Sitting of 15 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill.—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords] (by Order).—Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.
Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Police Superannuation Bill.
Amendments to Amendments to:—Leicester Corporation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to:—Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Hull, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Maiden Bradley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Brockley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Bradford; Gospel Oak; Hull; Liverpool; Paddington; and Southgate; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Wemyss, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1907. Part I. Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. O'Shaughnessy]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM BRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford, on the 11th March, 1908, amending Statute XVI., Clause 12, of the
826
Statutes of the House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]

HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented, of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of 31st March, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).
Copy presented, of Papers regarding (1) Orakzais, Request of certain Clans to be taken under British Administration (2) Zakka Khel Afridis, Operations; (3) Mohmands, Operations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Affairs in the East Africa Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 8th July, 1908, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Auditor in the Local Government Board for Ireland professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be required in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1908–9).
Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1909 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 229.]

TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered, "showing; (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1908; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such

827
Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce, after deducting these charges, in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1908; and notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 281, of Session 1907)."—(Sir Daniel Goddard.)

COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN ELECTORS).
Return ordered, "showing the number of women in England and Wales who are qualified to vote for County Councils and for Councillors in municipal Boroughs indicating in each case what is the qualification which enables a Woman to be placed on the register."—(Mr. Cameron Corbett.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Load-Line on British Ships.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the raising of the load-line on British ships, and the method by which the provision was made, namely, by order of the Department; also can he give the date of such order and of its operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the alteration of the load-line tables to which my hon. friend refers. It was made by a Minute of the Board of Trade signed by the President on 1st March, 1906, and came into operation on and from that date.

  Petition of Assistant Clerks in General Register of Shipping Office.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the assistant clerks (new class) employed in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen may expect a reply to their petition of the 12th March, 1908, in which they ask for promotion to the Second Division
  828
  on the ground that they are employed on superior duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of November, 1898, promotion to the Second Division is only to be given exceptionally on the ground of special merit. In accordance with a decision which has been arrived at, the case of the assistant clerks (abstractor class) will be considered on the next vacancy, and on each alternate vacancy thereafter, with a view to considering whether a promotion should be made from that class. I may add that the staff have been informed of the position of the case.

  Pay of Montrose Postal Servants.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that recent changes in classification have reduced the maximum rate of pay of town postmen in Montrose from 24s. to 23s. per week; whether he is aware that, while the maximum at Montrose for eighty-five units of work is 23s., North Berwick for instance, with only fifty-four units, receives 25s.; and if steps can be taken to place Montrose postal servants in a better position.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) At Montrose the volume of work is represented by eighty-five units, and the index number for the cost of living as supplied by the Board of Trade is ninety-three. Montrose has, therefore, been properly placed in Class IV. At North Berwick, where the volume of work is represented by fifty-four units, it has been anticipated, by analogy, that the cost of living index number would be above the normal, and the office is, therefore, provisionally put in Class III.

  Pay of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the initial salary for a teacher in Irish primary schools; and whether, seeing that the adequacy of the initial salary has a considerable effect in inducing good men to enter the teaching profession, he will, in the interests of education,

  829
  reconsider his scheme for the allocation of the proposed grant by increasing the initial salaries for all teachers and by recasting the scale of increments.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what provision is made for assistant teachers in Irish national schools in the allocation of the proposed grant; and whether, seeing that these men pass the same examinations, undergo the same course of training, do equal work, and are responsible in their schools as principals, and that according to the existing rules they are all paid only third-grade salary regardless of qualification or efficiency, steps will be immediately taken to make sonic adequate provision for this large body of Irish teachers in the new grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The initial salary of national school teachers is for

  Number of Units of work.

  Cost of Living Index Number.

  Brentford

  53

  111

  Kingston

  343

  115

  Richmond

  259

  111

  Southall

  53

  108

  Twickenham

  140

  No information at present.

  Woolwich

  312

  116

  Acton, Blackheath, Chiswick, Hanwell, and Wimbledon are in the London postal area, and for these places there are no units of work or index numbers of cost of living which can form comparison with those quoted above for provincial towns.

  Salmon and Moray Firth Trawlers.
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has any information to the effect that trawlers working in the Moray Firth sometimes obtain hauls of salmon; and, if so, whether he has received any complaints to this effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The only information at my disposal will be found on pages 76–7 of the Appendices to Part II. of the Fishery Board's Report for 1905. I have received no complaints.
  830
  men £56 and for women £44, together with residual capitation grant in each case. I am in communication with the Commissioners of National Education with the object of arranging for the allocation of the new grant in such a manner as will ensure some benefit to all classes of teachers, assistants included.

  Post Office Scales of Living.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Postmaster-General what are the respective units of work and cost of living at Brentford, Chiswick, Acton, Richmond, Twickenham, Southall, Kingston, Wimbledon, Woolwich, Blackheath, and Hanwell.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The following is the information asked for:—

  Fishery Cruiser at Longhope.
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state whether any, and, if so, what, decision has been arrived at in the matter of stationing a fishery cruiser at Longhope.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am not aware that the question of having a cruiser stationed at Longhope has ever been proposed or considered. The number of cruisers at the disposal of the Board is not sufficient to permit of one or them being detailed for duty at this place in particular.

  Protection of Fisheries off Caithness.
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Grimsby-Norwegian trawler "Viking" was recently detected trawling within the three-mile limit off Lybster,

  831
  Caithness, and whether, in order to prevent a repetition of this offence, he can see his way to station a fishery cruiser in this neighbouhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware that the trawler "Viking" was recently detected employed in trawling within the three-mile limit off Lybster, and that the case has been reported for prosecution; it is not practicable to station a fishery cruiser off Lybster, but frequent visits to the coast of Caithness are made.

  Scottish Firms and Post Office Contracts.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Postmaster-General what was the extent in money of the contracts placed for uniforms, clothing, caps, etc., for use in his Department in Scotland in the year 1907; and how much of that sum was placed with Scottish firms having their premises in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Separate contracts are not made for the stores of this kind required in Scotland. Their cost in 1907–8 was about £21,000. The sums paid for such stores to firms in Scotland was about £3,200, but these stores of Scottish manufacture would be used anywhere in the United Kingdom, not necessarily in Scotland.

  Welsh Firms and Post Office Contracts.
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his Department makes separate contracts with Welsh firms for tailoring, boots, waterproofs, etc., for postmen employed in Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No, Sir.

