, and secondly, on the general principle which underlay their decision. This proposal was to some extent the result of a quarrel between one municipality and the successors of another municipality. These docks were originally built by the city of Edinburgh, and the present Dock

605
Commissioners were not a profit-making company but the lineal successors of the Edinburgh Council, who were responsible for the making of these docks in the first instance. These Commissioners succeeded to the functions of the town council in that they lighted, cleansed, and maintained the roadways in the dock estate. Under this Bill it was proposed that not only should the dock authority maintain these services which were usually maintained by the municipality, but they were also to pay the ordinary rates to which the ratepayers in another category altogether were subjected. That was prima facie an unfair position in which to put this particular authority. This authority had been put to some exceptional charges, amounting to about £8,000 annually, and any such increase in the burdens placed upon the dock must inevitably fall upon the traders and upon the trade of the country in general. After all, Leith owed its prosperity to these docks, and it was a mere suburb of Edinburgh. Consequently there would be a considerable risk if the dues had to be raised to such an extent that shipowners would be obliged to transfer their trade to some other port. The question had also a national bearing. At the present time they heard a good deal about foreign competition. The shipping trade was carried on under some great disabilities on account of foreign competition. When foreign ports were being fostered and supported by foreign nations, and every care taken that undue burdens should not be placed upon shipping, the House should pause before authorising a scheme which would upset a situation which had existed for over seventy years. Not only so, but the scheme would establish a precedent which might be followed by other local authorities having docks within their area, and that might very seriously affect the shipping trade of the United Kingdom at a time when it needed fair play. He associated himself with the desire which had been expressed to effect whatever reduction was possible in the cost of Private Bill legislation, but thought the House should consider very carefully before, under the Private Bill procedure of Scotland, it allowed a decision which had been in force for seventy years to be upset in this
606
manner. That decision had not been arrived at without grave consideration. The local authorities of Leith had made, on four occasions, efforts to upset the arrangement which had been in force since 1838, and in every instance they had been defeated. Under this peculiar procedure a Joint Committee representing the two Houses sat in Edinburgh to hear evidence and a decision was arrived at, not unanimously, but by the casting vote—which was the second vote —of the Chairman of that Committee. He had every confidence in the Joint Committee of both Houses, but there were questions of principle which he submitted should not be settled by Committees of either House of Parliament sitting at a distance from London, and one of those questions was that a principle which had been in existence for seventy years consistently ought not to be upset by the casting vote of the Chairman. He asked the House to reconsider the matter. If the subject had been heard before a Court of law and there had been such a division of opinion as occurred before the Committee which investigated this question in Edinburgh, the Court would have decided in favour of maintaining the status quo. They ought to consider the matter very carefully before they decided to allow a divided Committee to upset a decision which had been in force for seventy years. It was a very technical question and there was a vast amount of evidence, but, fortunately, under the procedure of these Private Bills in Scotland there was a method by which such difficulties as had arisen in regard to this measure could be remedied. Under the Scottish Private Bill procedure, if objection were taken to the Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, or should there be a petition against it, then it was open to the House to refer the whole matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which might again hear the evidence and decide the matter upon its merits in such a manner that the authority which he represented would feel that, although they might not get all they desired, they had received a fair hearing and they could not say that the matter had been settled over their heads. It was on those grounds, without asking hon. Members to prejudge the case, that he invited the House to justify the clause

607
in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, which enabled them to refer the matter to a Standing Committee of both Houses by supporting this Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.' "—(Mr. J. M, Henderson.)
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he must ask the House to reject this proposal. If, as had been argued by the hon. Member who had just sat down, this question ought to be decided upon general principles surely the House ought to pass the Second Reading and not refer the Bill to a Committee at all. Questions of general principle could not possibly enter into the question of the recommittal of this measure. The allowance of half-rates was a compromise, because the burgh of Leith thought the authority ought to pay full rates. With regard to the Private Bill Procedure for Scotland most hon. Members representing Scotland would rather strengthen that system than weaken it. He contended that no case had been made out for a rehearing before a Committee. The question of the omnibus came up because one of the parties in the case had been refused a locus standi, and a rehearing was granted. But the decision was reaffirmed and no change was made. The only, result was that it involved considerable additional cost, and that was the real objection to the rehearing of cases. If there were many re-hearings they would knock the whole of the Private Bill procedure system on the head. It would make the new system of procedure far more costly than the old. The Committee was composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament. It had a chairman who was experienced in business and in local affairs, and the case had a careful hearing. The Committee sat for five days, and its decisions were unanimous, save on the one point of the half of the burgh rates. The liability for half of the burgh rates was carried by the Chairman's casting vote. The point now raised was that, the Chairman having given a casting vote, the decision was practically valueless. But how could
608
they get on without the casting vote? It was necessary to business. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire contended that the casting vote, if it was used at all, should be used to maintain the status quo. He could give an excellent example of how that system worked. There was a parish near which he lived in Scotland where that procedure was adopted, and the consequence was that no business was done in the parish for more than a year. He had to go on the council to remedy that state of matters, and the proceedings had been since gone about by his casting vote, and he did not see how business was to be conducted in any other way. If Parliament had intended that it should be otherwise conducted, there would have been five Commissioners instead of four. Where there were only four Commissioners, the constitution of the Committee necessarily led to the use of the casting vote. He looked upon what was now being done as obstruction. He had stated the main point which was being urged against the Bill, and a more frivolous pretext for rehearing he could hardly conceive. The second point was the claim of immunity which he thought was hardly more worthy of attention. No doubt at one time the law was unsettled in regard to the liability for rates of docks, but that was settled by the Mersey Docks case, and also in a local case affecting Leith. The exemption of Leith from the assessment was given by reason of the debt on the docks, which in 1860 amounted to £250,000. The Government took £50,000 in settlement of that debt, and the Scottish Courts decided, and the decision was upheld by the House of Lords, that, the debt being discharged, the docks were liable to assessment. There remained the local exemption clause on which, and not on general principles, the exemption was continued. The matter afterwards came up in several ways, and ultimately a clause was inserted in the Burgh Police Act of 1892 which provided that such exemption should continue only until repealed by Provisional Order. That was an invitation by Parliament to treat each case on its own local merits. That was what had been done in the case of Leith, and but for some technical difficulties for which

609
the Burgh of Leith was not responsible the matter would have been settled sooner. The House had heard about ports in Scotland and England which were competing with foreign ports, but there were other ports in the Firth of Forth which were competing with Leith, and which were not immune from asessment. There were Boness and Grangemouth which competed with Leith. At Kirkcaldy a harbour was being built at considerable expense. He thought these ports should be allowed to conduct their trade without Leith harbour and docks being given the undue preference they now enjoyed in being able to escape a fair share of local taxation. Leith was the cheapest port, and it already sufficiently drew trade away from the other ports. Leith docks were a most prosperous and wealthy concern. Long might they be so. They were bound to become more prosperous with the great development of the Lothian collieries alone. This great institution was valued at about £2,250,000, and its debt was only £800,000. Its net revenue, after paying interest and sinking fund, was something like £30,000 a year. The ratepayers of Leith were in an unusual degree people of small means, because the wealthier people who carried on business in the burgh mostly lived out of the burgh. The Docks Commissioners pleaded that they did the lighting and policing in their docks, but they did no more than any of the ratepayers would have to do in providing policing and lighting for their own places of business. Then in regard to the streets, the town authorities are quite ready to take them over, and they would have to do so if they were asked. When they left the streets which were maintained by the Commissioners of the Docks and came to those which were maintained by the burgh ratepayers they found that the traffic was something like 500,000 tons a year to Edinburgh. That traffic was conducted by heavy lorries which did enormous damage to the streets, and that fact constituted a good case why the Commissioners of the Docks should contribute their full quota to the rates like the other ratepayers. His surprise was that the Burgh of Leith did not insist on more than was now asked, and especially the payment of poor rates.
610
The burgh must be astonished at its own moderation and at the consideration it had shown for the great shipowners of Scotland, England, Ireland, and elsewhere, who now enjoyed the use of Leith docks without contributing their quota to the public revenue of the burgh. Leith was asking to receive a very moderate and a very tardy measure of justice. It was supported in its contentions by Convention of Royal Burghs, and by other ports in Scotland, and he confidently asked the House to uphold the decision which had been arrived at by the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire. He asked this as a supporter of the principle of local inquiry. No case whatever had been advanced for rehearing. The case had had a perfectly fair hearing and no fresh matter had been brought forward to justify a rehearing.
MR. C. E. PRICEsaid that for many reasons he would have preferred that this matter had not been brought before the House. The Leith Docks Commissioners were known to himself; they were men of high standing, and their association with the management of the docks had been entirely to the satisfaction of those concerned. But inasmuch as a great principle was involved in the question now before the House he thought it was his duty to support the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs. The question at issue was whether any trading body should exist in any town or burgh and have separate or special treatment by way of exemption from rates. He held that no trading body, whether they made profits for themselves or others, should exist and have special and separate treatment. He wished to refer to the composition of the Committee. If hon. Members would look at the document supplied by the Leith Dock Commissioners, they would see that there were two Members of the House of Lords and two Members of the House of Commons. He could not think that that Committee was what might be termed a democratic body when they remembered that at the present time there was a great difference of opinion in the Liberal Party as to the rights of trading communities. He

611
was sure that if that Committee had reflected the relative position of the Parties in that House it would have come to a decision which it would not have been necessary to wish to revise. The second point was that if they had four Members in a Committee he did not see how it was possible for that Committee to carry on its business without using the casting vote of the chairman. It was quite conceivable to have two on each side. With regard to the value of the casting vote of the chairman, he was quite sure no Member of that House was better qualified to preside on that Committee than the hon. Member for Inverness Burghs, if only for the simple fact that he had had an excellent business training. He was one of the most popular provosts that ever presided over Perth, and he was admirably qualified to use that casting vote. The hon. Member who seconded the referring of this matter to another Committee had questioned the value of decisions come to so far from this House, But as London happened to be a good way from Scotland, he did not see how they could hold any inquiries in Scotland without a decision being come to from a long way off.
MR. W. R. REAsaid he had no intention of impugning the value of decisions come to in Edinburgh, but there were certain occasions where a decision was come to by the narrowest possible majority, and in such cases he thought it was desirable to exercise these powers which they were entitled under the Act to exercise and to revise the decisions. He had no intention of casting any reflection on the value of inquiries held in Scotland.
MR. C. E. PRICEsaid that in order to meet the objection of the hon. Member the Committee should have been composed of five and not four members, but the Committee was appointed under the rules of the House, and the objection should have been taken earlier. As it was, it was scarcely possible to submit any question to any body of four members where they would have three giving their votes one way. Another point was that if they were lightly to set aside the decision of local committees and local
612
inquiries, what value were they to derive from the Committee which it took Scotland so many years to get established at all? If they were going to set aside the decision of the Committee without some new facts being brought forward, and no new facts had been brought forward, simply because certain Members objected to that decision, that inquiry became of no benefit to Scotland. Another aspect of the question was that if they referred it to another Committee they at once increased enormously the expenses which had been associated with the inquiry, and therefore he trusted that the House would not listen to the arguments of the mover and seconder of the Motion. It seemed to him simply absurd that a trading body should have the right of carting their goods from Leith Docks through their streets up to Edinburgh and yet bear no share of the expense of the upkeep of those streets. It was not possible for them in Edinburgh to get access to Leith Burghs without covering the streets of Leith, and accordingly to exempt this Dock Commission from rating was to his mind not dealing equitably and fairly with those concerned.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid it was a part of the Scottish procedure that there should be an appeal to that House, an appeal, of course, as the last speaker said, which must not be lightly exercised. He was sure that no one representing an English constituency would desire that that appeal should be lightly exercised, but there must be cases occasionally in which it was tight to challenge the decision of a Private Bill Committee in Scotland, and the question before the House was really whether this was or was not such a case. This matter of the Leith Docks and the Leith Burghs, as he understood it, was a very old story; it was not a new story at all. It had been going on for about forty years. The exemptions which the Dock Commissioners of Leith were entitled to had been in operation for something like a century, and during the last forty years, according to the statement of the advocate who represented the Leith Burghs before the Committee, no less than four attempts, if not five, had already been

613
made by approach to Parliament to get rid of those exemptions by the burgh of Leith. He had in his hands a summary of those attempts. The advocate for the Dock Commissioners stated, rightly or wrongly—he was formerly a Member of that House and held an official position there, so that he might be assumed to Know what he was speaking about—that Parliament told the Leith Burghs in 1860 and in 1868 that they should not get rid of these exemptions, that in 1875 this whole matter was discussed and thrashed out before a Committee of that House, and that then these exemptions were still maintained, and that again in 1892 and in 1903 attempts were made to get rid of these exemptions by the Leith Burghs which attempts were equally unsuccessful. Therefore, what the House had to consider was that this was an old dispute that had gone on for forty years and on which Parliament had four or five times already indicated its mind in favour, not of the burgh of Leith, but of the Dock Commissioners. Therefore, on the top of all those attempts of Leith to get rid of these exemptions, they had this inquiry by a Private Bill Committee, which after an exhaustive inquiry was equally divided; so that after a prolonged dispute evidently upon a matter which, to put it no higher, Parliament was extremely doubtful about, they had the additional capital debt which could not be estimated at less than £100,000 put upon those Dock Commissioners and the Dock Estate at Leith by the casting vote of the chairman of that Committee. He was perfectly satisfied, and he felt sure every Member was satisfied, that that casting vote was given after the most careful deliberation and in the best exercise; of his judgment, but his hon. friend, although a Scotsman, was not infallible, and as Dr. Johnson, who was notoriously a friend of Scotsmen., once said, a fallible being would fail somewhere, and what they had to consider was whether, in view of the history of this long dispute and its culmination in the casting vote of the chairman, there was not a fair prima facie case for a rehearing of the whole dispute upon its merits. He wished to address the House very briefly upon the question of policy which was involved by the threatened
614
action of the burgh of Leith. His hon. friend the Member for Leith Burghs had referred to the case of the Mersey Docks, and he did not interrupt him with any idea of questioning the decision which he was quoting or of in any way insinuating that dock property like any other property was not liable to rating; but he did want to bring before the House what was the real position of the Mersey Dock Estate, because he thought it threw a great deal of light upon the policy which ought to be pursued by boroughs that desired to maintain their position in the teeth of the competition which all ports in this country had to-day to face. The position in Liverpool was this. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board carried all the town sewers across the dock estate to their point of discharge in the river; they had paid the capital cost of constructing those sewers, and they maintained them. The Board also cleansed, scavenged, lighted, and watched the dock estate at their own cost. So far the case was almost parallel to that of Leith, the same obligations and the same duties were performed by the dock estate in Liverpool as were per-formed in Leith by the Dock Commissioners. By Section 224 of the Act of 1846—sixty years ago—the Board's estate, except warehouses, was exempt from sanitary rates, and that exemption had been recognised by subsequent Corporation Acts. The Board did not pay the sanitary rates, the money from which was used for the purposes of cleansing and lighting the city, and meeting the city's obligation for raising money for sewerage. As a return for that exemption the Board had constructed at their own cost the sewers under their own estate to carry off the town's sewage, and they cleansed, scavenged, and lighted the dock estate at their own expense. As regarded the policing, the same arrangement held in Liverpool as in Leith. The corporation or the borough lent police for the purpose of policing the dock estate, and the Dock Commissioners in both cases paid a charge for the hire of those police officers. His hon. friend had cited the case which made the dock estate on the Mersey liable for poor rates, but he wished to make it quite clear to the House that the position of the docks in