  Manufacturing in Prisons.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the names of the prisons in which manufacturing is carried on; what articles are made in each; and which, if any, employ steam power.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Manufacturing is carried on in all the prisons in England and Wales, a list of which, and of the various employments,
  832
  and industries carried on in each, is given in the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and Directors of Convict Prisons for the year ending 31st March, 1907. Steam power in connection with manufactures is used at Portland convict prison only, for cutting handstones for the Admiralty.

  Borough of Hornsey Building Bye-Laws.
  MR. IDRISTo ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the building bye-laws submitted by the borough of Hornsey have yet been approved; and, if not, whether they will be approved before the Recess.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The bye-laws would have been confirmed last month but for a request from an objector, who asked for the confirmation to be postponed while he consulted various sanitary experts. He has now written sending copies of the Reports of the experts, and the Board are communicating with the town council on the subject with a view to an early settlement of the matter.

  Foreign Trawlers in British Waters.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the delay in approaching other Powers in connection with Foreign vessels trawling in the Moray Firth arises from the attitude of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and if the policy of the Scottish Fishery Board and the Irish Board with regard to closing areas against trawling meets with the approval of the English Board.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The policy to be adopted in this matter involves international considerations, and must be determined by the Government from the point of view of the United Kingdom as a whole. Communications with respect to it are proceeding as rapidly as possible between the various Departments concerned, but I am not in a position to add anything to the statements recently made by my right hon. friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for Scotland.

  Board of Fisheries.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Fisheries desires the creation of one Board of Fisheries for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Irish Universities Bill.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in its amended form the Irish Universities Bill contains proposals which would enable the senate of the Royal University of Ireland, or its successors, to continue to hold the examinations of that University over a period as long as may be thought reasonably required in order to afford due opportunities for undergraduates of that University to complete their academic degrees.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave on 29th June to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Kerry.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Grehan Estate, Kildorrery.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will give the date upon which Mr. John J. Therry, junior, became a judicial tenant of the three evicted farms on the Grehan estate, Kildorrery, County Cork; whether a fair rent was fixed in the Land Court or by a private arrangement with his father, Mr. John Therry, agent to the estate, and what are the terms; whether, seeing that Mr. John Therry, junior, lives over twenty miles away from these farms, and in another county, and does not use or cultivate them as ordinary farms in accordance with proper methods of husbandry, the Estates Commissioners will make further inquiries into all the circumstances with a view to the reinstatement of the tenants who have been evicted from these holdings; and when were the tenants in question evicted.
  834
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that an agreement and declaration, fixing a fair rent in this case, was lodged with the Land Commission on 4th November, 1903, the name of the tenant being John Therry, junior. The Estates Commissioners are of opinion that the lands could not he acquired compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act, but they are prepared to consider any representations to the contrary which may be made to them. The former tenants appear to have been evicted in 1890 and 1894.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of John Lavery.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Patrick Lavery, of Ballyline, Ballylongford, as representing John Lavery, an evicted tenant, has made an application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Esstates Commissioners have fully invest-gated this case, and have decided to take no action upon the application.

  Irish Libraries.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many libraries have been established in Ireland by local authorities under the Acts of 1855 and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not in a position to furnish a complete Answer to the Question. The Local Government Board have a record of the cases in which loans have been sanctioned for the erection of libraries since 1900, in which year the power of sanctioning such loans was given to the Board. In many cases libraries have been erected by private beneficence and no loan was necessary.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Two New Destroyers.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the names of the two

  835
  destroyers bought by the Government to take the places of two ships lost, and with the names of the ones they replace; and whether they equal them in strength.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The purchase of two vessels is not yet completed, as the necessary trials have not yet been carried out to ascertain fully their capabilities. They are to replace the "Gala" and "Tiger." If the trials are satisfactory, it is considered they will not be less suitable for the service than the vessels they are to replace. Their names are not yet determined.
  MR. STANIER: Are these the vessels mentioned in last night's debate as having been bought?
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, but they will not be taken over unless the trials prove satisfactory.
  MR. STANIER: Then they have been bought?
  MR. McKENNA: Certainly.

  Manning the Navy.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the class which provides officers for the Navy is less than one-twentieth part of the total population, and that those families which formerly supplied the engineer officers are now totally debarred from doing so because of their inability to pay the cost of training and maintenance of their sons at Osborne and Dartmouth; and will he consider the advisability of reducing the demands of the Treasury upon the parents and guardians of naval cadets in order to put a stop to this state of affairs.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I think my hon. friend should address his inquiries on this subject to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: And if I put the Question to the First Lord he simply radiates pleasure and advises me to consult the Treasury.

  Supply of Horses for the Army.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the importance of having a complete census taken of all suitable horses in the United Kingdom before any scheme with respect to the encouragement of horse-breeding for Army purposes is formulated, whether the Government propose to undertake such a census, and when.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,: It is hoped that the County Associations will be able to supply all the required information without resorting to a general census. The Government do not, therefore, propose to consider the question of taking such a census until the Associations have been proved to be unable to produce the in formation.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what means the County Associations have of obtaining this information?
  MR. ACLAND: The matter is new to them. We have had a considerable number of communications from them as to their willingness to do all they can to furnish us with information as to the number of horses available.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Do they hold out any hope that they will be able to supply the Government with an effective census?
  MR. ACLAND: That will be a matter of experience. I think it is only natural that we should see what we can get from the Associations.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will not the Government reconsider their decision and attempt themselves to get this very necessary information?
  MR. ACLAND: I think it would be better to wait and see what the County Associations can do.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: Will the Government make any grant towards the expenses of the County Association in carrying this out?
  MR. CLYNES: Have the War Office received any complaints from those who lent horses to the War Office for camping purposes that they experienced great delay in securing payment?
  MR. ACLAND: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  Woolwich Common.
  MR. CROOKSI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is abundant land to build on opposite the part of Woolwich Common he proposes to take; and whether, in the interest of the public, he will consider the possibility of taking this land instead of that proposed to be taken, and thus leave the public the use of the common they have always enjoyed.
  MR. ACLAND: I can assure my hon. friend that before the present site for the Royal Army Medical Corps building was finally selected, all possible suitable sites were duly considered; the proposal to build on Eltham Common being dropped in deference to public opinion. In the case of the site now selected the erect1on of a building behind the reservoir will not in any appreciable degree interfere with the amenities of the district, special care being taken not to remove the trees.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Woolwich Common is the only recreation ground for Woolwich and Plumstead, with a population of 150,000, and as there are other places which can be used for these buildings will he leave the Common alone?
  MR. ACLAND: The Common is the freehold of the War Office, and we are careful in view of the fact stated by the hon. Member not to take more of the land than is absolutely necessary.

  Plague in India.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the number of people who have died from plague in India during the last year; and what steps have been taken to deal with this scourge.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): In the year ending 31st December last the number of deaths from plague was 1,204,194. If the twelve months ending 30th. June, 1908, be taken, the number was 252,781, showing a very satisfactory decrease. Some account of the measures now adopted in combatting plague is given in the Return recently presented on the moral and material progress of India for the year 1906–7. They include the destruction of rats, the evacuation of infected quarters, the improvement of insanitary areas, and inoculation. Grants aggregating £200,000 a year have been made to Local Governments in this year's Budget for expenditure on sanitary improvements with special reference to the prevention of plague.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman consider 250,000 deaths a matter which can be deemed a source of satisfaction?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, because taking the whole year the mortality has been steadily decreasing.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman supply the corresponding figures for the previous year, showing the increase or decrease as the ease may be?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that plague has now been going on for eleven years, and has it not been fomented by the serum which the plague officers have distributed in places which have been free from it?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Unfortunately it has been going on a long time, but at present it is steadily declining, owing to the action of the plague officers.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is not the poverty of the people the real cause of the plague?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that can be substantiated. It is one of the redeeming features of the situation that plague does not follow famine. It prevails mostly in the more well-to-do parts of India, and not in famine districts.
  *MR. REESasked if the total of 1,204,194 was not under ½ per cent. of the population—
  *MR. SPEAKER: That leads to a matter of argument.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the mortality from plague in India, for the period during which the epidemic has prevailed, works out to an average of about 2·135 per 1,000 of the population; whether the mortality from tuberculosis in the United Kingdom last reported was abort 1·6 per 1,000 of the population; whether, having regard to the general rates of mortality prevailing amongst Eastern populations, the death rate from plague in India implies any greater failure to stay its ravages on the part of the Government of India than may be established against the administrators of this country for the high death rate resulting from tuberculosis; and whether he will take steps to make known the efforts made in India to diminish the death rate from plague.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The first figure given by the hon. Member is approximately correct, but the two averages quoted cannot in the Secretary of State's opinion be compared in the manner suggested. The steps taken to combat plague have already been made generally known through the Moral and Material Progress Report, and by other published statements.
  *MR. REES: Is there any reason to suppose the Government of India have been neglectful of their obligations in this important matter?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The figures show, on the contrary, that they have been very active indeed.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that previous plagues have generally been got rid of in seven months, whereas owing to the active operations of the Government this one has lasted eleven years?
  MR. ALDEN: Is it not the case that the severity of the plague is greater in Bombay Presidency than anywhere else, and does not that district suffer from a continual famine?
  MR. BUCHANAN: As I have said, I do not think the connection between plague and famine can be substantiated. The figures point the other way. The plague has been most prevalent in the Punjab. The figures show perfectly clearly that the plague does not follow in the footsteps of famine.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Are not the chief factors in the reduction of plague in India the destruction of vermin and improved sanitation?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir.

  Dinizulu.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State is in possession of any information enabling him to fix the probable date of the termination of the preliminary examination of Dinizulu, or whether any definite charge has yet been formulated against that chief.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): No, Sir, I regret that up to the present it has not been possible to fix a definite date. If the prisoner is committed for trial the indictment will, of course, formulate definite charges.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Is it not the fact that this preliminary examination has been going on for upwards of seven months, and that 100 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, the examination has been going on for a long time, and a great number of witnesses have

  841
  been examined; but at present it is not possible to say when this prolonged examination will be concluded.
  MR. FLYNN: Have any witnesses for this man's defence been examined?
  COLONEL SEELY: As soon as the case for the prosecution it? concluded witnesses for the defence will be called.
  MR. VERNEY: Have any definite charges been formulated?
  COLONEL SEELY: A great many charges have been brought, but definite charges have not been and will not be formulated until he is committed for trial, which is uncertain.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has this preliminary investigation to decide as to this man's guilt or innocence?
  COLONEL SEELY: At present it is uncertain whether he is guilty or innocent; this is a preliminary investigation into various charges.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: But the hon. Gentleman said witnesses would be called for the defence.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, after those for the prosecution.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any precedent in Colonial affairs for a preliminary examination lasting over seven months?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say definitely, but I believe this is a very exceptional case.
  MR. REES: Is the gift of self-government to the Transvaal to be counterbalanced by the withdrawal of self-government from Natal?
  COLONEL SEELY: No, and I do not think that question arises.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Bill has been introduced into
  842
  the Natal Legislature for the purpose of d creating a special tribunal for the trial of Dinizulu; and, if so, with whom, under that Bill, rests the power of appointing y the Judges to form the tribunal; and n whether the law administered, and the rules of evidence applied, will be those in force in the Supreme Court of Natal.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Bill has not yet been introduced and I am not, therefore, in a position to make any announcement. I hope, however, to be able to make a full statement before long.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is it not the general opinion of Members of e the House that the conduct of the prosecution of Dinizulu is vindictive and tyrannical to a degree, as well as absolutely abhorrent and contrary to the whole spirit of English justice?
  COLONEL SEELY: The hon. Member b has possibly more knowledge than I of the opinions of hon. Members.

  Cotton Cultivation in Egypt.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement as to the experiments which have been undertaken in cotton-growing in Australia; and whether this industry is likely to develop in the Commonwealth.
  COLONEL SEELY: My information is that cotton-growing has been tried on a small scale in Queensland, but so far without marked success. The area under cotton during the season 1905–6, viz.: 171 acres, had fallen by 1906–7 to 138 acres. Hopes are entertained that with the invention of a mechanical device for the picking of the cotton the industry will become firmly established, since the soil and conditions appear eminently suitable for the growth of this crop. Small areas in the Northern Territory have also been planted with cotton, while the tropical portions of Western Australia have long been regarded as suitable for its cultivation.

  Repatriation of Chinese from the Transvaal.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the

  843
  Colonies whether at the opening of the Transvaal Parliament the Governor made a speech referring to the condition of the gold mining industry, and the effect upon it of the policy of repatriating the Chinese labourers; and whether he has official information of what was said by Lord Selborne on that occasion.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir. The speech contains the following statement: "The policy as regards indentured Chinese labourers which was adopted last session has been justified by complete success. Since March, 1907, and up to the end of May last, 31,157 Chinese labourers had already been repatriated, while the number of native labourers coming from all parts of South Africa to the mines has been and continues to be more than sufficient for all requirements. It is satisfactory also to note that while the gold output has been steadily increasing, the cost of mining has been undergoing steady reductions, and as a result of the efforts of the Government and of the leaders of the mining industry, that industry is to-day on a sounder basis than ever before, both as regards its present position and further expansion."