615
Liverpool was exactly parallel to that in Leith which this Provisional Order desired to upset. It was perfectly natural that the burgh of Leith should desire to get all the relief from rates that it could, and to equalise the burdens upon the ratepayers by calling in fresh sources of revenue. But was that a wise or far-seeing policy for a town or borough to adopt which was dependent upon a dock estate which had to meet the competition of foreign ports? In Liverpool the desirability of the freedom of the docks as far as possible from rates was recognised as a necessity although it was a burden, but they recognised in Liverpool, which he might claim to be one of the most prosperous ports of the United Kingdom, that it was desirable that the dock companies and the municipality should work hand in hand and that the rates upon the docks should be kept to the lowest possible level. One of the special circumstances which had brought this about had been the very formidable competition, not of tariffs, but of State-aided railways in connection with ports on the Continent, which give through rates with which the railways of this country, without extensive expenditure, could not possibly compete. Surely that was an argument for cutting down the expenses at our ports, not at once and directly, but by degrees, and he thought our authorities might be usefully employed in discussing—not so much in subsidising this or that particular trade or industry—whether they could not make the charges at the ports something approximating to the charges which had to be paid abroad. Although this Bill only concerned the Leith Burghs and only had a local action, he felt that there was a fair case not only on the merits of this particular Bill but on the policy of it for supporting the Amendment moved by his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen.
MR. GULLANDsaid that after the somewhat Imperial outlook of the last speaker he would like to discuss this question from the local and Scottish point of view. There seemed to him no reason why this matter should be brought up again here because the question was thoroughly heard and dealt with in Edinburgh. The best
616
counsel in Scotland, with the exception, per haps of a few Members of this House, were employed although probably they did not receive such a high fee as the Parliamentary Bar would receive. But altogether the case was gone into so thoroughly that there was no new point which could be brought up. When they saw that Scotland had achieved the amount of self-government which had been conferred upon her under the Act, Scottish Members would be unwise if they countenanced any attempt to go behind the Private Bill Procedure which had been set up. If every litigant who was unsuccessful in Scotland was to appeal to the House they would reduce the whole of that procedure to a farce. If there was any reason, or any special reason for it, perhaps such a proceeding might be tolerated but he had heard nothing stated that night which would justify it. He was a ratepayer in regard to the Leith Docks and therefore his interest was all the other way in this instance. But he did not think that it was fair that a Dock Commission should avoid paying rates, because Edinburgh trade s used the streets of Leith for carrying their goods up to Edinburgh and down from Edinburgh. He thought they ought to pay rates and the only way they could be got at was by making the Dock Commission pay a certain proportion. That was an argument which was to his mind unanswerable. Then it was said that the Dock Commission had their own cleaning, lighting and watching to do but so had every ratepayer within his own property. The position of dock companies was not therefore peculiar. The special reason, as he had understood it why the Commission sitting in Scotland held that only half rates should be charged was that it was a recognition that the dock company did something in that way. Rut then it was said that the Burgh of Leith never subscribed a penny to the dock. That was quite true and they never subscribed a penny to any house or any works. He knew the Dock Commission well and he said that there was not in the United Kingdom a more enterprising body of men. The docks were in a flourishing condition, and to talk about ruin coming because of this extra charge was absurd. Somebody had talked about uniting Leith with Edinburgh. That was desirable, and

617
everybody looked forward to these two burghs being amalgamated. The real competitive ports were the others in the Firth of Forth, and they all had to pay burgh rates. There was a feeling in Leith that the Dock Commission had got too much into the hands of the shipowners. It was right that they should accept the decision arrived at in Scotland which was fair and reasonable.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. SINCLAIR,said it might be a convenience to the House if he stated the opinion of the Government on this matter. Might he remind the House that this was a serious question? A false decision might destroy the system of Private Bill procedure in Scotland which it had taken the House years to construct. Let him remind the House that the system of Private Bill procedure in Scotland was introduced under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1899. There was great difficulty then in finding time for the transaction of Scottish business in Parliament. There had never been enough time available, and as years went on it had been found and would be found more and more difficult to find time for this special business of Parliament—the Private Bill legislation of Scotland— and it seemed then to be in the interest of Scotland and of Parliament that, subject always to the control of Parliament, provision should be made for such schemes and undertakings to be heard, and examined locally in Scotland. When this scheme was brought before Parliament in the first instance, it contained provisions for the automatic rehearing of every case, but the House of Commons of that day was quick to see the danger of that proceeding. It was quicker than the Government. It was stronger than the Government and it refused an automatic rehearing in every case. Such a rehearing would have weakened the authority and the responsibility of the local commissioners appointed by the House itself. It would not have met the two great evils of the situation which then existed, and it would not have greatly saved the time of Parliament. Moreover, it would not have reduced expenditure — indeed, such a system as was then contemplated would have
618
increased the expense of these proceedings. But while the automatic appeal to Parliament was revised, Parliament did reserve control of the procedure, and it was in accordance with Section 9 that his hon. friend had brought forward this Motion to ask for a Joint Committee of both Houses to review the decision arrived at by the local Commissioners in Scotland. That was the procedure laid down by the Act. The practice of the last seven or eight years confirmed the wisdom of Parliament in laying down the rule as it existed. The system had worked with great smoothness and success, and the number of Provisional Orders which were brought in under this machinery had worked out well. The system had been working since 1899, and in only four cases hitherto had there been any debate in Parliament. Only four instances had arisen in which a demand for a rehearing had been preferred. In two of those cases the rehearing was refused and in the two other cases the result of the rehearing was to confirm the decision of the local Commissioners. Therefore, Parliament had been extremely slow and reluctant to weaken the authority of these local Commissioners in any degree, and he thought properly so. It remained to consider whether there were any special reasons in the present case which could be urged as supporting a departure from the procedure hitherto followed. He thought a great deal too much emphasis had been laid on the fact that the decision of the Commissioners was arrived at by a casting vote. Nobody denied that, but he might remind the House that that contingency was foreseen by the House when the Act was passed. There was an express commission in Section 10 of the Act, by which the chairman of the four Commissioners was given a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote, and the decision was not less the decision of that Commission because it was carried by the casting vote of the chairman. He did not wish to make too much of its being carried by the casting vote, because if he did, they were likely to run into a another and serious danger, which was that they might assent to the view that because a decision was arrived at by the casting vote of a chairman that decision

619
was one that necessarily demanded a re hearing. That would be contrary to the spirit of the Act itself and might contain the germ of a precedent very dangerous to the whole procedure. In this instance there was no case as there was in the other Leith case of a locus being denied. The case was well and ably presented, and it was fully and patiently heard by the Commissioners so far as he could gather. What produced the decision of that Com mission, broadly, was in the first place the possession by the Dock Company of a considerable sum of surplus income, and, secondly, the general rule of other cases. Broadly speaking, the decision brought this case into conformity with the general law. Dock companies were liable under the general law to pay rates, while, on the other hand, according to practice, they received some measure of exemption. It was no part of his duty on that occasion to go into the merits of the case, but, inasmuch as the actual parties in the matter had laid their case before him, the House no doubt would expect him to express an opinion upon it. It had not hitherto been usual for the Government to interfere with the discussion in the House on these matters, and he proposed to follow precedent in this case. But, after full examination into the matter he could find no reason to think that an injustice had been done; no new facts had arisen and there was no substantial ground, as it appeared to him, for believing that another tribunal would come to any other decision than that which had been arrived at by the present tribunal. It would be a similar tribunal to that which had already examined the case, and he saw no reason for differing from the decision of that tribunal. Speaking of himself, he could not support the Motion proposed by his hon. friend.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he would like to draw attention to the fact that any arrangement that was arrived at by the Commissioners who held the inquiry in this case was not a compromise. If it had been a compromise he would certainly not have been found standing in his place in that House to support a party which, having made a compromise in Scotland, came to West-
620
minister to endeavour to upset it. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs considered the matter in the light of the volume of evidence which he held in his hand he would find that there was no compromise whatever. The question the House had to consider was whether the party dissatisfied with this decision had the right, and whether, if they had the right, it was proper that they should exercise that right to ask for a re-hearing by another Committee. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs seemed to think that there was some idea of going behind the local opinion in Scotland, but nothing was so far from the facts. There was no question, whatever, of swing behind any local opinion or any evidence. All that was being done was to follow in this House the procedure laid down in the words of the Act which set up these local tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had referred to the Act and had stated the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard, namely, that when the Act was passed it was laid down by this House that no party who desired to make an appeal to the House should have the right, necessarily, to make that appeal, or have a right to ask for that appeal. He would like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a speech made by the then Lord Advocate, the present Lord President of the Court of Sessions, who said that the House settled and embodied in the Bill a provision that any person who appeared before a local Parliamentary tribunal and was dissatisfied should have a right to go to another tribunal. The then Lord Advocate's view was that inasmuch as this House had, as a matter of considered policy, come to the conclusion and embodied that conclusion in un Act of Parliament, namely, that there should be an appeal to Parliament, that appeal ought to be given as an ordinary right, unless someone was in a position to say the case was one that ought not to be debated on appeal. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland say that this was a case which ought not to be debated on appeal? He only desired to point out for the information of some hon. Members that the decision on which this re-hearing was

621
being asked was not the decision on the whole of the case, but a decision upon one part of the case, which decision was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chair-man. Even a Commission was not infallible. As the hon. Member for the East Toxteth division of Liverpool had said, even the best of them might be wrong sometimes. They had the admission of the framers of the 1899 Act, and they had the admission of those who had read that Act and who sat upon the Treasury Bench that in passing that Act Parliament desired to keep for itself the power to revise and to inquire into the findings of the various Commissions which were appointed. When was that power to be exercised? Could the House conceive any case in which it was to be exercised, unless it was a case where the decision was arrived at upon an equal division of opinion in the Commission by the casting vote of the chairman, as in this case? His mind failed to conjure up any situation that was adequate to meet that proposition if this was not the case. All he wanted to urge upon the House was, if the facts and figures were placed before the local Commission with full knowledge of the circumstances and local matters, by the most skilful advocates of the Scottish Bar, and, if as a result of that the decision was only obtained by the casting vote of the chairman, then surely if there was any right to appeal for a re-hearing, it was in a case of that kind. If a question of public policy was concerned, he would point out to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs that while he did not dispute his law he would like to point out two facts; first, that this particular Dock Authority paid rates up to 24 per cent. of its gross earnings; and secondly, that it carried on its business on land which, if the policy of the Government, adumbrated in this House only the other day, was carried out, was to be exempted altogether on the ground that it was a product of industry, it being reclaimed land. The Commissioners were a body representing the public, they made profits for the public, and it would be a serious problem were one public authority to be liable for work which another public authority was liable to keep up. In regard to the streets the fact of the matter was that 80 per cent. of the traffic of Leith was
622
through traffic which went by railway and never passed through the streets of Leith at all. The Dock Commissioners were responsible for the upkeep of over two miles of streets, and they did keep them up. He did not think it would be disputed that in the passing of the Act of 1899 that House and Parliament desired to reserve to itself the power of revising and if need be correcting, affirming, or denying the results of local inquiries. That delegation of powers was a delegation of powers to a sub-Committee and not an entire delegation of all the powers of that House. The right of revision was reserved, it existed, and if it was ever to be exercised he could imagine no class of case in which it could be more justly and legitimately exercised.
*SIR JOHN DEWARsaid, as chairman of the Committee which dealt with this matter, he wanted to say a word or two about it and to state the reasons why he gave, his casting vote. After all, it was a very simple case, and he did not object to the way in which it had been presented to the House. But the question was simply this, whether or not—and it was a principle they all recognised—everybody within the municipal boundary was bound to contribute his fair share towards the municipal government of the town. If that principle was not given effect to efficient municipal government was impossible. Leith docks were exempted from rates as far back as 1805; and that, had been going on all these years, and it seemed to him that it was only right that this arrangement should now be reconsidered. Leith docks had escaped during all these years a very large amount of taxation, while all the time, they were getting the service of the Leith Burgh. The public health department, for instance, which was very largely occupied in the service of the Leith Docks. Every ship had to be examined by the medical officer and his assistants, and in many cases to be disinfected and a great many services rendered. The Leith docks paid public health rates from 1867 to 1905, and when they refused to continue to pay them the financial affairs of Leith were thrown into confusion and Leith was compelled to present this Bill. They were told that the docks policed their own premises,

623
but so did railways and other enterprises. The Leith docks were well policed, but they received besides a great deal of assistance from the Leith police, who acted along with the dock police. Not only that, but all offenders arrested by the dock police were brought before the borough police court, where the person was charged and all the machinery of the burgh police force used in bringing him to justice. It was on the general principle that every one ought to contribute to the government of the municipality that he gave his casting vote. Certain concessions had been made and half rates were agreed to for certain services. He had been a little doubtful whether any concession should be made, and it was only because a compromise had been come to between the burgh authorities and the Dock Commissioners that he agreed. The Leith burgh officials agreed that there ought to be some allowance given in regard to the services rendered by the Leith Dock Commissioners in policing and other matters, and the agreement was that one-half of the rate should be accepted in respect of certain charges. The burgh authorities agreed that it was a reasonable proposal that one-half of the rate should be accepted. Since the burgh was satisfied he consented, but he had grave doubts as to whether any concession should be made at all. He knew that in Glasgow an allowance of 4d. in the £ was made in similar circumstances in respect of the docks. He did not think that any great injustice had been done. As a general principle he held that everybody ought to contribute a fair share to the government of the municipality. If Leith docks were to remain exempt it meant that every ratepayer in the town had to pay l½d. in the £, working men of Leith contributing 1 s. 6d. or 2s. each, so that a rich corporation might get off its just contribution. That was why he gave his casting vote. He had given a great many casting votes in his time and he had often given them in favour of the status quo ante; but what would have happened if his casting vote had been given on that side on this occasion. Leith had tried for thirty years to have this injustice removed: for various reasons they had been unsuccessful, but after presenting their case to a Commission which sat for four days, they had in his judgment completely
624
established their case, and if his casting vote had been given in favour of the status quo ante it meant that Leith had no further means of being heard. They were here dealing with a corporation which was making a surplus of £30,000, and he did not think that it was one of the institutions which ought to be relieved. He thought the House itself ought to decide the principle as to whether or not the docks ought to be relieved from, contribution to the rates. The practice of exemption from rates he believed to be a wrong method of giving assistance from a municipality. If contribution was to be made it should be made in such a way that every one might know what it was.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he was one of those concerned in the proceedings in connection with the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act, and he wished to say a word or two with regard to what the Secretary for Scotland had said. If anyone was entitled to respect in the giving of a casting vote it was the hon. Member who had just sat down. Still, it was evident from what he had told them that he had strong views on the general question, and the very fact of his having those strong views was an example of the fact that this question ought to be dealt with by Parliament and not by a. local tribunal. Another fallacy which ran all through the considerations and decision of the hon. Gentleman was that he treated the dock company as if it were an individual or a trading corporation. But it was not possible to predicate of this Dock Com mission that it was a corporation either rich or poor; everything it did was in the public service. It was entirely beside the mark to make comparisons between this corporation and the poorest inhabitants of Leith, or such comparisons as were usually made between rich and poor.
*SIR J. DEWAR: The decision given in the Mersey Dock case held that such corporations are liable for rates.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that this was a case in which the corporation had special exemption because of the value which was given by that corporation;