  Trinidad Dock and Engineering Company.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a protest has been received from the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Port-of-Spain against the appointment of a Government director in connection with the Trinidad Dock and Engineering Company, Limited, at a salary of £250 per annum, such salary being paid by the Government; whether such director was recently pensioned on the ground of ill-health and the Finance Committee unanimously passed a resolution against such an appointment, but the Secretary of State made the appointment without their consent, intimating that it must be endorsed, if necessary, by the use of the official majority; and, if so, will lie state what action, if any, the Government intend to take with a view to more respect being paid to the wishes of the direct representatives of the people.
  COLONEL SEELY: The protest referred to has just been received. Pend-
  844
  ing the Secretary of State's consideration of the protest, and the return of a reply to the unofficial members of Council, it would be premature to make a statement on the subject in this House.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction and disappointment caused by this overruling of the unanimous decision of the Finance Committee by the official Vote?
  COLONEL SEELY: It would be inadvisable for me to make any partial statement now. I hope to be able to make a full one in a few days.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it not the fact that the Government made it a condition of their co-operation in the establishment of this dock that they should have this official voting power?
  COLONEL SEELY: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  East Africa Legislative Council.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary for the Colonies when he will lay upon the Table the promised Papers with reference to the recent suspensions from the Legislative Council in East Africa.
  COLONEL SEELY: Papers will be laid at the end of this week.

  Carib Canal—St. Vincent Eruption Fund.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a loan from the St. Vincent eruption fund for the purpose of clearing volcanic ashes from the Carib Canal has twice been recommended by him to the Governor of the Windward Islands, with the concurrence of the Administrator of St. Vincent and the Legislative Council; whether the I Governor stated that, in his opinion, the decision to refuse sanction for the loan should be reconsidered in the interests of the island; whether the Administrator concurred in this opinion; and whether, if so, he will now reconsider his decision.

  845
  I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his suggestion that a loan, not exceeding £5,000, should be made from the surplus revenue of St. Vincent for the purpose of re-opening the Carib Canal has been favourably received by the Governor of the Windward Islands, the Administrator of St. Vincent, the Legislative Council, and the community; and, if not, whether he still insists on it as preferable to a loan from the eruption fund.
  COLONEL SEELY: It is true that the grant of a loan from the eruption fund has twice been recommended by the Governor of the Windward Islands, with the concurrence of the Administrator of St. Vincent, though we have not been informed that the Legislative Council also concurred. The Secretary of State has not yet received a reply to his telegram, agreeing, on certain conditions, to a loan from surplus revenue. He does not, however, propose to depart from the decision of his predecessor, in which he has already expressed his concurrence, that the invested portion of the eruption fund should be held as a reserve against future disaster and should not be invested locally.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it a serious interference with the wishes of the Colonies not to pursue the course unanimously suggested by the Governor, the local Administrator, and the Legislative Council, and approved by all members of the community?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say it is approved by all Members of the community. No doubt it would be to the advantage of some but in the view of the Secretary of State and his predecessor it would not be to the advantage of others.

  Metropolitan Police—Promotion from the Ranks.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Chief Constables there are in the Metropolitan districts; how many of these have been raised from the ranks; what were the
  846
  qualifications of those who hold these-positions which caused them to be preferred to those who have spent their lives at the business; and whether he will in future, in making these appointments, refrain from bringing in outsiders unless it is impossible to find suitable candidates among those already in the force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): There are live Chief Constables in the Metropolitan Police district, none of whom has been raised from the ranks. Their qualifications, for their duties were acquired in His Majesty's service at home and abroad. As regards future appointments, I can only say that, in the event of a vacancy, I shall not limit the area of my choice, but shall appoint the person who, in my opinion, is best filled to fill the post.
  MR. WATT: May I ask if under the regime of the present Government the promotions from the ranks have been more numerous?
  MR. GLADSTONE'Sreply was inaudible.

  Convict Prisons—Warders' Hours of Duty.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the average hours of duty of warders in. convict prisons, reckoned on the basis of a working week of six days and calculated from the figures given in the official standing orders, are eleven hours-ten minutes per day exclusive of meal times; and whether, it view of this fact, he will take steps to remedy the grievance by creating a third division of warders to relieve the duties of the existing staff.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The longest average hours of duty of warders in convict prisons reckoned on the basis of a working fortnight of twelve days and calculated as above are ten hours thirty-three minutes. It is impossible to give an average reckoned on a weekly basis, as the hours vary in alternate weeks. The Directors have not heard of any alleged grievance.

  Licence Transfers in London.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed that, by the Return relating to the licence transfers just issued, out of a total number of 6,960 on-licences in the petty sessional divisions of London, 1,637 such licences, or 23·5 per cent, of the total, were transferred during the year 1907, and that 160 cases occurred in these districts where such licences were transferred twice or more during the period; and whether the police have instructions to call the attention of licensing benches to cases where the frequency of transfer would suggest the inference that the licence is not required.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. friend draws attention. I do not think any special instructions to the police in this matter are needed. All the facts as to frequency of transfers are in each case before the Justices, who are the authority to determine whether a licence is redundant, and who can draw their own inferences from them.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the statements of Mr. J. W. Logan, who was for many years a Member of this House, that the ladies, of whom his daughter is one, who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the agitation for woman suffrage, are placed in solitary confinement for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four, have prison dress, have coarse prison food to eat, are not allowed to have letters or books or newspapers, except one book a week from the prison library, which they are not allowed to read until after 5 p.m., and that the one hour out of the twenty-four in which they are not in solitary confinement is spent half in chapel and the remaining half at exercise in a yard where they are not allowed to speak to any person; in what respects, if any, does this punishment differ from the prison discipline enforced on prisoners guilty of heinous crimes; how many
  848
  ladies are at present subject to this treat ment for offences of a political character which has been inflicted on them in the discretion of a magistrate; and whether he will in these cases advise the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown for the removal or reduction of the cruel and humiliating incidents of such an imprisonment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The prisoners are treated as all other prisoners in the second division. They are in separate confinement for about twenty-two and a half hours out of the twenty-four, one hour being given to exercise and about half an hour to chapel; they wear the authorised dress for the second division; are given the same diet as offenders of the first division who do not maintain themselves; they are not allowed to converse with each other, nor to receive letters until they have been in prison one month. They are allowed two library books a week. They may read these at meal hours and after working hours. This punishment differs from that of prisoners "convicted of heinous crimes" in the following particulars: The diet of the latter is not so good, and for the first seven days not so plentiful. They are not allowed letters until they have served two months, and they are not allowed library books until they have served one month, and then only one per week. They are not altogether separated from other criminals. There were twenty-one of the suffragist prisoners yesterday, but as any of them can secure their release at any time by giving security for good behaviour, I cannot say whether the number is the same now. I cannot advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are these ladies, whom the right hon. Gentleman has termed criminals, compelled to wear prison clothes formerly worn by ordinary women criminals?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They are under the rules which govern the second division.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Have they not, as a matter of fact, worn the cast-off clothes of other prisoners?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I really cannot quite say. Of course, new clothing cannot be supplied to all the prisoners who come in, but every care is taken that the clothing should be supplied in a state of perfect cleanliness.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are these ladies obliged to take whatever exercise they get practically in association with those who have been convicted of ordinary criminal offences?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is not the case. They are kept apart from ordinary criminals.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Do they have a separate exercise ground or simply march round with the other inmates of the prison?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They are carefully kept from association with the ordinary prisoners.
  MR. BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman reason to believe that any one of these ladies has herself made a complaint?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received no complaint myself from any one of them.
  MR. LEIF JONES: What good object is served by limiting the number of books allowed to these ladies?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a Question that might be asked in regard to the general prison rules, and I am not at all satisfied that the rule is adequate, but I do not think the question necessarily arises now.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are the books given to these ladies only such books as are in the prison library—goody-goody Sunday-school books?
  MR. LUPTON: May I ask——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given of any further Questions.

  Flogging Sentence at Newcastle Assizes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a telegram sent to him on Thursday from Mr. Collinson, the honorary secretary of the Humanitarian League, directing his attention to a sentence of imprisonment for twelve months with hard labour and twelve lashes, passed by Mr. Justice Bigham at the Newcastle Assizes, on a man named Rogerson, under the provisions of the Garrotting Act; whether the punishment of the lash has yet been inflicted; if so, whether he has investigated the circumstances of the crime,, and satisfied himself that the case is one in which it would be improper to advise the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown for the remission of the punishment of flogging; whether, if the flogging has not yet been inflicted, he will investigate the circumstances with a view to its remission if consistent with the interests of justice; and whether, having regard to the fact that the punishment of the lash is confined to one class of crime, is at all times in the discretion of the judge, and is never-ordered by the great majority of the Judges, he will in cases in which prisoners are sentenced to such punishment consider the facts of the case with a view, if possible, to the remission of the punishment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention, has been drawn to this case, and I have made inquiry, with the result that I find that there are no grounds which would justify the exercise of the prerogative. The prisoner can, under the-Criminal Appeal Act, apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his sentence. In this, as in other cases, the order for corporal punishment will not be carried out till after the lapse of the ten days during which the prisoner can make his application. While I am ready to consider any representations that may be made to me for the exercise of the prerogative on behalf of prisoners sentenced to corporal punishment, it would, in my opinion, be improper, having regard to the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act of last session, to take the action suggested by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the punishment yet been inflicted?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe not.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You ought to know.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am giving the hon. Member what information I have.

  Hyde Park Unemployed Collection.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police seized a box into which the public were throwing money for the unemployed in Hyde Park on Monday evening; and whether the box and its contents will be restored to the men.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; a collection of money was being made in contravention of the Park Regulations, which forbid such collections being made without the leave of the Commissioners of Works. As the collectors persisted after warning by the police, the latter, in the execution of their duty, siezed the box. A case is pending in Court in connection with this incident, and the magistrate dealing with it will be asked to give 'instructions as to the disposal of the money, which amounts to 9s. 4d.

  Thames Fatalities near Hammersmith Bridge.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on different dates since January, 1905, six children have been drowned at the Barnes side of the Thames, near Hammersmith Bridge, through accidents which might have been avoided by proper protection of the river bank; and whether, as the place named is continually used by playing children, his Department can, through the Thames Conservancy, take immediate action effectively to guard against a continuance of these cases of drowning.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have ascertained from the Home Office that six children have been drowned at the spot indicated since January, 1905,
  852
  and that the police have been instructed to pay every attention to the place, particularly in school holiday time, with a view to preventing further fatalities, though it is doubtful whether anything short of the provision of a wall or railing on this somewhat steep embankment will make it safe. The Thames Conservancy inform me that they are under no obligation to fence towpaths to prevent people falling into the river, but they are ready to give the local authority permission to construct protective works, provided these do not interfere with the use of the towpath or navigation.

  London Tube Railways—Precautions against Fire.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been specially directed to the Report, published on Saturday by his Department, made by Captain A. P. Trotter, relating to his inquiry into the fire which broke out recently in an electric carriage on the Liverpool and Southport Railway, and, having in view the liability to such fires inseparable from all electrically-driven railway carriages, what regulations have been made for the protection of the public from the consequences which might ensue from any such fire upon any of the London passenger railway tubes; and whether a copy of such regulations has been ordered to be publicly-exhibited at the stations of all such railways for public information and assurance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have made special requirements regarding the construction of tube railways with the object of guarding against the risk of fire. These requirements, however, relate to materials, ventilation, insulation, lighting and such matters, and a knowledge of them by passengers would not, I think, add to safety. I may add that hydrants and fire, hose are fixed on every platform, and fire extinguishers are carried in every carriage. Copies of Mr. Trotter's Report have been sent to the railway companies which have adopted electric traction.

  American Beef Trust.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

  853
  Trade whether he has any official information showing that a group of capitalists in America have formed a combination called the Beef Trust to control the beef supply of that country, which has been the subject of official investigation by the United States Senate, that that combination has secured control of four-fifths of the imports of beef into this country, and is now in process of securing, by acquiring the means of retail distribution, the same control of the beef supply here that the Beef Trust has already secured in America; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the official report of the United States Commissioner of Corporations (published in 1905) as to the operations of the six firms constituting what is known as the "Beef Trust," and I am also aware that these firms deal with a large proportion of the imports of beef into the United Kingdom. The operations of these firms in regard to the supply of this country are receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the facts he has stated constitute a prima facie for an inquiry by a Select Committee?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No; as at present advised, I have not arrived at that conclusion. The matter, however, is receiving constant attention.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of meeting the evil effects of this trust, the Government will not take into consideration the advisability of allowing cattle to be imported from countries where there is no cattle disease?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a question of much delicacy, and I fear I could not do justice to it within the limits of an answer.