625
and here they were proposing to diminish the security to lenders of money without at the same time assuming any responsibility for the debt due to them. These were facts which caused the greatest doubt about the decision arrived at, and one asked one's self in what case, if not in this, should there be the rehearing which it was contemplated by the Procedure Act that there should be in these cases? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had said that there was originally a provision in the Bill to hear all cases. He had not been able, in the discussions which had taken place, to find it. There was. however, a question twice raised by the right hon. Gentleman the present Lord Advocate; twice he moved in the Committee stage on the Procedure Bill, and on Report, to omit these retrials in opposed cases before a joint Committee of the two Houses, but the House twice decided to retain them in the Bill. It might be said that the instances were rare in which the House had consented to any such procedure. But it was also true that the instances were rare in which they had the casting vote of the Chairman. After all it was a matter of ordinary experience and of common sense. Here they had a Committee equally divided on a question of the first magnitude in the Bill, and in what case should the House itself be resorted to for a decision if not in such a case as this? What were the facts which had induced this Committee to reverse all the decisions of previous Parliamentary Committees? He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to exert the Government influence or to interfere in any way with the decision of the House, and he thought that the House would do well to adopt the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeenshire, on the ground that it was exactly the sort of case in which it was intended by the House and by Parliament that a rehearing should take place.
MR. CROMBIEsaid he was also a Member of the Committee which had been referred to, and he remembered that when the question of these appeals was before Parliament the House was most careful about retaining
626
in its hands the decision in the circumstances which had been alluded to. Some hon. Members seem to think that every time the chairman used his casting vote there should be an appeal to Parliament. That was not the intention of the House of Commons when the Scottish procedure for Private Bills was adopted. If it had been the House of Commons would never have inserted the provision for the chairman to use his casting vote. It had been asked under what circumstances could there be an appeal. There were two contemplated in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1899. One case was when any new facts arose which had not been before the Committee, and the other was one in which there had been some flagrant act of injustice. In the case of this Bill no new issue had cropped up and no flagrant injustice had been done to anybody. In his opinion the Committee which sat in Leith for five days was much more competent to come to a decision on the merits of the Bill than a joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
MR. WATTsaid that, notwithstanding the warning given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, he desired to support the Motion that this Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. Immunity from taxation had been enjoyed from time immemorial by these docks, and they had never been taxed for burgh purposes. The arrangement which had existed for so long was placed in the form of a contract in 1838 by an Act passed in this House, and there was a quid pro quo given on the part of the Dock Commissioners of Leith. By that arrangement the Commissioners had to bear several burdens, and it was on account of that fact that they were permitted to be immune from taxation, an arrangement which had existed up to the time when it was proposed to alter it under this Bill. One of the burdens they bore was £8,000 a year, which was utilised practically for the upkeep of Edinburgh University and the schools in Edinburgh. These liabilities were

627
still borne by the Dock Commissioners, and it was for this reason that the Commissioners had not, up till now, been taxed by the Burgh Commissioners of Leith. Another burden which the Dock Commissioners undertook in 1838 was he lighting, policing, and scavenging of the dock estate. That cost them £10,000 a year, and that was one of the burdens which they took over. The third burden they took over was the upkeep of the streets outside the dock estate. These arrangements had upon four separate occasions been assailed in Parliament with the object of empowering the Town Council of Leith to tax the Dock Commissioners, and on each of those four occasions they had failed. Parliament in three Public Acts had recognised and continued the exemption from rating on account of the burdens which the Dock Commissioners were bearing. One Commission which sat in Edinburgh unanimously came to the conclusion that the Dock Commissioners should be taxed with the public health rate, and that burden amounted to about £1,700 a year,; but even that Commission recommended that the Dock Commissioners should not be charged for arrears in this respect, and consequently there was a spirit of compromise even in that decision. The effect of the casting vote of the chairman would be that the Dock Commissioners would be saddled with an additional £3,000 a year in spite of the definite arrangement made in 1838, under which they got immunity from these taxes. He thought for these and other reasons, the: Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
MR. RAINYsaid that the matter was one of considerable importance from the point of view of procedure. When a Commission appointed under the Act came to a decision after very careful investigation there should be no interference with it unless some manifest injustice had been done, or unless there had been some omission of material facts, or some new facts had come to light. Unless they were going to make a farce of Scottish private legislation procedure,
628
the House was bound to support the decision of the Committee. No evidence had so far been produced in the debate to show that any injustice had been done. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He knew there was a difference of opinion upon some points, but he did not think it had been shown that there had been any manifest injustice, or that there had been any omission of considerations which ought to have been before the Commission, and no new facts had been adduced which the Commission had not before them. If the House of Commons gave countenance to some of the dicta which had been laid down in this debate they would make a perfect farce of the whole of Scotch private legislation procedure. Therefore, he asked the House to consider very carefully before it upset the decision which was come to. He admitted that there was a very fine point about the chairman's casting vote, but he also submitted to the House that sufficient materials had not been presented that night to make it appear that this was a matter where the House should upset the decision of the Committee.
*MR. CATHCART WASONsaid his hon. friend had in support of his argument quoted a late Lord Advocate. But as far back as 1901, when one of the first cases decided by a Scottish Committee came before this House, Mr. Graham Murray, now Lord Dunedin, was emphatic in upholding the right of this House to review the decision of the Committee. In this case he took the view that the House might well, and without casting any slur on the Committee who sat in Edinburgh, review the decision. If the decision of the House was favourable to the Committee it would do very much to strengthen the hands of these Committees in future. If the decision was unfavourable, then, at any rate, the Commissioners of the Harbour of Leith would feel that they had had their case fairly presented to the House of Commons. They were only asking a re-hearing. An appeal was now granted in almost every case. He would not repeat arguments which had already been laid before the House, but would support the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 236. (Division List No. 285.)

Higham, John Sharp

Massie, J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hobart, Sir Robert

Micklem, Nathaniel

Simon. John Allsebrook

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Mildmay. Francis Bingham

Sinclair, Rt. Hn. John

Hogan, Michael

Montagu, E. S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset. N.

Montgomery, E. S.

Snowden, P.

Hudson, Walter

Morse, L. L.

Soares, Ernest J.

Hunt, Rowland

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hyde, Clarendon

Murray, James

Stewart. Halley (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir J.

Myer, Horatio

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jenkins, J.

Napier, T. B.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Johnson,John (Gateshead)

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncaster

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Joyce, Michael

O'Grady, J.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Toulmin, George

Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kilbride, Denis

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

Ure, Alexander

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Verney, F. W.

King. Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Vivian, Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lambert, George

Pollard, Dr

Walsh, Stephen

Lamont, Norman

Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

Ward,W. Dudley(Southampton

Lehmann,R. C.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(C'lackmannan

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

Whitbread, Howard

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richardson, A.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rickett, J. Compton

White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

White, Luke (York., E.R.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Macdonald,J M.(FalkirkBurghs

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robinson, S.

Wiles, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Callum, John M.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

M'Crae, George

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mallet, Charles E.

Runciman, Walter

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, S.M.(Whitechapel)

Young, Samuel

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seddon, J.

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Marnhan, F. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Munro Ferguson and Mr.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Charles Price.

Bill to be considered To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment proposed, on consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.
Which Amendment was—
" In page 9, line 24, at the end to insert the words,'(d) any annuity which has been purchased out of savings from income derived from the exercise of any trade, profession, or vocation.' "—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he would be inclined to think that incomes derived from annuities were much more worthy of consideration than those derived from
632
pensions, because, as had already been pointed out, an income derived from pensions was really due to very little self-sacrifice on the part of the pensioner. A man accepted a situation under the Civil Service, or a railway, or an individual, or in the Army or Navy, at a certain salary, and with the full knowledge that when he retired from that service he would receive a definite pension. What was the case of a man who put aside a certain sum out of his annual income and saved sufficient money to buy himself an annuity? That demanded considerable self-sacrifice and determination on the part of a man, and he believed that such a man was far more worthy of consideration than the man who derived his income from a pension. The conclusion he had drawn from the debates on this subject of the differen-

633
tiation between earned and unearned incomes was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not paid sufficient consideration to the evidence of Sir Henry Primrose given before the Income-tax Committee. He pointed out that evidence had been laid before the Committee, which showed that although the income-tax itself did not provide for differentiation between different kinds of income, the general scheme of our taxation did do so by means of other taxes, viz., house duty, stamps, and most of all, death duties. He had handed into the Committee a Paper in which an attempt was made to show in terms of an annual tax the burden that the death duties imposed on those who enjoyed incomes that had the character of being unearned or permanent. He pointed out that a man with an income of between £40 and £400 a year really paid 9d. in the £, which a man with an earned income did not pay; that a man with an income between £400 and £ 1,000 a year paid an income-tax of 1s., and between £1,000 and £ 2,000 a year an income-tax of 1s. l½d., quite apart from the ordinary income-tax. Sir Henry went on to say that the effect of a. variation of the income-tax would not be quite the same thing as an increase on the death duties, for it would impose a special tax on savings while still in the hands of the person who made the savings, whereas the death duties

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn Sir Alex. F.

Douglas,Rt.Hon. A. Akers

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Alison, Sir William Reynell

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Go van

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester

Gurdon,RtHnSirW.Brampton

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Beckett,Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Staveley-Hill,Henry (Staff'sh.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thornton, Percy M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish,Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.

Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

Cecil, LordR. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A. (Worc.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Fell and Mr. Harmood-

Court hope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C

Banner.

deferred any special taxation (other than such as arose under the stamp duties) until the savings passed to someone other than the saver. It would surely be very inconsistent if the State, after encouraging saving by means of the Post Office and other savings banks, were to penalise the income derived from such savings. That was an important piece of evidence to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no allusion at all, and he submitted that in resisting the Amendment of his hon. friend below him the right hon. Gentleman was directly imposing a premium on thriftlessness. It was no encouragement to a man who had saved sufficient to provide himself with an annuity if, when he had bought that annuity, it were treated not as a pension, but as an unearned income, and he believed the whole tendency of this differentiation between earned and unearned incomes would be to discourage a person to make any savings at all in his lifetime and to induce him to spend the whole of his income as rapidly as he could. For that reason he most cordially supported the hon. Gentleman.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 65: Noes, 260. (Division List, No. 286.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lupton, Arnold

Agnew, George William

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dewar,Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Lynch, H. B.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macpherson, J. T.

Astbury, John Meir

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Callum, John M.

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Crae, George

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Barlow,Sir John E. (Somerset)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mallet, Charles E.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Barnes, G. N.

Ferguson, R. C.Munro

Markham, Arthur Basil

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Beale, W. P.

Fullerton, Hugh

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Beauchamp, E.

Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Massie, J.

Beck, A. Cecil

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bell, Richard

Gill, A. H.

Mond, A.

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Montagu, E. S.

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

Glendinning, R. G.

Montgomery, H. G

Bennett, E. N.

Glover, Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morse, L. L.

Bertram, Julius

Gooch, George Peabody

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas]

Birrell,Rt. Hon. Augustine

Grant, Corrie

Murray, James

Black, Arthur W.

Gulland, John W.

Myer, Horatio

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Brace, William

Hall, Frederick

Nolan, Joseph

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brigg, John

Harmsworth,CecilB.(Worc'r.)

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Bright, J. A.

Harmsworth,R.L(Caithn'ss-sh

O'Grady, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brooke, Stopford

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bryce, J. Annan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Charles S.

Pollard, Dr.

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Higham, John Sharp

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Byles, William Pollard

Hobart, Sir Robert

Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk,E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford,E)

Causton,Bt.Hn. Richard Knight

Hodge, John

Radford, G. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hogan, Michael

Rainy, A. Rolland

Chance, Frederick William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Rea. Russell (Gloucester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea. Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Rees, J. D.

Cleland, J. W.

Hudson, Walter

Renton, Major Leslie

Clough, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

Clynes, J. R.

Jenkins, J.

Richardson, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rickett, J. Compton

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Collins,SirWm.J. (S.PancrasW.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, William(Camarvonshire

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, S.

Cory, Clifford John

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Cox, Harold

Laidlaw, Robert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crean, Eugene

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Rose, Charles Dav

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Runciman, Walter

Crossley, William J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Samuel, S. M, (Whitechapel)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lehmann, R. C.

Schwann, C. Duncan(Hyde)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Seddon, J.

Davits, David (MontgomeryCo,

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Major J. B.

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Toulmin, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitehead, Rowland

Silcock, Thomas Bell

Ure, Alexander

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Verney, F. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Vivian, Henry

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walsh, Stephen

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walters, John Tudor

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Summerbell, T.

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Young, Samuel

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Waterlow, D. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitbread, Howard

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Pease.

Amendments proposed and agreed to without discussion:—
"In page 10, line 9. to leave out the word 'provision,' and to insert the word ' section.' "
"In page 11, line 21, after the word 'made, to insert the words and allowed or signed.' "
"In page 11, line 37, to leave out the words 'be repealed,' and to insert the words 'cease to have effect as respects income-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, or for any subsequent year.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
SIR F. BANBURYmoved the omission of Subsection (1) of Clause 25. He said he did so because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently been unable to find words embodying the con cession which they had understood he desired to make. The right hon. Gentle man promised to meet the case of the man who had a dwindling business, and what he had done was to meet the entirely different case of the man who had decided to discontinue his business because of failure. Unless the subsection of the old Act was allowed to remain in operation the man with a dwindling business would be compelled. under the system of three years' average to pay income-tax on income he had not earned. He begged to move the omission of Subsection (1).
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER,in seconding the Amendment, was understood to say that it could not be denied that so far as regarded losses made during three or four years the trader was never recouped in making his return. If he made profits in the succeeding years after those in which he had sustained the losses, he was never recouped, because he could not bring all those years of losses into account,
638
It was not simply a question of taking up a calculation of averages and saying that by deleting the clause they were placing it on a fair basis, because a man who had sustained losses in his business for a succession of years was unable to recoup himself in the prosperous years when he made profits. He could assure the House it was by no means uncommon in the shipping trade to make losses for two, three, and four years together. And the experience in the coal-mining industry was similar. If they made their big shilling one year they made their little halfpenny or penny another, or made losses. Losses on collieries were frequent, and continued sometimes for three years or more together, and those losses could not be recouped in the time of the big shilling. They could only bring in two of the years in calculating the average. That was one of the reasons why this particular clause had been given to the public. He quite understood that the clause gave a great amount of trouble in making assessments that had immediately to be revised and the whole trouble to be gone over again. It was the same thing as regarded capital and expenditure. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was familiar with the Minutes of the evidence taken before the Income Tax Committee. Sir Henry Primrose, in answer to a question, put it very clearly that this clause was given to the coal-owners as compensation for the fact that they were not allowed to take into account capital expenditure on shafts and other works connected with the mines. If they drove a horizontal tunnel it was charged to revenue; but if they sunk a shaft it was charged to capital, and was not allowed for in the return

639
for income-tax. There were other years which showed that coal owners were very hardly dealt with in regard to this question of income and profits, and it was for that reason that this clause was given to mine owners and ship owners and thousands of others in the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking away that benefit, though it was perfectly true—and he and others were grateful to him for it—that in this Finance Bill these questions were being dealt with on a broader and wider basis than they had ever been dealt with before. Still, the right hon. Gentleman was taking away the benefit of this clause, and was giving them no boon by way of compensation. This subsection ought to be withdrawn until the right hon. Gentleman had brought in the clauses he had promised. The process of taking the average might be a proper one, but to take away the benefit and not give compensation was neither fair nor reasonable.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 38, to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 25."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the proposal was the unanimous recommendation of a departmental Committee of acknowledged authority upon which sat Lord Ritchie and Sir Henry Primrose. The Postmaster-General pointed out the other night that the present system caused injustice between taxpayers and operated unfairly as between the taxpayer and the State. Under the present law the taxpayer could claim the benefit of a bad year, but the State could not claim the extra benefit of a good year. Taking the three years average, if in the first two a man made a loss and in the third did pretty well, he would pay income-tax on the average. What could be fairer? The three years average must work out reasonably in the long run. That was the ground on which the powerful Ritchie Committee made their recommendation. He agreed, however, that where a business was practically moribund it ought to be possible to make some revision to meet the exigencies of the case. That, however, did not affect the general question.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed with the report of the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded and also with the argument put forward by the Postmaster-General on a former occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an important statement the other night when he said that, when a man. had an actual loss in any one year, it would enter into his average, not merely as a nil, but as a minus quantity. To many traders that fact was of great importance, and he hoped the discussion of the point would make it-more widely known that where they made an actual loss they were entitled to treat it that year as a minus quantity for the purpose of their average and not merely as nil. As far as he was concerned, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met his objection by the Amendment he had put on the Paper. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as it was possible for him to go, and, so far as he was concerned, he had only to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that some of those who took part in the former debate were disappointed at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed. They anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would have met the case of the man with a dwindling business which he had admitted was a case that ought to be met. This section had been in operation since 1842, and he understood that it was imported into the statute of that year from the original Act of 1806. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting on a section which had been in operation for 100 years. Traders were entitled to repayment, but they could not get repayment without taking professional advice, and that that was an expensive process. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have accepted the Amendment, for he felt certain that under the present system the exchequer received money every year in respect of income which had not been earned.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman had said,

641
it could be easily proved that under the present system of averaging many traders paid more for income-tax than they ought to pay.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crossley, William J.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Agnew, George William

Dalziel, James Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling;

Davies, David (Montgomery C.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambert, George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Asquith,Rt. Hon.HerbertHenry

Dewar,Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Astbury, John Meir

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

Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duffy, William J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lough, Thomas

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lupton, Arnold

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Clement(Denbigh)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lynch, H. B.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Beauchamp, E.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Beck, A. Cecil

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Bell, Richard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Micking, Major G.

Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mallet, Charles E.

Benn, W. (T 'w'rHamlets. S.Geo

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bennett, E. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bertram, Julius

Gill, A. H.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

Black, Arthur W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Brace, William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniol

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gooch, George Peabody

Mond, A.

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Brights, J. A.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Montgomery, H. G.

Brorklehurst, W. B.

Gulland, John W.

Morrell, Philip

Brooke, Stopford

Gurdon,Rt. Hn.SirW. Brampton

Morse, L. L.

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bryce, J. Annan

Hall, Frederick

Murray, James

Buckmaster,Stanley O.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Newnes, F. (Notts. Bassetlaw)

Burns,Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Harmsworth.R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh.

Norman, Sir Henry

Hurt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Buxton,Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

Harwood, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Byles, William Pollard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Partington, Oswald

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Hedges,A. Paget

Pine, Duncan V.

Chance, Frederick William

Helme, Norval Watson

Pollard, Dr.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Henry, Charles S.

Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford,E.,

Clough, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Radford, G. H.

Clynes, J. R.

Hodge, John

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancra,s,W.

Hudson, Walter

Rees, J. D.

Cooper, G. J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Renton, Major Leslie

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jenkins, J.

Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richardson, A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cox, Harold

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Crooks. William

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 287.)

Robinson, S.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Watt, Henry A.

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whit bread, Howard

Rose, Charles Day

Taylor, John W.(Durham)

White, George (Norfolk)

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Runciman, Walter

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Toulmin, George

Wiles, Thomas

Seely, Major J. B.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilkie, Alexander

Shackleton, David James

Ure, Alexander

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Vivian, Henry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Young, Samuel

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR; THE AYES—Mr.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason,Rt.Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Lewis.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Waterlow, D. S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

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

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Ashley, W. W.

Gretton, John

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

Bowles. G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thornton, Percy M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Cavendish,Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

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

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

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

Younger, George

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Courthope. G. Loyd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Harmood-Banner.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 11, at end, to insert the words '(3) Where a profession, trade, or vocation is discontinued in any year, any person charged or chargeable with income-tax in respect of that profession, trade, or vocation shall be entitled to be charged on the actual amount of the profits or gains arising from the profession, trade, or vocation in that year, and shall also, if he proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, by whom the assessment has been or could have been made, that the total amount of the income-tax paid during the three previous years in respect of that profession, trade, or vocation exceeds the total amount which would have been paid if lie had been assessed in each of those years on the actual amount of the profits or gains arising in respect of the profession, trade, or vocation, be entitled to repayment of the excess.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he presumed the intention of the Amendment was
644
that the person who discontinued a trade should not be charged on more than his actual earnings during the year in which he discontinued that trade and the two previous years, and if that was the case he would respectfully suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the clause was worded wrongly, because it brought in not merely the year in which the trade was discontinued" but the three previous years. He therefore suggested that it should read "during the year in question and the two previous years."
MR. COURTHOPEmoved to add after the word "discontinued" the words "or the income derived from them is diminished." He said he did not depend upon those words to meet the case completely, but he maintained that the proposed clause did not entirely carry out the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman

645
gave in Committee. It dealt with the case of a defunct industry, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to deal also with the case of a dwindling industry. They all knew that an industry might continue to dwindle during far more than two or three years, but this clause would only meet the case of the last few years of that process, and it was in the hope of abstracting some further concession from, the right hon. Gentleman that he moved; the addition of the words he had mentioned.
*MR. MORTONsaid he desired to second the Motion, which was not a political but a business matter. He quite agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carried out his promises to a large extent and had endeavoured to meet the points which were raised in Committee, but it was not quite clear as to what would be done with diminished incomes. It might be that an income was discontinued altogether, as the clause apparently read, but it might not be discontinued altogether; it might be greatly diminished. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to do what was right and fair in the matter, and that traders should pay only on the actual income they made, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to adopting the words proposed, or similar words, so as to make the matter quite clear to traders. It 'was a difficult and complicated matter to deal with this question of the average income, but he hoped, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not adopt the words proposed that he would endeavour to meet them so that it might be clearly understood that a diminished income as well as a discontinued income would be dealt with in the clause.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"In line 1, after the word 'discontinued,' to insert the words 'or the income derived there from is diminished.'—(Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexplained that on three whole years a person
646
would be able to obtain the excess of income-tax he had paid if in those years, and only if in those years, the profit in an individual year had been less than the average of those years. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rye went far beyond any pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government could not accept it. Of course what they wanted to deal with was this question of dwindling incomes, but it was now proposed to get rid of the average system of ascertaining the profits made from year to year. The average system was a benefit to those who paid under Schedule B. as they were in a much better position than income-tax payers under other schedules. The object of the average system was that men should pay on their actual profits. It was thought that it would be more convenient on the whole that, instead of paying on the profit from year to year, they should pay on an average of three years. That involved that, while in the good year the income-taxpayer would pay less, in the bad year necessarily he would have to pay more in the way of income-tax than that which would be due on the profit he had made in that year. Now the hon. Gentleman was proposing that where the profits were falling the income-taxpayer should be able to pay. not on the three years average but on the income of the year. The only way out of that was to make him pay on a particular year. Having examined into the question while on a Departmental Committee he was not enamoured of the three years system, but traders preferred that system and they could not have it without its disadvantages. He could not understand how they could propose to have the benefit of one particular year in which their profits were dwindling and not suffer in other years. They would of course be unable in any one year to substitute the bad year's profit for the good year's profit on the three years average. It was suggested, however, that the taxpayer should be able in bad years to substitute the income of the year for the three years average. That would so destroy the average system that they could not accept the Amendment. Under the proposal of his right hon. friend no harm would be done, whereas the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal of harm to people engaged in trade.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSthought there had been a little misunderstanding. They thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised more than had been given. They understood that he was going to deal with the case of a dwindling business.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had never done anything more than promise to try to do his best to meet a case of hardship. He had promised nothing.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not met the case of a dwindling business, but only that of a business which had ceased altogether. He would suggest that he should leave it to the Commissioners to find whether any injustice had been done.
*MR. ASQUITHsaid he was sorry he could not accept the hon. Member's suggestion. He was afraid there had been a misunderstanding, because he knew the extreme limits of the case with which he was dealing. He was afraid he should not be able to give any relief at all, but these words would give substantial relief. What he understood by a dwindling business was one which was steadily going down hill. This subsection which he proposed— though of course he should not press it, if it was not desired—would meet the case of dwindling businesses. The cases which hon. Members had in mind were already provided for. They had an average system which enabled traders to take into account three years profits, and then they had a special provision where there had been a specific cause for falling profits. He thought he had done as fairly as he could, and he asked the House to pass this clause on his assurance that if after a year's working it was capable of amendment it should be reconsidered.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINjoined in the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had he thought done all he could to meet the grievance. Perhaps some of them had led to a mistake by using the words "a dwindling business" too loosely. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met them as fairly as he could.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
The following Amendments were also agreed to:—
"In page 13, line 12, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'expression.' "
"In page 13, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'clergyman,' in line 26, and to insert the words 'Where a.' "
"In page 13, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'religion who shall,' and to insert the words 'any religious denomination pays.' "
"In page 13, line 27, after the word 'rent,' to insert the word 'for.' "
"In page 13, line 27, to leave out from the word 'dwelling-house,' to the word 'mainly,' in line 28, and to insert 'and uses any part thereof.' "
"In page 13, line 28, to leave out from the word 'of,' to the end, and to insert the words 'his duty or function as such clergyman or minister, such part of the rent of the dwelling-house, not exceeding one-eighth, as the Commissioners by whom any assessment for income-tax is made may allow, shall be treated for the purposes of section fifty-two of The Income Tax Act, 1853, as expenses to which the pro- visions of that section as to deduction and repayment apply.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
Bill to be read a third time upon Monday next.

LEEDS (SOUTH PARADE CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
KINGSWOOD (WHITFIELD TABERNACLE, SCHOOLROOM, ETC.) CHARITY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered, read the third time, and passed.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nine minutes before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Godfrey Charles Baron Tredegar having been created Viscount Tredegar of Tredegar, in the county of Monmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill [h. l]—(Unopposed Orders). Reported, with Amendments.
Sunderland Corporation Bill, London County Council (Money) Bill, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill, North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Armagh Urban District Council Bill, Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill. The King's consent signified: and Bills reported, with Amendments.
London and North-Western Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Worthing Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Devonport Corporation Bill [h. L.], Tees Valley Water Consolidation Bill [h. l.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Leeds Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [h. l.]. Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
Kendal Corporation Bill [H. L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
  Petition in favour of legalisation of, of Provost, of Dunfermline; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3858. Persia (Bunder Abbas and Lingah).

  TREATY SERIES, NO. 19. (1007).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Norway respecting the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals; signed at Christiania, 18th February. 1907.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EAST INDIA (EXAMINATIONS FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE).
  Regulations for admission to the Indian Civil Service, alteration to paragraph 9.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  First Report by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as a Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues by virtue of the Crown Lands Act, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 113.)

  BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
  House in committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Elgin): My Lords, the first is a small Amendment

  467
  in order to preserve the rights of certain provinces under the existing law. They are now entitled to receive the highest grant to which their population has ever entitled them although the population itself may decrease. The only practical question arises in Prince Edward Island. There the population at one time was 94,000; it rose to 110,000 and receded to 103,000, but the grant continued throughout. I therefore beg to move that these words be here inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 4, at the beginning of paragraph (b) to insert the words 'subject to the special provisions of this Act as to the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.' "—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF ELGINthen moved the insertion of a new subsection to Clause 1.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 38, after the word 'subtituted' to insert the following new subsection:—'(8) In the case of the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, the amount paid on account of the grant payable per head of the population to the provinces under this Act shall not at any time be less than the amount of the corresponding grant payable at the commencement of this Act; and if it is found on any decennial census that the population of the province has decreased since the last decennial census, the amount paid on account of the grant shall not be decreased below the amount then payable, notwithstanding the decrease of the population.' "—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, the Schedule which I now move to insert is to meet the desire of the Dominion Government that the Address in which they requested His Majesty to bring in this Imperial Act should appear in its full terms. We had to inform them that it was not possible to incorporate the words of the Address in the text of the Bill,
  468
  which we maintain unaltered; but we think it is possible to insert the Address in full as a Schedule. In order that that may be done we have also to insert a Preamble, which I will move afterwards. In the meantime I beg to move the insertion of the Schedule.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, to insert as a schedule:—'Schedule. To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senate and Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty for the purpose of representing that it is expedient to amend the scale of payments authorised under Section 118 of the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, commonly called the British North America Act, 1867, or by or under any terms or conditions upon which any other provinces were admitted to the Union, to be made by Canada to the several provinces of the Dominion for the support of their Governments and Legislatures by providing that—A. Instead of the amounts now payable, the sums hereafter payable yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their Governments and Legislatures be according to population, and as follows: (a) Where the population of the province is under 150,000, $100,000; (b) Where the population of the province is 150,000, but does not exceed 200,000. $150,000; (c) Where the population of the province is 200,000, but does not exceed 400,000, $180,000; (d) Where the population of the province is 400,000, but does not exceed 800,000, $190,000; (e) Where the population of the province is 800,000, but does not exceed 1,500,000, $220,000; (f) Where the population of the province exceeds 1,500,000, $240,000. B. Instead of an annual grant per head of population now allowed, the annual payment hereafter be at the same rate of eighty cents per head, but on the population of each province, as ascertained from time to time by the last decennial census, or in the case of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta respectively, by the last quinquennial census or statutory estimate, until such population exceeds 2,500,000, and at the rate of sixty cents per head for so much of said population us may exceed 2,500,000. C. An additional allowance to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars annually be paid for ten years to the province of British Columbia. D. Nothing herein contained shall in any way supersede or affect the terms special to any particular province upon which such province became part of the Dominion of Canada, or the right of any province to the payment of any special grant heretofore made by the Parliament of Canada to any province for any special purpose in such grant expressed. We pray that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Imperial Parliament at its present session repealing the provisions of Section 118 of the British North America Act. 1867, aforesaid, and substituting there-for the scale of payments above set forth

  469
  which shall be a final and unalterable settlement of the amounts to be paid yearly to the several provinces of the Dominion for their local purposes, and the support of their Governments and Legislatures. Such grants shall be paid half-yearly in advance to each province, but the Government of Canada shall deduct from such grants as against any province all sums chargeable as interest on the public debt of that province in excess of the several amounts stipulated in the said Act. All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
  '(Signed) R. DANDURAND,
  Speaker of the Senate.
  '(Signed) R. F. SUTHERLAND,
  Speaker of the House of Commons
  Senate and House of Commons,
  Ottawa, Canada,
  26th April, 1907.' "
  —(The Earl of Elgin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Preamble:—
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I beg to move the insertion of the Preamable which stands on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, to insert as a premable to the Bill the words 'Whereas an address has been presented to His Majesty by the Senate and Commons of Canada in the terms set forth in the Schedule to this Act.' "—(The, Earl of Elgin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as Amended. (No. 114.)