  Eye Guardians and the Press.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that by the
  854
  casting vote of the chairman of the Eye Guardians the Press representatives were excluded from the last meeting of the Board, after the chairman stating that it was undesirable to give persons an opportunity of advertising themselves; and whether he will inquire if the exclusion prevented publicity respecting the punishment of a girl suffering from a contagious disease, and the overworking and ill-treatment of female inmates.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I understand that at the meeting referred to the representatives of the Press were, by the casting vote of the chairman, asked to withdraw during the reading of the correspondence only. They were informed that it was competent to them to return immediately the correspondence had been dealt with, but they did not avail themselves of this permission. Had they done so, they would have been present when the punishment book was under discussion. The clerk informs me that their exclusion did not prevent publicity respecting the matters mentioned by my hon. friend, that no question of ill-treatment of any inmates was referred to, and that he is not aware of the existence of any such question.

  The Motor Act.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the habitual disregard of the provisions of the Motor Act and the impossibility of enforcing its provisions, he will consider whether it would be desirable to omit the Act from the operation of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this Question. The effect of omitting the Motor Car Act, 1903, from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would practically be to restore matters to the position in which they stood prior to the passing of that Act. It was the unsatisfactory condition of things then existing that led to the legislation of 1903, and I do not I think the suggestion of my hon. friend could practically be adopted. I may

  855
  point out that, if it were, motor cars could still be used on the highways, but they would be freed from any statutory limit of speed, and that it would no longer be necessary that they should be registered and carry identification marks, or that the drivers should be licensed. The penalties to which offenders would be liable would also be lessened.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there had been no Motor Car Act motor cars would have been limited to a speed of twelve miles an hour, and that under present conditions the law is openly and systematically violated by persons in high stations?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given, except to say that both the Home Secretary and myself are quite prepared to consider sympathetically any representations with a view to our actions when they emanate from local authorities, who are responsible, and who, so far, have taken very little action in the matter.

  Poor Law Commission.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the probable date when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law may be expected; and, if so, whether there is any reasonable ground for expecting that it may be presented by the time that Parliament reassembles in October or during that month.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I stated on 20th May last that the Royal Commission hoped they might be able to present their Report in the autumn, but that it was impossible to give a precise date by which it would be issued. I have since made further inquiry on the subject, but I cannot add anything to what I then stated.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will repeat the Question very shortly.

  British Parcel Mail for Ecuador.
  MR. HENNIKIR HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-
  856
  General whether he is aware that our postal authorities despatch all British parcel mails for Ecuador via the Straits of Magellan, a route of over 10,600 miles, and the average time for this mail is eighty-five days, while, if this parcel mail was despatched by the Isthmus of Panama, a distance of 5,600 miles, it would be delivered in Ecuador in twenty-five days; whether he is aware that the present arrangement gives foreigners an advantage over British manufacturers because goods are ordered from countries where rapid transit can be ensured; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): All parcels from the United Kingdom for Ecuador are sent by way of France pending the conclusion of an Agreement for a direct service, as to which I have for some time been awaiting a further communication from the Government of Ecuador. The route via Panama is, so far as I am aware, available for parcels sent from this country to France for transmission to Ecuador; and a notification to this effect appears in the Post Office Guide. I am making inquiry of the French Administration whether any obstacle has arisen to the use of this route, and I will acquaint my hon. friend with the result. I should add that the time taken via Magellan is less and that via Colon is more than the hon. Member supposes.

  Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Charges.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the anomalies in parcel post charges from Great Britain and Ireland to our Colonial possessions and to foreign countries; whether parcels to Canada of three pounds weight cost 1s. 8d., while to India the same parcel can be sent at a charge of 1s., also by parcel post; whether goods from Germany and other foreign countries can be sent by parcel post to Great Britain and to our Colonies at a considerably lower rate than from the United Kingdom to foreign countries and our Colonial possessions; and whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee

  857
  of business men in the House of Commons to inquire and report on the question of foreign, inland, and Colonial parcel post charges.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware that the parcel post scales are not free from anomalies, and I have for some time been considering whether and what improvements can be effected. But in many cases the charge is determined by the special circumstances of the country concerned. I do not see that any advantage would be gained by the appointment of a Select Committee.

  Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing, the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the interim Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners, which he hoped would be ready early in July, will be laid upon the Table.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The Report is in a forward state of preparation, and I hope it may be found possible to issue it at the end of the month. Its preparation has involved greater labour than was originally anticipated.
  MR. MORRELL: Will it be ready before the holidays.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I cannot say. There is, I believe, a great deal still to be done.

  Capital for Small Holdings.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in the case of every applicant who can satisfy either the council of the county or the Commissioners that he has sufficient capital and experience to manage a small holding, the Commissioners will say that, within a reasonable period from the date of his application, he will have the opportunity of obtaining land in or near his own locality at what is
  858
  approximately the market price of such land, after allowing only for the cost of equipment and management.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I can only say that it will be the duty of the Commissioners and of the Board to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out in their integrity.
  MR. MORRELL: If an individual applicant fails to satisfy the county council on this point, has he a right of appeal?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I cannot answer a hypothetical Question.

  Applications for Small Holdings.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the number of applications which have been sent direct to the Commissioners under the Small Holdings Act.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: 2,360.
  MR. MORRELL: Then what has happened to the others? 18,000 applications, I understood, had been made.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Question is as to the number of applications made direct to the Commissioners. The rest, over 16,000, have been made direct to the various county councils, which is the best way.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the total number of persons who have made applications for land under the Small Holdings Act; how many of these applications have been considered; how many applicants have withdrawn their applications or failed to attend the local inquiry; how many applicants have been rejected as unsuitable; how many applications are covered by schemes already submitted to the Commissioners; how many applications are standing over until suitable land can be obtained; and whether the Commissioners have

  859
  yet decided to establish a record containing full particulars of all applications made.
  SIB EDWARD STRACHEY: So far as the Board are aware 19,647 applications have been received. We do not as yet possess full information on the other points to which my hon. friend refers, inasmuch as several councils have not yet completed their inquiries, but on receipt of Reports from all the county councils of their proceedings under the Act the Board will for all practical purposes be in possession of full particulars of all applications made.
  MR. MORRELL: Is there any intention of establishing a record of the applications made?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir. The President of the Board of Agriculture does not intend to establish a separate register, but when the returns come in from the various county councils they would constitute an effective list.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of applications are not made owing to the hours at which the meetings of the sub-committee are held? Will he consider some means of giving an opportunity——
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is another matter altogether. Notice had better be given.