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Report of Amendments received.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to delete from Clause 3 the words—
  " 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules made in pursuance of this Act.' "
  The word "prescribed" did not appear anywhere else in the Bill and the interpretation was therefore unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the end of the clause.'—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDexplained that the next Amendment was consequential on an Amendment which had been inserted on the Motion of Lord Avebury.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line II, to leave out from the word "firm" to the end of subsection (3) and to insert the words 'up to the amount so drawn out or 'received back.' '—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to omit from Clause 4, subsection (4)—
  "(4) The firm name must contain the words 'limited firm' as the last words in the name."
  The omission of this subsection had been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade. They had approached business experts in the matter, and these experts were of opinion that if the provision remained in the Bill a great many of its effects would be destroyed. The words "limited firm" had no place in the laws of foreign countries where the system of limited partnerships was in force. He understood that Lord Avebury was in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 15 and 16, to leave out subsection (4).''—(The Earl of Granard.)
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he had also done what he could to ascertain the opinion of the commercial community, and he confirmed what the noble Earl had said. He mentioned that the subsection was not in the Bill as drafted by the Chambers of Commerce or as passed by their Lordships last year. He agreed that the Bill would be greatly improved by the omission of these words.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid it seemed necessary to declare what the procedure should be after the Court had made a winding-up order against a limited partner, and the simplest procedure was that of the Acts relating to the winding-up of companies. The object of his next Amendment was to secure this.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 2, after '1900' to insert the words 'and the provisions of those Acts

  471
  relating to the winding-up of companies by the Court and of the rules made there under (including provisions as to fees) shall, subject to such modifications (if any) as the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, may by rules provide, apply to the winding-up by the Court of limited partnerships, with the substitution of general partners for directors."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to amend Clause 9 by requiring that a statement signed by the firm specifying the nature of the change should be forwarded if, during the continuance of a limited partnership, any change were made or occurred in the term "or character" of the partnership. He said it was obviously desirable that changes in the character of a partnership should also be registered.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 10, after the word 'term' to insert the words 'or character."—(The, Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDexplained that the new paragraph which he proposed to insert in Clause 9 was necessary in the event of a general partner becoming a limited partner, or vice versa.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 12, after the word 'partner' to insert '(g) the liability of any partner by reason of his becoming a limited instead of a general partner or a general instead of a limited partner.' "— (The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 9—
  "(2) If default is made in compliance with | the requirements of this section each of the partners shall on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to a fine not exceeding £1 for each day during which the default continues,"
  by inserting before the word "partners" the word "general." The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear
  472
  that the penalty provision was only-applicable to general partners.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 18, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'general.' "—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to leave out Clause 10 (publication of name of limited partnership), which had been rendered unnecessary by a previous-Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 10."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved the insertion of a new Clause 10, the object of which was, he said, to safeguard persons dealing with a limited partnership and to bring to their knowledge any change in the status of the partners.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:—'(1) Notice of any arrangement or transaction under which any person will cease to be a general partner in any firm and will become a limited partner in that firm, or under which the share of a limited partner in a firm will be assigned to any person, shall be forthwith advertised in the Gazette, and until notice of the arrangement or transaction is so advertised, the arrangement or transaction shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be of no effect. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression 'the Gazette' means— In the case of a limited partnership registered in England, the London Gazette; in the case of a limited partnership registered in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette; in the case of a limited partnership registered in Ireland, the Dublin Gazette.' "—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 115.)

  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  IMPORTED WATCH-CASES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

FIJI.
*LORD STANMORErose to move for any correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor of Fiji respecting the sale of certain lands in the Provinces of Rewa and Naitasiri. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not often trespass on your Lordships' time, and I hope that may be a plea for indulgence if I now ask your attention for a few moments to matters which have occurred a great distance off, and are, perhaps, not likely to attract very general interest. Yet they are not without some importance, for they affect, as I believe, our national honour on the one hand, and the existence or destruction of the people of the Fijian Islands on the other.
I wish to call attention to two different points. First, I wish to say a few words with regard to the cases specially referred to in my Notice; and, secondly— and this is of far more importance—to ask your attention to the general principles which seem to have guided the action of the local government in this matter and caused their reversal of the policy which it has hitherto been deemed expedient to pursue. Before I enter into any description of the two cases of sale of land mentioned in my Notice, it is necessary that I should give some explanation of the general system of land tenure in Fiji. Taken generally, and allowing for exceptions which occur here and there, the native ownership of all lands in the Fijian Islands is communal. Putting on one side a few exceptional cases, there is nothing like individual property, except as regards the dwelling-house and what in England we should call its curtilage. The fields, which are the property of the village, are portioned out from time to time to cultivators, and the waste belonging to it is common to the whole commune.
When it came to be considered what steps were to be taken to ensure the natives in the full possession of their rights without entirely blocking the progress of settlement by white planters, it was decided, after much consideration, that while the
474
Government should be allowed for public purposes, strictly defined, to take land, no other native land should be sold, but that all transactions involving a change of occupation should bear the character of a lease. It might be a lease for a period sufficiently long to confer all the essentials of proprietorship, but still which would not involve the loss of the actual proprietary right in the natives themselves. If sale were made as against a certain price paid down to those who were then in occupation of the land, nothing would be ensured to future generations. Now the tenure of the land in Fiji, as I have said, is communal; that is to say, those who occupy it at any given time have only a life interest in it. It was thought expedient that by the device of a lease there should always be some money coming to the commune as long as the lease lasted, and that it should not be whittled and made away with by being given in a lump sum once for all to those who really had no right to dispose of the property, and who possessed only a life interest in it.
With that preface I now come to the cases which have induced me to bring the matter before the House on this occasion. In pursuance of the policy I have indicated and of the enactments made in accordance with it, a large tract of land in the Province of Naitasiri was leased to an Australian sugar company for a considerable number of years at a rent of £415 a year. Last year overtures were made to the Government and to the native proprietors to commute the lease and turn it into a sale. It was proposed that a sum amounting to about half the rent which was still accruing should be paid, but this payment was not only to extinguish the future rent, but also to carry with it the proprietorship of the land afterwards. That at the first blush would not seem to be a very equitable settlement. In the first place, there were seven years of the lease to run, the rent for which was worth altogether over £2,800, and that was to be given up for a lump sum of £1,500, thereby losing to the commune for the future a large amount of money and at the same time depriving them of any future interest in the land, apparently without compensation. But when a

475
Fijian or any other person in that particular state of civilisation is deprived of the land he has nothing to look to, there is nothing before him but a life of labour perhaps on the very estates which were once partly his own.
The second case that has aroused my attention is one in the Province of Rewa. Either the same or some other Australian sugar company is desirous of obtaining the greater part of the delta of Rewa for sugar cultivation. It is one of the most populous parts of Fiji. In this case the company did not ask for a sale but for a lease of ninety-nine years, to which in principle there can be no objection; but, in the first place, they offered an exceedingly low rent, and, in the second place, they did not take into account whether or not the inhabitants of these villages and the proprietors of these lands were willing to enter into the lease. Almost unanimously the different villages and and communities concerned absolutely refused to have anything to do with the lease. They were exposed to a great deal of pressure and temptation in the way of bribes — I do not mean bribes in the ordinary sense to individuals, but by the offer of a large sum of money to the present generation —but they stoutly refused, and their refusal was sustained by many persons of European descent in the Colony who had knowledge of the proceedings. The natives being unwilling to lease, other methods were adopted. A new Ordinance was brought into the Legislative Council, which provided that (I am quoting from the official Royal Gazette)—
"The expression public purposes' shall be deemed to include any undertaking, proposal, or policy which may appear to the Governor in Council desirable as directly or indirectly benefiting the Colony."
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: Will the noble-Lord give me the date of that Ordinance?
*LORD STANMORE: The date, I am sorry to say, has been cut off, but must have been about the close of last year. It is quite clear that under an Ordinance like that the natives might be deprived of the whole of their land at any time. It would only be necessary for the proposal to be thought to be directly or indirectly of benefit to the Colony. There are a vast number of settlers in Fiji who conscientiously enter-
476
tain the opinion that it would be largely for the benefit of the Colony if every native occupation ceased to exist. In the first place, there is a desire to obtain the land for useful purposes—a very fair and legitimate wish, and which, under the leasing system, I have no objection to being carried out to the full; but there is also a wish on the part of a good many people to get rid of native ownership of land, because the natives would then be obliged to sell their labour instead of working on their own land. There are a great many settlers in Fiji who do not hold that view, but nevertheless a very large proportion do so. The late Hon. James Mason, a large planter and a Member of the Legislative Council, met me one day, and, as usual, grumbled at the state of things generally and the state of planting. I said to him, "I have just-been moving about all through the Colony. It seems to me that everywhere there is more prosperity than there was two years ago. In every native village I visit I see there are new houses and better houses and extended cultivation. I see the people looking well fed and happy. There are more pigs and more poultry, and I think the people are much better off than they were." His reply was, "Yes, sir; of course they are better off, and they are much better off, but we do not want them to be better off; we want them to be ill off. When they are ill off they will come and work for us, but when they are well off they will not." I took these words down at the time, and I have often thought of them since. They are an index of the antipathy which is displayed on the part of many settlers to native occupation of land.
There may be very good explanations for both of the transactions referred to in my Notice. I made remarks upon thorn in no hostile spirit either to the Colonial Office or the Governor of the Colony. I know that my noble friend who at present presides over the Colonial Office is a man who has at heart in the truest and fullest sense native interests everywhere, and I have every reason to believe that the Governor, who has had great experience, is also very well disposed to native interests. But, after all, Governors certainly, and perhaps even the Colonial Office, are not altogether infallible, and it is sometimes the case that people with

477
the) very best intentions make grave mistakes. Indeed, I think that in matters of this sort very often as much harm, if not even more harm, is done by well-intentioned but injudicious meddling as is done by actual hostility. As I have said these cases may admit of good explanations, but à priori they do look something like sharp practice.
But what is far more important, and what I specially wish to ask your Lordships' attention to, is the principle by which this action seems to have been directed. It is the substitution of sale for lease. The policy that the land should remain with the natives in perpetuity but might be leased was not a fad of mine. It was certainly my policy, but it was also that of the very able men who have succeeded me in the Government of Fiji, of Sir William Des Vœux, of Sir Charles Mitchell, and of Sir John Murston, and it was gone into carefully and approved by successive Secretaries of State. Lord Kimberley, Lord Carnarvon, Lord St. Aldwyn, and Lord Derby in a most emphatic manner approved that policy—a policy which I believe to be absolutely essential to the very existence of the Fijian, which is bound up with the land. In one of the cases to which I have referred there was a sort of compensation offered. It was that those who were displaced should have two acres of land allotted to them. There is something of the air of "three acres and a cow" about that. It would seem as if this might be a very proper allowance for a poor Fijian, but two acres of land independently is not of the slightest use to him. You might as well give him two acres of white paper; it is of no use to him. The property is communal and so is the cultivation and that on which the cultivation depends, irrigation. In all large Fijian towns there is an elaborate system of irrigation. It is carried on by the commune, who have made the canals and the junctions to the different fields by which the water supply is regulated, and it is impossible for an unfortunate Fijian to cultivate a couple of acres if they are unirrigated nor can he irrigate them himself. Moreover, two acres are not sufficient for the sort of crops they raise. There are no butchers' and bakers' shops in the country districts of Fiji, and each man has to provide entirely for his
478
family. That requires space, especially as the crops which they raise, and on which they are entirely dependent for food, require a lot of ground and being of an exhausting nature render it necessary that the land should from time to time be left fallow.
Then, again, I believe it to be an injustice to take these lands. We have no more right to take communal land in Fiji, except under particular circumstances, than we have to take the lands of any of your Lordships. Public necessity may over-ride that in the one case as in the other, but, failing public necessity, those lands should remain in the possession of those who hold them. All who are acquainted with the Fijian race know perfectly well that if you separate them from the land the race will die out, and that would be a violation of the express conditions on which alone we took possession of the Fijian Islands. We told the natives that we had come to protect them against the lawlessness of the white settlers; we told them that their lands should be kept to them inviolate; we told them that their customs and laws, so far as they were not absolutely objectionable and immoral, should be maintained, and to that we are pledged by despatches without number from successive Secretaries of State, and in speeches, equally without number, of successive Governors; and what is more important than all, by the solemn word of Her late Majesty the Queen. On two separate occasions Her late Majesty did me the honour to convey to me her commands from her own lips that I was to tell the Fijian people that their lands were theirs and should never be taken from them. I told them so on the authority of our Sovereign, and I do trust that that pledge then given will be maintained.
I have no feeling against the authorities in Fiji. I believe the Governor to be well disposed towards the native races, but I do think he somewhat misunderstands the position in which he has only recently been placed. I think so the more from a remarkable utterance which ho made to a large meeting of natives. He told them that he would have no difficulty in governing them for he had had experience for several years of a community just like

479
their own. He meant the wild savages of British Guiana, and I hold that it is an insult to the Fijian people to make such a comparison. There is hardly a Fijian who cannot read and write and who is not comfortably housed, and that cannot be said of the Guiana Indians. My noble friend has been Governor-General of India, and will perfectly understand me when I say that it is much as if a commissioner appointed to some well-to-do district in Bengal were to tell the people he knew all about them because he had served twenty years among the Bheels or Khonds. That makes me think that the Governor has not, or at least had not at that time, gained a full grasp of the work that lay before him. Another reason for thinking so is that in a letter which I have seen from him with regard to complaints which have been made, in which he says he considers that the protection which the natives have received was very much overdone and is not necessary now that they are adolescent, and that if it had not been for all the protection afforded to them they would be entitled now to what he calls the full rights of British subjects. By that he means that they might now be put on exactly the same level with all other folk in the Colony.
I suppose most of your Lordships have read an amusing skit called "Vice versa," in which are portrayed the results of a boy of fourteen and a respectable city merchant of sixty changing identities: what the boy of fourteen does as a city merchant may be imagined better than described. That is exactly what would come to pass by putting the Fijian in a position to deal with his white neighbour without any protection whatever. The Fijian will make any sacrifice, however improvident, to indulge a momentary want, just as children do; and unless the protection of the State which has hitherto been afforded to them is continued I see perfectly clearly what the result will be. It will mean an end of the Fijian race. The passionate clinging of the Fijian to the land is a fact which it would be wrong and indeed dangerous to ignore. My noble friend knows very well what would be the effect of any similar meddlings with the land tenures of India.

I know that in what I have said I have been speaking the senti-
480
ments of others who have governed that Colony. I myself am one of the parties interested, for I am a Fijian landowner. Her late Majesty was graciously pleased, when I left Fiji, to allow me to accept a gift from the Fijian people of two small islands of no commercial value, but the possession of which was sufficient to give me the title of a turaga taukei—a landowning chief in the country. It is, therefore, as one of them, and as their representative, that I come before your Lordships to ask you to give some attention to their rights, and what I fear may be their wrongs.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for any correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor of Fiji respecting the sale of certain lands in the Provinces of Rewa and Naitasiri. —(The Lord Stanmore.)
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will acknowledge that the noble Lord has every right to speak as the representative of Fiji, and to bring before the House any subject in which he thinks the people of those islands have been wronged; but my difficulty in answering him is that, though I have devoted some time to a study of the subjects involved in the Question, I have had no little difficulty in informing myself accurately on some of the points, in regard to which perhaps the noble Lord will give me some further explanation privately. As to one of the sales—that in Rewa—I cannot speak definitely; and with regard to the Ordinance which was quoted, if it was passed last year, as the noble Lord stated, it ought to have been sent home for sanction, but I cannot find it among my Papers.
*LORD STANMORE: I did not say the Ordinance had been passed. What I quoted from was the draft of the Ordinance. I know it was inserted in the Gazette as coming before the Legislative Council, but whether wiser counsels prevailed and it was withdrawn I do not know.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I will inquire into it. With regard to the other case —that in Naitasiri—I can give some particulars. The land, we are told by

481
the noble Lord, was originally let to a sugar company at a rental of £415, and the price for which it was to be sold was £1,500. It is quite true that the land was originally let to a sugar company for £415 a year, but they declined to renew the lease on the ground that the land was exhausted. The land was valued by two competent persons at not more than £200 a year, and in those circumstances the selling price assumes a different aspect. That is the actual state of the matter with regard to that transaction.
As to the principle underlying the sales, there can be no doubt whatever that under the Treaty by which we assumed the protection of Fiji, it was aid down in the fourth clause that the sole proprietary of all lands not shown to be then alienated, or not then in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe, or not actually required for the future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe should vest in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. I have not been able to trace any later enactment altering that state of the law; but the explanation may possibly be found in the custom of communal property. Large tracts may be nominally the property of a tribe and not be in the ordinary sense under cultivation. But even in such cases, in the event of the tribe ceasing to exist, the ownership of the land reverts to the Crown. In 1875 Lord Carnarvon distinctly declared that the whole of the land in Fiji belonged to the Crown, and in 1893 the chiefs met and resolved that the control of the land ought to be with the Government. It is clear that there are powers over the land possessed by the Government which the Governor is bound to exercise, in the interests of the natives of course.
In 1905 an Ordinance was passed which did permit sales to take place, but only under stringent regulations, the Governor being empowered to refuse his consent if the sale seemed improper, if the land were necessary for the maintenance of any person, or if the price to be paid was inequitable. Under the Ordinance of 1905 the responsibility of the Governor remained under the former provisions for securing the welfare of the native population, but in any case in which he thought it necessary to exercise his discretion and to
482
permit sale he was bound by very distinct and definite provisions to see to the interests of the native population in the direction in which the noble Lord desires.
I should like to point out that the provisions for dealing with land in Fiji are entirely different from those in other Colonies of the Empire. In other Colonies we reserve land for the natives necessary to their maintenance, and the Crown is permitted to dispose of the surplus lands to those whom the authorities consider to be most likely to be good settlers and to promote the prosperity of the Colony as a whole. In Fiji there is ample room for the introduction of settlers. The land acreage is 4,800,000 acres and it is estimated that 4,250,000 acres are uncultivated. In addition to that the population of Fiji has decreased from 140,000 in the time of the noble Lord to 86,000 now. There is thus a large amount of land available in Fiji, and the native population is not adequate to cultivate the whole of it. There is, therefore, no danger whatever of the native population being deprived of those acres which the noble Lord thinks are necessary for their existence. It is the duty of the local Government and of the Governor to take what steps they reasonably can to promote the settlement of the Islands, with a view to increasing their population and prosperity. Having said that, I wish to assure the noble Lord that I do not differ from him in a distinct preference for leases rather than sales. I do not think there is any real difference of opinion on that point. I should like to see leases taken in every case in which it is possible, and I may tell the noble Lord that there are several portions of land which have been leased of late on conditions which he would approve. For instance, I find in a recent letter describing some considerable settlements in one district that a condition was imposed by the Governor that no lease should extend beyond ninety-nine years from August, 1906. The Ordinance does provide for the Governor allowing a sale under strict rules limiting his discretion, should occasion render it desirable; and while I would be quite willing to draw the Governor's attention to the necessity for observing very strict rules in exercising his powers under the Ordinance, I

483
think the provision is one that ought to be maintained. I have in preparation some Papers which, I think, will satisfy my noble friend.
*LORD STANMORE: I propose to take advantage of the invitation of my noble friend to communicate with him privately on some of the points on which I think ho is mistaken. But I should like to say that the belief among the natives that they are likely to be deprived of their land is creating a great deal of feeling of a serious character, which may, if something is not done to reassure them, lead to very serious consequences.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MOTOR CAR LEGISLATION.
EARL RUSSELLrose to ask His Majesty's Government what consideration had been given to the Report of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, and when it was their intention to introduce fresh motor legislation. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in 1905, a very important and influential Royal Commission was appointed to consider the subject of motor cars, and what legislation was desirable when the Act at that time existing, and which was limited to three years, expired. That Commission held a great many sittings and examined a great many witnesses; it was extremely painstaking in its work, and presented a very carefully considered and somewhat voluminous Report. Their Report was, I think, presented almost exactly twelve months ago, and the object of the Commission was stated at the time of its appointment to be to advise His Majesty's Government for the time being as to what fresh legislation was necessary when the existing Act expired. The Motor Car Act of 1903 was limited to a term of three years from 1st January, 1904, and would, therefore, in the ordinary course, have expired on 1st January, this year. It is at present continued by having been inserted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
Questions were asked during the last session as to what legislation, if any, was proposed, and His Majesty's Government said, very reasonably, that as the Report was presented in August, it was obvious
484
that there was no time to consider the Report or to do anything in that session. I notice that there have been several Questions in another place addressed to the President of the Local Government Board as to whether legislation would take place this year, and for some time the reply was to the effect that he had not decided and could not make any announcement; but it has now been definitely stated that there will be no legislation this year. I think I may say that motorists as a whole would feel that it is more desirable that legislation should be postponed for another year than that it should be introduced at the fag end of the session. The present Act suffers from having been passed in the month of August and in a great deal of haste. Amendments were made in another place of a substantial character, which could not receive any discussion at all in your Lordships' House owing to want of time.
Whenever legislation is introduced I hope it will be introduced quite early in the session, so that the proposals may be examined and considered at leisure. I should be glad to extract from His Majesty's Government some intimation as to what consideration has been given to the Report of the Royal Commission. I assume, of course, that it has been carefully considered by the Department concerned, and I should be glad to know whether it is proposed to found fresh legislation upon it, and whether it is proposed to introduce it at some time during next session. There is always the danger when an Act is passed temporarily that it may be continued, by inclusion in the Expired Laws Continuance Act, until it becomes permanent. Against that I think we should be entitled to protest. It is obviously convenient for the Department and the officials concerned, but I hope that policy will not be adopted in this case, and that at some time or another fresh legislation will be introduced.
I have been impelled to put this Question on the Paper on account of a statement which was made in the other House. There is a maxim that it is well to let sleeping dogs lie, and it may be thought that, unfair to motorists as the existing legislation is, and inequitably as it is enforced in many cases, it is better to let things remain as they are. But I was very much startled by a statement of the

485
Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he had decided, at some future date, to impose an additional tax on motor-cars. It is true that one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission was that such additional tax should be imposed, but this was only a portion of the scheme of other recommendations, one of which is that the artificial speed limit should be abolished. I hope it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to legislate piecemeal on this subject, and gradually to impose upon motorists any additional disabilities which may be suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission and leave untouched the other important matters dealt with.
It appears to be a tempting thing sometimes to tax motor-cars, but I have not been able to understand why that particular vehicle should be more subject to taxation than other vehicles. Mr. Asquith, in his Budget speech, said he thought it was a tax which was in every way desirable, because it was a tax on a luxury which was apt to degenerate into a nuisance. There may be different opinions as to its being a nuisance, but it is not the case that a large proportion of motor-cars in use are of the nature of a luxury. That is not the purposes for which motor-cars are used nowadays. Motor-cars have emerged from the stage of being the playthings of the rich and have become the ordinary means by which ordinary people go from place to place about their business. I do not, however, deny that they are also used for purposes of pleasure. When the system of toll gates was abolished in this country I understood that the principle was then enunciated that it was to the advantage of the community that the roads should be supported by the community as a whole and their maintenance should become a charge on the rates. I do not know whether that principle is to be departed from by taxing one vehicle in preference to another.
I regard the abolition of the speed limit as the most important recommendation of the Royal Commission. The Motor-car Act of 1903, as introduced into this House and assented to by your Lordships, contained no provision for an artificial speed limit, but that provision was inserted in another place. There are many objections of the most serious
486
character to an artificial speed limit quite apart from the objection of the motorist himself. One objection is that it makes into a crime an act which may not be criminal or anti-social in its character. It is impossible for anyone to say that it is always and in all places an anti-social act to go over twenty miles an hour. What it is possible to say and what ought to be emphasised, though it is not emphasised now, is that it is an anti-social act, and should be a criminal act, to drive in such a way as to endanger any other human being. The way in which the artificial speed limit is enforced now tends to obscure that. The home counties have been specially disgraced by the manner in which the Motor-car Act has been administered. Attention is not directed to that which I think your Lordships all agree is of importance—the safety of the public. Policemen are not stationed in the villages where there are people about who might be in danger, but are hidden in hedges or ditches by the side of the most open roads in the country. Motorists may drive through villages in any way they like. In other counties the road is left alone in the matter of the police traps, but the villages are guarded. This state of things is not confined so much as it used to be to the home counties. It has been found that motor trapping is a very profitable employment. East Sussex has gone in for an elaborate electric timing apparatus, which has earned its original cost many times over; and this system of trapping is now being extended all over the country. The result is that careful and considerate motorists are constantly being trapped, and become indistinguishable from the reckless and careless motorists whose licences ought to be taken away. It is a very regrettable thing that this enactment, which has been condemned by a Royal Commission who went very carefully into the matter, should be utilised by the police authorities throughout the country for the creation of an enormous number of these artificial crimes, and I hope His Majesty's Government will recognise that they cannot hold their hand indefinitely, and will at some Lime or another amend the existing law and place it on a rational footing.
*LORD MONTAGU Of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to support the appeal which the noble Earl opposite has made

487
that the Government should not altogether overlook the terms of the Report of the Royal Commission. At the same time I think there is a very large body of opinion in favour of letting sleeping dogs lie, as the noble Earl expressed it, rather than endeavouring to secure fresh legislation on the subject at present. I am aware that the Royal Commission reported in favour of the abolition of the artificial speed limit, but we have to consider, not the abstract right and wrong of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but whether the House of Commons as at present constituted would pass any new legislation in which a speed limit was absent. I am inclined to think that new legislation might be in the direction of making the speed limit twenty-five or thirty miles an hour instead of twenty, but, on the other hand, the penalties for all kinds of offences would be very largely increased, and there might be other points in the new legislation which would operate adversely to motorists. I venture to think that motoring is becoming less unpopular every day, and if we could only get rid of the dust nuisance a great deal of the unpopularity still remaining would be removed.
I am entirely in sympathy with what the noble Earl said with regard to police traps. In my opinion they are manifestly absurd as a protection to the public, and they are used in many counties merely as a means of extracting money from the passing traveller in a way which reminds one of the highwaymen of the Middle Ages. As to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which the noble Earl referred, I do think it would be grossly unjust that fresh taxation should be put on motor-cars, and that that should be done before many other important questions, such as, for instance, the constitution of a central authority for roads, are dealt with. I hope the Government will be able between now and next session to think out a measure which, without imposing further taxation on motor-cars, will deal with the other portions of the Commission's Report. So far as motorists generally are concerned I am confident that they will view this matter entirely free from party bias, and would willingly accept even more onerous conditions so long as there was fairness and justice in new legislation, and they were dealt with
488
in a statesmanlike manner. I should also like to join in the appeal of the noble Earl that when legislation is introduced it should not be brought in in the dog days. Not only is that a bad time for the introduction of any legislation, but it is more so in the case of motor-cars, as it is just at that season that the dust nuisance is at its greatest. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give us some information in reply to the question of the noble Earl
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, my noble friend who raised this question, and the noble Lord who has just sat down, have to some extent, I venture to think, answered their own inquiries. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of this matter, and have not lost sight of it. As your Lordships have been reminded by Lord Russell, the Report of the Royal Commission was issued at the end of last session, just twelve months ago, and it was obviously impossible at that period to introduce legislation on the subject. The Motorcar Act of 1903 was therefore included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and remains in force until December next. I can assure the noble Earl who raised this question that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue this course indefinitely, although they will have to include the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill again this session.
Your Lordships will probably agree with me that the most important points in connection with motor-cars dealt with by the Royal Commission were (1) the codification of the law with regard to all mechanically-propelled vehicles on highways; (2) the allocation of the proceeds of taxation for the purposes of improving highways; (3) the question of speed-limit, which some people may consider the most important of all. As to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in view I have no notion, and we shall have to wait another year before we know what his proposals are. The question of the speed limit is no doubt the crux on which legislation will turn, and, although I do not propose to follow the noble Lords into that, I agree with a great deal of what they have said with regard to it. But there is considerable

489
divergence of opinion in the country, and it should not be forgotten that the Commissioners were not entirely unanimous on this question. It therefore behoves His Majesty's Government to walk warily. If legislation were attempted on the lines suggested in the Report, it would embrace, not only the speed limit, but a variety of other points which would involve a considerable amount of discussion; and having regard to the state of public business, the Government are unable to introduce a Bill dealing with the question this year. But His Majesty's Government feel that the delay in legislation is not altogether to be regretted. The use of motor-cars is increasing, and it would be rash and unwise to assume that it has yet reached its full development. The postponement of legislation, therefore, gives a great chance of a lasting and satisfactory settlement in the light of further experience.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, speaking as one having practical experience of motor-cars, I have no fault to find with the Answer which has just been given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Undoubtedly the question of a speed limit is one on which it is extremely difficult to legislate. The question of confining motorists to twenty miles an hour is, to my mind, equally dangerous to the public, for a low speed is far more dangerous in a crowded town than a speed of fifty or sixty miles an hour is in open country, and in those places where these useless police traps are mostly located. Again, it should be remembered that motor-cars are not now as unpopular as they once were. When they were first introduced into this country they were generally detested by the agricultural classes, and this was due to the fact that a great number of the chauffeurs came from abroad, where there was no speed limit; and they drove their cars regardless of the discomfort which they caused to other people who used the roads. That has now been very much altered. We now have a different class of drivers, and they do consider the comfort and welfare of others. Motor-cars have come to stay, and they are owned by a very large number of people. Moreover, the working and construction of motor-cars gives a large amount of employment.
490
Therefore, to my mind nothing should be done that would be detrimental to the motor-car industry. With regard to the use of the roads by motorcars, I should like to see adopted the suggestion which was made by a friend of mine in the other House, who advocated a tariff on motor-cars of £1 or 10s. per horse-power. The owners would not feel the extra expense; and the very large sum which would be derived from the tariff should be placed at the disposal of some Government Department to be distributed for the maintenance of roads, so that dust would not accumulate, or for the compensation of those who suffered inconvenience from motor-cars.