  Administration of the Small Holdings Act.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the total number of persons specially appointed under Clause 1 of the Small Holdings Act, whether as Commissioners or assistants, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the demand for small holdings in England and Wales and the extent to which it is reasonably practicable to satisfy it.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Six.
  MR. MORRELLwas understood to suggest that that was a small number
  860
  in view of the extent of the demand for small holdings in England and Wales.
  MR. SOARES: Are there two Commissioners and four Assistant Commissioners?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There are two Commissioners and four inspectors doing the work.

  Cost of Small Holdings Inquiries.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will direct that no part of the expenses incurred by a county council in ascertaining the demand for and under the Small Holdings Act and the suitability of applicants can legally be included in expenses of management, so as to increase the rent of the holdings; and whether he can say what arrangements the Board propose to make for the payment of these preliminary expenses.
  I beg also to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will direct that the salaries of all agents and officers specially appointed by county councils to assist in the establishment of small holdings under the Act should be apportioned up to the date at which such holdings are actually established; and whether the portion of the salary up to that date will be repaid by the Board.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have no reason to suppose that county councils in fixing the rents to be paid by small holders will act otherwise than in conformity with the Act, and they see no necessity for the issue of any special instructions in the matter. The manner in which the expenses of county councils (other than those which are either repayable by the Board or must be taken into account in fixing rents) should be met is under consideration.
  MR. MORRELL: Do the Commissioners say it is impossible to charge the expenses of management against the

  861
  small holders until the small holdings have been established?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: They have made no statement as far as I am aware. It is their duty to see that the Act is carried out.

  Royal London Friendly Society.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether steps are being token to test the legality of the poll taken on 24th June, 1908, with regard to the conversion of the Royal London Friendly Society into a mutual insurance company; and whether the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies will undertake that the resolutions in favour of conversion said to have been carried by such poll shall not take effect until the legality of the poll has been established.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: We have no power to take steps to test the legality of the poll of a meeting of any friendly society, neither has the Chief Registrar of friendly societies any jurisdiction as to the legality of the poll, which is a matter that can only be settled by an action in the King's Bench Division of the High Court. He has, however, to be satisfied that the resolutions of such meetings have been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act before he can give effect to them.

  Old Age Pensions.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the action of Judge Ruegg at Tunstall, who upon application from an old man who was receiving compensation at the rate of 12s. 6d. a week converted that annuity into a lump sum of £20 and a reduced annuity of 9s. 6d. a week in order to enable the applicant to obtain a pension under the Bill recently before this House; whether that Bill contains any provisions which will either render penal or neutralise the effect of such arrangements for increasing the burden upon the taxpayers; and, if not, whether he will introduce Amendments to the Bill in another place dealing with the matter.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE): Clause 4 (3) of the Bill is designed to "neutralise the effect" of such arrangements as that referred to in the Question.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Will that clause be retrospective in action?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I cannot answer for the moment.

  Inebriates Acts in Scotland.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can yet say when he will appoint the Departmental Committee to inquire into the working of the Inebriates Acts in Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I hope very shortly.

  Island of Lewis Fishing Industry.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a memorial from the people of Valtos, Uig, Island of Lewis, directing attention to the failure of the fishing industry and pressing for the establishment of relief works, such as the construction of roads, which are badly needed in the district; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The petition referred to by my hon. friend has been received and has been referred to the Congested Districts Board. It is now under consideration.

  Deer Forests and Sheep Ranches at Uig.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a memorial from the Cottars and Crofters Association, Uig, Island of Lewis, pointing out that there is land in the parish now used as sheep ranches and deer forests sufficient for the settlement of 1,800 families; and, in view of the fact that this land was formerly in the occupation of small holders, will the Congested Districts Board communicate with the proprietor with a view to some arrangement being arrived at by which the land may be made available, for the people.
  MR. SINCLAIR: This is the same memorial referred to by my hon. friend in his previous Question. It is receiving consideration.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I can add nothing to the Answer I have given.
  MR. WEIR: A most unsatisfactory Answer.

  Motor Speeds in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state in how many instances local authorities in Scotland have applied for powers to regulate the speed of motors cars in their districts; and will he state whether he would favour local authorities being empowered to limit speed in their districts without appeal to the Scottish Office.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Eighty-four applications have been received from local authorities. As regards the second part of my hon. friend's Question, I cannot anticipate the decision which His Majesty's Government may reach when an opportunity for legislation occurs.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Have any applications for power been refused?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will inquire.

  Poor Relief in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that, in order to meet the immediate necessities of poor relief in the Island of Lewis, certain payments in advance of grants-in-aid, not under ordinary circumstances payable till later in the year, have been authorised, will he state the actual amount of such payments, and to whom they were made; and will he state the amount of the demand note the non-payment of which has necessitated special assistance from the Government.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Advance payments have been made as follows:—1908. 16th May: to Inspector of Poor, Uig,
  864
  £100; 19th June, to Inspector of Poor, Barvas, £150; 19th June: to Inspector of Poor, Lochs, £150; 11th July: to Inspector of Poor, Uig, £150. With reference to the second part of my hon. friend's Question I am taking steps to ascertain the precise amount of the demand notes in respect of which payment has not been made.
  MR. WEIR: I will repeat the Question this day week.

  Scottish Justice of the Peace Courts.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the manner in which Justice of the Peace Courts are constituted in Scotland, and to the fact that certain Justices are constantly called thereto, while others are never at any time asked to attend; will he say who is responsible for the choice of Justices to sit on the Bench at any particular time; and will he issue instructions by which the work will be more equally divided.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): No expressions of any dissatisfaction with the existing state of matters have reached me. But I may explain to my hon. friend that the procedure and attendance at Justice of the Peace Courts are subject to the regulation of the Justices themselves. All the responsibility for the arrangements and sittings rests with them, and I could not assume any power on the subject.
  MR. WATT: Is it possible under the present system for a Justice of the Peace Clerk to pack a Bench if he feels so inclined?
  MR. SHAW: I should not like to say that was possible in any Court in Scotland. May I suggest to my hon. friend that now I have given him the cue he should in any case that comes to his notice apply to the Clerk of the Peace in whose jurisdiction it arises.