DIVORCE IN IRELAND.
EARL RUSSELLrose to call attention to Private Bills for divorce in Ireland: and to move that a Return be made to this House of all Private Bills presented during the last five years for effecting divorces, showing whether the petition was presented by husband or wife, what was the matrimonial offence alleged, the Parliamentary history of the Bill, and the total cost to the parties.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in 1857, when the present Matrimonial Causes Act became law, I think I am correct in stating that a promise or an intimation was made by the Government of the day that in the following year they would propose a measure to extend that law to Ireland. Precisely half a century has elapsed, and not only has the law not been extended to Ireland, but I am not sure that an attempt has been made to do so, and it is still necessary for persons who live in Ireland and who desire divorce—
LORD ASHBOURNE: Who made the promise?
EARL RUSSELL: I regret to say I have not refreshed my memory by looking up the debates, but I think I am correct in saying that a promise was made.
LOUD ASHBOURNE: I do not think so.
EARL RUSSELL: I will look it up, and communicate with the noble and learned Lord privately. But, whether

491
there was a promise or not, it has not been done, and it is still necessary for persons who live in Ireland and who desire to obtain a divorce to proceed by the cumbrous process of an Act of Parliament. I do not desire that this Return should contain the names of the parties. It would be quite sufficient to indicate them, but I do think it would be useful for the purpose of comment to have some such Return, and it could be prepared at small cost. My object is that when this Return is presented attention may be called, if it should seem desirable, to the very large expense which has to be incurred, and to the fact that, in consequence, divorce in Ireland is entirely the privilege of the wealthy.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return of all private Bills presented during the last five years for effecting divorces, showing whether the petition was presented by husband or wife, what was the matrimonial offence alleged, the Parliamentary history of the Bill, and the total cost to the parties."— (Earl Russell)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I see no objection to the granting of the Return for which the noble Earl has moved, but I certainly dissociate myself from his object. I am quite certain that he is doing wrong in attempting to impose any law upon Ireland, if the people of that country do not wish it. The expression "the Parliamentary history of the Bill "is rather vague. I suppose the noble Earl means what the House did with it, and whether the Bill became law.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see no objection to the granting of that and the other information asked for. We could not, of course, give the amount of the solicitors' bills and the total costs of the parties; but the Parliamentary costs we certainly could give, and if the noble Earl will amend the Motion accordingly I will accept it.
EARL RUSSELLwithdrew the Motion before the House, in order to submit it in an amended form.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return (omitting names) of all Private Bills presented during the last five years for effecting divorces, showing whether the petition was presented by husband or wife, what was the matrimonial offence alleged, the result, and the Parliamentary cost to the parties."— (Earl Russell.)
*LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am not in the least surprised at, but am gratified for, the cautious and careful way in which my noble and learned friend has spoken of this matter. I heard with surprise the statement of the noble Earl opposite that in the yea 1887 a promise—
EARL RUSSELL: I said in 1857.
*LORD ASHBOURNE: I am not a young man, but that goes beyond my Parliamentary experience. I was, however, surprised to hear his statement. I have been a good many years in public life, having sat in the House of Commons before I had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, whore I have sat now for over twenty years, but I have never heard it suggested by any section of opinion in Ireland that the extension of the divorce law to that country was desired. The bulk of the population are Roman Catholic, and naturally the idea would be repugnant to them; and I may add that I have never heard any section of Protestant opinion in Ireland express a desire in this direction. If any grievance were felt in Ireland on this matter I think that steps would have been taken in the direction of a change in the law, but I do not believe that any change is desired by any substantial section of opinion. I do not think, however, that there would be any objection to giving the Return apart from the names.
There are very few cases in Ireland in which anyone, rich or poor, appeals to the law in reference to this disagreeable subject. Before a Bill is submitted to your Lordships there must be a suit for damages and also a decision of our Court in Matrimonial Causes giving a separation a mensa et thora. Then a Bill has to be introduced into your Lordships' House, and on the Second Reading sufficient evidence has to be given to

493
justify your Lordships in passing it. It then goes clown to the other House and is treated as an Act of Parliament. Of course, the proceedings are cumbrous and expensive, but where you find a nation submissive without repining for a vast number of years that may be taken as some proof that the nation is not very anxious for a change to be made. There have been two or three Bills of this nature this year, and I think that would probably more than represent the average of previous years.
I drew attention on one of these occasions to what I think might be a beneficial change, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack concurred. It has been the habit under a Standing Order about a century old to introduce in these Bills a provision forbidding the parties who are incriminated to marry. That is a rather cruel provision, and invariably it has been struck out before the Bill left your Lordships' House. According to practice the Bill is introduced in that form, and also by practice the provision is struck out on Third Reading; and I ventured to suggest, earlier in the session when one of these Bills came up, that it was desirable that the form should be modified and the Bills introduced without that clause. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack did not indicate the slightest disinclination to adopt that view, but I think he felt that owing to the antiquity of this practice it was desirable to make some inquiry.
*EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should at once remove some misapprehension which has arisen in the minds of the noble and. learned Lords who have spoken. I may say at once that I am not proposing now or at any time myself to introduce legislation for Ireland in regard to this subject. But there is one aspect of the matter in regard to which I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will to some extent give me his sympathy. It may be that in an overwhelmingly Catholic country where the majority of the population do not approve of divorce, there is no desire for an enactment of that kind; but on the ground of religious equality and religious freedom it does appear to me to be a hardship that because a person is
494
one of a small minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic country he should be deprived of a remedy which would be open to him elsewhere. This is essentially one of those privileges which it is not a democratic thing to maintain. There is nothing democratic about it. The noble and learned Lord opposite has stated the enormous number of formalities that attend this matter, and it is not altogether fair, and does not make for equality between rich and poor, that one person should be able to obtain a remedy which is denied to another. I thought I detected in the speech of Lord Ashbourne an attachment to these practices on account of their hoary antiquity; but, speaking for myself, I must say I prefer to see them preserved in museums and in books and not applied to unfortunate living people who have to suffer from their existence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Chancellor in connection with the proposed new arrangements under the Territorial Forces Bill, Section 28 (3)— (1.) Does property, of whatever kind, now held by a commanding officer, as such, pass as a matter of course to the County Association at the date mentioned in a scheme for the establishment of the Association for that county, or what other date, e.g., suppose a commanding officer is accumulating, either by saving or from private sources, a fund for the better financing of his corps, is he in whole or part to lose the control of and the benefit from that fund; (2.) Will all subscriptions or presents given to a corps after it belongs to the Territorial Army be pooled for the benefit of the County Association, or will it be appropriated to the use of the particular corps in question; (3.) Are trustees or other persons interested in any trust debarred from the ordinary legal means of defending their property, and is their resort to the Courts, for the purpose of adjudicating on their trusts, extinguished under the latter part of Section 28 (3) (c); and (4.) In eases where an agreement or lease affecting real or personal property has been entered into benefiting a corps so long as it is a volunteer corps, does this agreement or

495
lease lapse when the corps joins the Territorial Army, and becomes a unit under it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Answers to the Questions arising out of Section 28 (3) (c) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill are as follows: (1.) The property now held by the commanding officer will pass to the Association if the Order in Council so provides. The date at which the transfer will take effect will be fixed by the Order in Council. In the example cited the commanding officer will lose control of the fund, but after transfer the fund will still be held for the benefit of the corps for which it was accumulated. (2.) Subscriptions and presents given after the corps has become part of the Territorial Force will be devoted to the purposes for which they are given. (3.) Until the transfer the rights of the trustees will remain unaffected; after the transfer the Association will become trustee. The powers of the Secretary of State to determine the trusts only arise after the transfer to the Association, when the former trustees will have ceased to be trustees; the powers conferred on the Secretary of State were conferred in deference to the wishes of Sir Howard Vincent, by whom the present form of paragraph (e) was proposed on behalf of the Volunteers. (4.) This is a question of the construction of the instrument under which the trust in favour of the corps was created. A corps would not be less a Volunteer corps because it became part of the Territorial Force unless the instrument expressly referred to a Volunteer corps under the existing Volunteer Acts.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Would the Answer to Question (1.) apply to the case where there was a mixed trust—a trust of commanding officers and trustees?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Speaking off-hand, I feel pretty sure it would apply. The essence of the thing is that the trust is transferred, but the purposes remain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not pretend to be familiar with the feelings of Volunteer officers in respect of these affairs, but I cannot help
496
thinking that in some cases a certain amount of heart-burning may be created by the diversion contrary to the wishes, perhaps, of the donor, who may still be alive, of gifts which have very recently been made to Volunteer battalions. Of course that is a matter on which I am not able to pronounce an opinion, but if there are cases in which there is such reluctance or opposition, would it not be possible for the Government to consider the insertion of words in their Bill which would safeguard them? I have in past times been familiar with this sort of question in respect of charitable trusts. Charitable endowments recently granted are saved in most Acts of Parliament from any possibility of diversion from the intention of the donor, and that certainly was the case when the Government, to which I think the noble and learned Lord belonged, proposed to disestablish and disendow the Welsh Church. In that case it was felt that any such diversion would not only be a hardship but a very grave and serious grievance. I cannot say that that would be the case in regard, for instance, to a Volunteer drill hall, but still difficulty might arise and certain objection be felt, and I think it would be well if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would consider whether protection could not be given in those cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the custom in the Irish Church Act and other Acts of that kind has been that beyond a certain period of time the Statute does not interfere at all, or does not interfere with quite recent gifts. I am not quite sure that that is quite the same case as this. It is a matter of justice, of course, of equity and fair play, but it is also a matter of policy, and I think the best thing would be to communicate with my right hon. friend, Mr. Haldane. I will convey to him what the noble Marquess has said, and, if my right hon. friend thinks my advice worth having, I will confer with him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure he will.

CROWN ESTATES AND SMALL HOLDINGS.
VISCOUNT HILLmoved for a Return of the farms belonging to the Crown

497
Estates which have been or are being converted into small holdings, showing in each case—(1) The acreage of the converted farm, the name of the tenant, and the number of labourers employed upon it; (2) The number of holdings into which the farm is now divided or being divided, with names of occupants, distinguishing between agricultural labourers previously employed upon the farm, agricultural labourers previously employed in the neighbourhood, and tradesmen or artisans.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I very much doubt whether His Majesty's Government, or even the noble Earl him self, are fully acquainted with the grave anxiety that exists in the minds of farm labourers at the present moment in regard to this matter. Ever since the introduction of the Small Holdings Bill into Parliament, I have been at pains to discuss with these farm labourers what their future position will be under the Act, and the result of these discussions demonstrates only too plainly that the future prospects of these labourers are most unfavourable. Notwithstanding all this great uncertainty, the majority of farm labourers do not oppose the principle of the Bill. What they cannot under stand is why they should be turned out of their present occupation to make room for the small holders, and forced to seek employment elsewhere.
My recent investigations into the working of small holdings, extended over some fifty years on one estate, have convinced mo that a comparatively small number of the present farm labourers will be in a position to become the owners of small holdings, for it must be frankly admitted that the small holder of to-day is in a far less prosperous condition than he was fifty or sixty years ago. I would like to refer for a moment to a statement made by a relative of mine in connection with the small holdings on a late estate of my own. He cited some holdings as being in a prosperous condition. That statement by itself is most misleading, for he was not in a position to know how the small holders arrived at that prosperity. Those holdings have been in existence for generations. and the men on them have derived their prosperity, not from what they have made out of the holdings, but from constant employment
498
on the neighbouring largo farms and other resources, such as contracting, road-making, and general work on the estate.
I maintain that the more land that is converted into small holdings the less will be the demand for farm labourers in the present condition of agriculture. By-breaking up large farms into small holdings it stands to reason that one-third of the labourers on the original farm will have to seek employment elsewhere; one-third may remain upon the farm, and the remaining third become owners of the small holdings. I could give the noble Earl many instances to illustrate this, but at this late hour I will not detain the House. I understand that the noble Earl is willing to give a concise statement in reply to my Motion. If that is the case allow me to assure him that it will materially assist the passage of the Small Holdings Bill through Parliament, and I hope it will also remove to a considerable extent the grave anxiety which at present exists among farm labourers. Before sitting down I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he will also state how much rent the farm was let for to the original tenant and how much rent is obtained in respect of it now as small holdings, and what are the expenses of the full equipment of a small holding.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return of the farms belonging to the Crown Estates which have been or are being converted into small holdings, showing in each case—(1) The acreage of the converted farm, the name of the tenant, and the number of labourers employed upon it; (2) The number of holdings into which the farm is now divided or being divided, with names of occupants, distinguishing between agricultural labourers previously employed upon the farm, agricultural labourers previously employed in the neighbourhood, and tradesmen or artisans."—(Viscount Hill.)
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I desire to intervene in support of the Motion of the noble Viscount, and to say a few words as to the procedure which is now being pursued in creating what I may call an artificial demand for small holdings in the various counties in which the Crown lands exist. I agree with my noble friend Viscount Hill that there is great anxiety among farm labourers with

499
regard to the possible effect of the Small Holdings Bill. I am myself in favour of small holdings so that labourers may rise from the bottom to the top, and should support any properly and well considered Bill. But I strongly disapprove of the spirit in which the inquiries have been carried out by the Crown Commissioners in regard to the Crown lands. The last thing I should wish to do would be to make a personal attack on my noble friend. It is the procedure that I complain of. I think the noble Earl's zeal has rather overrun his discretion, and I am not sure that the noble Earl has always taken good advisers into council. The case to which I wish to refer is not only an object lesson with regard to Crown lands, but one for your Lordships to consider when the Small Holdings Bill comes before you.
The case I wish to bring before you is that of the Crown farm in the parish of Croft. Croft is an urban village in Lincolnshire, and the sole Crown tenant is Mr. John Searby, whose family have occupied the farm since 1817. It is a farm of 211 acres of mixed land. The parish consists of nearly 5,000 acres, including some 200 acres of foreshore, and there are about 630 inhabitants, of whom 100 occupy holdings of various sizes either as freeholders or tenants. Sixty-five of these holdings are under twenty acres, nineteen are over twenty and under fifty, and there are only nine, including Mr. Searby's own, over 100 acres; so that this is a typical small holdings parish. Allowing the usual estimate of five persons to a family, including the wife and children, and for a certain number of single men and women and farm hands, you find that nearly every person who owns a house in that parish is really an occupier of land. Yet this is a parish in which it is thought necessary to hold an inquiry as to whether anybody wants small holdings.
On April 30th last, a letter, signed F. Hellard, was sent by my noble friend, as a Commissioner of Crown Lands, to the chairman of the parish council of Croft, and in consequence of that letter a parish meeting was held on May 24th to inquire whether there were any applications for small holdings. A number were put in. I think the original applications were for 400 acres, but I understand that they have dwindled down on reconsideration
500
to 230 acres. Although the chairman of the parish council was invited to find out who would like to peg out some of Mr. Searby's land, Mr. Searby himself received no intimation in the matter, and bad no knowledge whatever of this Star Chamber inquest. Neither had Messrs. Carter, Jones and Sons, who have been appointed agents to the Crown lands by my noble friend, and on being written to by Mr. Searby they replied that this was the first they had heard of the matter and that they sympathised with Mr. Searby's position. I do not think there can be a clearer case of stimulating an artificial demand for land amongst tradesmen and others, who may probably like to have a little-accommodation land, but who can well afford to get it and pay for it.
We understood that the great cry at the last election against landlords was that they would not let labourers have land. But this is not a question of labourers at all. Not more than one or two were genuine cases of labourers applying, and there was only one application for land under ten acres. The greater portion of the applications were for ten acres of arable and ten acres of grass land combined, and by men who already have land. I think this is such a strong object lesson that I would like to give a description of the class of men who applied on this occasion. The first is a man who had sold his own holding of eleven acres and had gone to live some four or five miles off on a farm of forty acres. The next is a man who occupies twenty acres adjoining the Crown land. Another one has a small farm in the next parish, and the next applicant has thirty-six acres of land. And so on the whole way through. They are from start to finish not agricultural labourers, but tradesmen and well-to-do men who have themselves already got two occupations. I do not grudge them their occupations or their land, but I do say that these are not the men who have any right to come forward and claim the advantages of getting land under the Crown when they have sufficient land of their own, and when it is to be done at the expense of other people. I think your Lordships will agree with me that this is a case of robbing agricultural Peter for the trading Paul's selfish. benefit.

501
In the case of Croft not one single agricultural labourer would be brought back to the land, but there would be a farmer less and his labourers. Therefore I do not think this can be put forward as a case of bringing men back to the land or of enabling agriculturists to hold the land. I should like to ask my noble friend two or three questions. My first question is, "Why was there any inquiry at all in this case?" There was no application from anybody, and, as has been proved, there is not a single labourer who wants land. Secondly, by what authority did my noble friend, acting as a Crown Commissioner, call upon the chairman of the parish council to conduct this inquiry for the purpose of pegging out the land of a farmer who had not himself been given notice to quit and had no knowledge of the proceedings? Thirdly, I should like to ask my noble friend whether this is the spirit in which it is proposed that the Commissioners of Crown Lands and their agents and touts are to act under the proposed powers of Part 1 of the Small Holdings Bill? Again, in what manner will these "agitations" bring back labourers or benefit the present labourers?
I have had considerable experience, extending over forty years, in dealing with small holdings and every kind of holding, for I have never had an agent on my estate. I assert that the best way to advance labourers' interests is by small holdings of from five to fifteen acres, where there is at the same time regular employment for those occupying the holdings. Labourers do not require twenty or thirty acres in addition to regular wage-earning employment, and they cannot live upon such holdings without. When a man has done sufficiently well on his small holding and in wage-earning, and has put by some £300, he can take a small farm of from forty to fifty acres, and he is then absolutely free and independent of all labour, and can get his living on that land with the assistance of his own family. During the forty years that I have managed my own property I have seen one-fourth of the present tenants rise from labourers to fanners, having not only forty or fifty, but in two cases 250 acres of land each; and therefore I think your Lordships will not complain that I have ventured to intrude in calling attention to this question, which
502
I regard as a most serious one in the interests of the labourers themselves. No one would do more than I would to assist my noble friend if I thought it would bring back labourers to the land, and if there was work. The question is a serious one for labourers, and I trust it will be carefully considered in their interests.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not think me discourteous if I confine myself this afternoon to the Question he has placed on the Paper. I fully recognise the great interest that is being taken by the agricultural labourers in this question, and I believe it is the fact that in every village the question of small holdings is being very earnestly discussed. As far as the Government are concerned, perhaps I might be permitted to say that we are gravely considering whether in the new Bill the interests of the labourers are sufficiently protected, and we are most anxious that no injustice of any description should be done.
The noble Viscount has asked for a good deal of detailed information, and I must ask for the indulgence of the House if I do not answer the questions to everyone's satisfaction, because I have only been entrusted with the responsibility of a Crown Commissioner for six months, and I have had in that time to make a change in the management of the Crown Estates. Consequently, we are only just feeling our feet, and I have not the whole subject yet fully in hand. The total acreage is 62,000 acres, divided into ninety-one farms of from 250 to 1,000 acres, over forty-five farms of from fifty to 250 acres, forty-three small holdings and 283 acres of allotments. The largest areas are in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. In Lincolnshire, in 13,240 acres, there are only five small holdings, and eighty-nine acres of allotments. In 7,000 acres in Yorkshire there are twelve small holdings and no allotments at all; and in Cheshire, where the Crown has 2,630 acres, there are three small holdings and no allotments. Since we have made a change in the management of the Crown Estates five Crown farms have been dealt with.
When I took the matter over, I found 3,494 acres of land in hand, rather a

503
large proportion, and included in that land was a farm at Burwell in Cambridgeshire. That farm comprised 917 acres. In answer to the noble Viscount, I may say that the name of the late tenant was Stevenson. He is the chairman of the Cambridgeshire County Council, and a very fine farmer, I believe. The old rent of these 917 acres was £814, and the present rent is £700. That farm was in hand for two years, and no one could be got to take it. A farm in hand is not a lucrative concern, and the Crown lost practically £350 a year; it got no rent, but the fees had still to be paid for superintending the farm. Now we get £700 a year for the farm, which is let on a twenty-one years' lease to my hon. friend Mr. Charles Rose, the Member for the Newmarket Division of Cambridge. The result has been a clear gain of £1,000 a year to the revenues of the Crown.
On that farm there had been employed thirty-nine labourers, and they, of course, received notice to quit when the farm was let to my hon. friend to be cut up for small holdings. Eight of them had served on the farm for twenty years, two from fifteen to twenty years, four from ten to fifteen years, and five from five to ten years, and thirteen under five years. But when the last tenant—Mr. Stevenson—left the farm two years ago, there was, so far as I know, no question of compensation to be paid to those labourers, though eight of them had worked on the farm for over twenty years. It may, however, be said that these men would have been taken on by an incoming tenant. I am not at all sure that this would be the case, because with a new tenant the amount of the labour bill is of great importance. The tenant would probably have calculated that he would want twenty-six labourers to work that farm. He would bring his own cowman, shepherd, and carter with him, and that would mean the dismissal of fifteen or sixteen labourers on that farm, and they would have gone elsewhere.
I accept as a compliment to the small holdings policy of His Majesty's Government the great interest which has been shown in this particular question, because if this farm had been let to one man I do not think there would have been very much public anxiety to know what had
504
happened to these men or whether the tenant was a farmer or a retired tradesman, so long as he was a solvent farmer and a man who could be properly accepted by the Crown Commissioners. Indeed, a good deal of nonsense has been written to the papers about this Burwell Farm by a gentleman named Ryley. Mr. Ryley is the Unionist or Conservative agent for the Stowmarket Division, and he was in days gone by, I believe, political agent to Mr. Chaplin in the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire.
I daresay some noble Lords read the bogus manifesto which was published in The Times and in various other papers purporting to be written by these poor, dispossessed labourers. I will not weary your Lordships by referring further to that manifesto, but I should like to be allowed to call the attention of the House to a resolution which was passed at a public meeting held in Burwell some little time ago. The Rev. Mr. Upton, Chairman of the Parish Council, was in the chair, and a resolution was proposed and unanimously passed declaring that—
"This crowded meeting of inhabitants of Burwell, having considered the manifesto of agricultural labourers which was published in The Times and other newspapers, and knowing all the circumstances of the case, expresses its indignation that such a number of falsehoods and misstatements should have been made public, and strongly condemns the action of Party agents in drawing up the manifesto and securing to it signatures of labourers, many of whom have confessed that they were ignorant of its contents and purpose. This meeting denies that any labourers have been thrown out of employment by the conversion of Crown lands into small holdings, the demand for labour having greatly increased.''
They assure Mr. Rose that his treatment of the labourers who did not wish to take up holdings, in giving them £389 by way of compensation, has been most considerate and most generous.
On this I may say that when my hon. friend thought of taking this farm he came and said that no hardship must be done to the labourers, and he made it a point that the Crown Commissioners should settle the amount of compensation. He gave them to understand that if that was not done he would throw up the whole thing and have nothing to do with it. They gave way, and the matter was settled by the Commissioners, a sum of £389 being paid in compensation to the thirty-nine labourers

505
who had received notice. All of them had land offered to them, but I am informed that they were persuaded from taking it. I sent down an inspector recently and the report I received is very satisfactory. The land has been let to seventy-five tenants, and has been laid out to great advantage; the amount of stock on the farm is good, and the farm is well managed and properly cultivated. I have a description of the tenants of the Crown land at Burwell, their occupations, and where they came from, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept that—it will be published shortly —as part of the information for which he asks in this Return. Before leaving the subject of Burwell, I may say that several suitable applications for small holdings have been received from suitable people in excess of the amount of land available, and to satisfy which I estimate that at least 500 more acres would have been required. I hope to get more land in that neighbourhood, where it is very much wanted, and the first persons who will be accommodated thereon are the Burwell labourers who, acting on the foolish advice of their old manager, would not accept the terms offered to them. This action they now very much regret.
There is a farm of 440 acres in Wiltshire, where the old rent was £131 and the new rent £150. I let that land in ten minutes to the parish council, whose representative came to see me. There is a further application from that neighbourhood for 558 acres. There are sixty applications; fifty-five of these come from applicants in the parish, and all, I am told, are likely to succeed; but I will endeavour to get further information from the parish council. Then there is a farm of 151 acres in Yorkshire. The old rent was £380 and the present rent is £400. That has been let to the Corporation of Scarborough with another farm very close by—a farm of 327 acres, the tenants of which were the Rev. Mr. Marshall and the Rev. Mr. Hawkins. The Scarborough Corporation will get possession of that farm at Michaelmas. They propose to let the two farms to small holders, and as soon as I can get a Return from them I will send it to the noble Viscount. The old rent of this farm was £1,015, and the rent that will be paid
506
by the Scarborough Corporation will be £1,100. I may say, with regard to these two reverend gentlemen, that they were in the habit of sub-letting a portion of their land to farm labourers and others, not entirely at a loss to themselves. That is a proceeding which has been severely knocked on the head, and which I hope will be entirely stamped out from the Crown lands.
The last is a farm in Lincolnshire. It is of 937 acres, and the tenant was an old lady named Mrs. Eastlands. The family have been for a considerable time —sixty or seventy years—on the farm; the old rent was £1,149, and the new rent is £1,349. Five hundred and sixty-nine acres have been let to the South Lincolnshire Syndicate, and 368 acres have been let to Mr. Eastlands, the son of old Mrs. Eastlands, at an increased rent of £115. The increase in the rents of the five farms is £210. Mr. Eastland had before this rushed into print, and there were sensational headlines in a Conservative paper:—"A land grabbing Government. Eviction of a Norfolk farmer. Appeal to the King." Mr. Eastland called to see me and I had an interview with him, taking the precaution of having a shorthand writer sitting behind me so as to have a record of what took place.
Mr. Eastland posed as the evicted tenant; but I had to point out to him that ten years ago Mr. John Clutton, the then agent to the Crown Commissioners, had given his mother notice to quit for farming the land in—well, not a satisfactory condition. These good people received notice to quit and out they went. Then it was discovered that this poor old lady belonged to a family who had been there for sixty or seventy years, and she was then made a yearly tenant. She continued as a yearly tenant, the son being merely in the position of a lodger, and in course of time she went to heaven and the farm became vacant. Mr. Eastland gave himself the airs of the tenant, and I had to point out to him very plainly that the only claim he had on the farm was that he was the son of his mother. I told him that it was the great desire of the Crown to do what all good landlords desire to do, viz., to try and retain families on the farm. He was not in any way

507
a desirable or a satisfactory tenant, but simply for sentimental reasons he was allowed to take 358 acres, which was as much as he could do with, and he seemed very pleased. There he is now a Crown tenant, and so long as he pays his rent and cultivates his land properly he will not be disturbed.
News has arrived this morning from Lincolnshire that a Mr. Crawley has arranged to give up 700 acres, and the 700 acres were yesterday offered to the parish council. I also hear that the Lincolnshire people will have the advantage of a further 73 acres which have been voluntarily offered for the purpose. I am sorry I cannot give the noble Viscount further information.
Lord Heneage told us a most pitiable tale, and I really had a lump in my throat as I listened to the terrible state of things which had been going on at Croft. He said it was an object lesson, and he took great exception to a circular letter which I had sent round to all the parish councils in England.
LORD HENEAGE: I do not know anything about a letter to all the authorities. I took exception to this particular letter in the case of Croft, because the tenant concerned had not heard anything about it.
EARL CARRINGTON: The inquiry in this case was part of a general one addressed to all the local authorities in districts where the Crown lands exist, and there was no attempt whatever to oust anybody in this particular neighbourhood. As to the other questions put to me by Lord Heneage, no land as far as I know has been pegged out, and no farmer has been given notice to quit. The noble Lord may rest assured that the vested interests of the sitting tenant will receive every consideration. The noble Lord surely cannot object to the responsible Minister sending round to the parish councils a circular letter making inquiries.
I have already received applications for 10,000 acres, or one-sixth of the whole Crown lands, from applicants, a great many of whom are very highly spoken of, and by Michaelmas I hope to have 2,000 acres of Crown lands under small holdings without injustice or injury to any sitting
508
tenants. I think your Lordships will see that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was perfectly right when he put this large portion of Crown land under Ministerial control, for any question can be asked as to its administration and nothing can be kept back. I think my noble friend Lord Heneage may give us credit for trying to manage this estate without any harshness. In conclusion, I assure your Lordships that our great object is to deal fairly and honestly with the tenant farmers.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting statement from the noble Earl, enlivened by touches of that local colour which no one else knows so well how to apply, and characterised by a most intimate knowledge of the affairs of the estates the management of which rests in his hands. I say a very intimate knowledge, because he apparently knows not only what happens to the tenants of those estates during their lifetime but even where they go to when they are no longer amongst us. But, interesting as my noble friend's statement was, I hope he will forgive me for saying that it fell considerably short of being an answer to my noble friend behind me as to the points on which he desired information.
My noble friend asked for a statement as to the number of occupants who, under the new system, will occupy these sub-divided farms, distinguishing between the old agricultural population and the newcomers, some of whom there is reason to believe do not form part of what may be properly described as the agricultural population, but are rather artisans and tradesmen from the towns. The only one of the five farms in regard to which the noble Earl gave us any precise information was the farm at Burwell, which he discussed at considerable length; and if he will forgive me for saying so, I think the greater part of his speech must have been prepared rather by way of rejoinder to certain attacks in the Press, which have been so conspicuous recently, than as a reply to the specific Questions of my noble friend. I do not know why the noble Earl assumed that if the Burwell Farm had been re-let to another tenant a large number of the thirty-nine labourers previously employed on it would have been turned out of their houses. They might have been replaced by other

509
labourers if they were unsuitable, but I take it that in these cases a farm of a certain size generally employs a certain number of men and that the new tenant at Burwell would probably have employed somewhere about that number.
Evidently my noble friend is not able to give us at present the whole of these details, and I therefore merely rise for the purpose of expressing my hope that he will give us at an early date what the noble Viscount behind me has asked for—a Return showing exactly how the matter stands in regard to each of these farms. My noble friend must be aware that the vigour with which he is prosecuting this new policy is creating a good deal of anxiety in the country. The policy itself is a good one. We are all in favour of it. We all desire to do what can be done to prevent the exodus of labourers and to retain thorn upon the soil under conditions as comfortable and convenient to them as possible. But the danger is that in making this experiment you may inflict an amount of hardship upon those who are now on the soil out of all proportion to the advantage which is occasioned to the new small holders whom you create.
The noble Earl was able to give a satisfactory explanation of the case referred to by my noble friend Lord Heneage—I mean the Croft case. But we cannot be surprised that it should have created some excitement. Here is a parish of some 5,000 acres, of which 200 acres are occupied by the only Crown tenant in the parish, and it is a parish in which there is already an unusually large number of small holders. Naturally, when this unfortunate gentleman became aware that meetings were being held to consider how small holdings were to be carved out of the Crown lands in his parish he knew that he was the only person who could possibly be the victim, and he felt considerable alarm. I think, considering the circumstances, it might perhaps have been wiser if this letter, though it was a circular letter, had been sent only to those local authorities in whose neighbourhood there really was a considerable amount of Crown land available for the purpose of small holdings on the one hand and a known dearth of such holdings on the other. Neither of those conditions was
510
present in the case of Croft, and the noble Earl cannot be surprised that his manifesto should have created a great deal of alarm.
VISCOUNT HILL: I should like to express the hope that the noble Earl will give us the particulars in respect of the whole of the Crown lands, and not forget to add the statement which he has already promised giving the expense of equipping the farms.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, the noble Earl told us about a farm at Scarborough which had been in the occupation of two reverend gentlemen, I think at £1,000 a year, and which he has now let to the Scarborough Town Council for £1,015 on the understanding that they are to let it out in small holdings. I should like to know whether the Scarborough Town Council are going to equip the holdings, or whether the individuals who are going to take them will be expected to equip them themselves. If the men are to equip them it really means that it will be artisans and small tradesmen in Scarborough who will take up the small holdings, and not the kind of men on whose behalf this policy—the policy of keeping the old agricultural stock upon the land—is being initiated by His Majesty's Government. I know something of Scarborough, and you may be quite sure that if they gave £15 more than the two reverend gentlemen for this farm and promised the noble Earl that they would let it out in small holdings, they know very well that the people who would take those holdings would not come upon the Scarborough town rates for the equipment of the buildings and the making of fences.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I can assure the House that I do not wish to keep anything back, and I will do the best I can to ascertain the information asked for. As regards the Scarborough farm, I am informed that the two reverend gentlemen used to sub-let it at a greatly enhanced rent. The Town Council will be able to let this farm at a considerably lower price than before, which will be a great advantage to the tenant. I regret that I cannot at present give the noble Viscount the information he requires, and for the simple reason that we have only just let off these farms to the local

511
authorities. We have only been running six months, and I have not been able to get the Returns in yet. But when I receive them I shall be only too happy to supply noble Lords with any information they may require. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Motion I will give him the fullest information at the earliest possible moment.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.