  Charleville Labourers' Cottage Inquiry.
  MR. FLYNNI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government

  865
  Board have been made aware of the fact that, following the recent inquiry in Charleville in March under the Labourers Acts, forty-two applications for the extra half-acre out of 104 approved by the district council were rejected by the inspector, and that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the deserving labourers of the district owing to the large number of rejections; is the Board aware that the reason assigned by the inspector for the rejection of these forty-two applications is that the present plots were badly kept; that the forty-two rejected applications include those of Messrs. T. Moffit, M. Ryan, P. Cagney, J. Collins, J. O'Gorman, and several others whose plots are considered, as model plots by the judges who inspected them on behalf of the Munster Dairy School, and Agricultural Institute; that Mr. T. Moffit secured a first prize in 1906, and a second prize in 1907, for a well-kept garden, and Mr. M. Ryan a first prize of first class on similar grounds; and whether, in view of these facts, the Board will re-open the inquiry, or take other requisite steps to prevent industrious deserving labourers being deprived of the advantages given to Irish labourers by legislation for the improvement of their conditions of life.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that the inspector rejected forty-two applications for additional plots, and in some, but by no means all, of the cases the ground of rejection was that the existing plots were badly kept. In the cases of Moffit and Ryan specially referred to, the applications were disallowed, partly because the existing plots are badly kept, and partly because they are already considerably more than half an acre in extent. Moreover there are less than seven and a half acres in the holding, from which it was proposed to take these and six other new allotments, making four acres in all; manifestly a most unreasonable proposal. The inspector's order was issued in May last. The Local Government Board see no reason why the inquiry should be re-opened, and in any case they have no power to re-open it.
  MR. FLYNN: Then the applications were not rejected because the plots were badly kept?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, in some cases, the reason was that the existing holdings were considerably more than half an acre.

  Untenanted Land in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of grass land in County Clare, which might be made available for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. BIRRELL: According to a Return which appears in Appendix VII. to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion, County Clare contains 43,523 acres of untenanted land, not including demesnes bog, plantation, mountain, and other land of very small value.

  Clare Light Railway.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the annual cost to the ratepayer of County Clare of the Clare Light Railways.
  MR. BIRRELL: The accounts of the Clare County Council show that during the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, the net expenditure upon the railways in question was £11,734, of which the sum of £6,098 was provided by the Treasury contribution, and the grant from the Local Taxation Account, leaving £5,636 as the net cost to the county.

  Irish Court Houses.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that under the Local Government Act county councils are compelled to pay high rent for premises used for the holding of Petty Session Courts in the smaller towns; that the said Courts, which are held generally once in each month, last not more than one or two hours, and the premises are idle in the meantime; whether county councils., while willing to take ample precautions for the upkeep and proper protection of these premises, cannot use them for

  867
  such purposes as the needs of the ratepayers require; and, if so, will he explain why this cannot be done.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that county councils are required by law to pay the rents of court and sessions houses. Under Section 72 (3) of the Local Government Act county councils may use any courthouse or sessions house for the purpose of the execution of their duties, when the building is not required for the administration of justice. The control of petty sessions houses is vested in the Justices, with whom it rests to give the necessary permission to the county council to use the sessions house for the execution of their duties. In some cases, however, the sessions house is not the property of the county, but is held under a letting which merely covers the use of the premises for the holding of petty sessions. In such cases the control of the Justices over the sessions houses is limited to the days on which petty sessions are held, and it follows that the county council cannot enjoy the use of such sessions houses.
  MR. CULLINANasked if the county councils in Ireland generally had not protested against this indignity put upon them by local magistrates and pettifogging sub-sheriffs.
  MR. BIRRBLL: I really cannot answer that.

  Ballyrane Labourer's Cottage.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the case of William O'Donnell, for whom the council selected a site for a labourer's cottage on the farm of Mrs. Ramsey, Ballyrane, and which was granted to him at the inquiry held at Letterkenny, East Donegal, in 1907; whether he is aware that the cottage has not been built for him; and if he can state why this has not been done.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The case of William O'Donnell was not included by the rural district council in
  868
  the scheme for labourers' cottages which was inquired into by the inspector. If O'Donnell wishes to apply for a cottage he should make the necessary representation to the council.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts Return.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is the cause of the delay in issuing the Return under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts granted to the hon. Member for West Limerick.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Return is now being laid on the Table. When consenting to give the Return, I informed the hon. Member that there might be some delay in preparing it, as the necessary particulars had not then been furnished by all of the district counci's.

  Bruree Evicted Farm.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether Robert Sanders, of Charleville, in the county of Cork, has yet signified his willingness to give up the farm at Garryfine, Bruree, in the County of Limerick, from which the Dunworth family was evicted; whether he is aware that Sanders had no interest whatever in this farm before he became occupier of it; and whether, in the interest of the peace of the locality, the Estates Commissioners will endeavour to have the Dunworths reinstated.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have placed this case in the hands of their inspector with the object of providing holdings for the evicted tenants if possible. The Commissioners are not aware that their inspector has received any communication from Mr. Sanders, but they have referred the hon. Member's Question to the inspector in order that he may be placed in possession of the alleged facts.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this evicted tenant has stated he will accept no other than his old farm, and will he use his influence with the planter to give up the farm?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no influence to use.

  Kilcoran Evicted Tenant
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners intend to make any provision for James Power, of Kilbreedy, Kilcornans, in the County of Limerick, who was evicted on title about nine years ago by the Earl of Dunraven from a holding consisting of about twenty-seven acres of bog land which he (Power) was in occupation of for over forty years and for which he paid a rent of £5 annually.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative. The case does not come within the provisions of Section 2 of the Land Act of 1903, and the Estates Commissioners therefore cannot interfere in the matter.

  Dublin Police Inquiry.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether having regard to the difficulty he has already experienced in inducing any Irishman representative of popular opinion to serve on the proposed commission of inquiry into the cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police because of the limited terms of reference, he will extend the scope of the inquiry so as to embrace the cost, control, strength, and efficiency of the force o and, if not, whether he will abandon an inquiry which will command neither public respect nor confidence.
  MR. BIRRELL: The twins of reference to the proposed committee of inquiry have been the subject of very considerable discussion, and have not yet been settled. I hope that it may not be necessary to abandon the proposed inquiry.

  Malin Petty Sessions Clerks.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the late clerk of Petty Sessions at Malin, North Donegal, absconded; whether he will direct an audit of the
  870
  accounts and a sworn inquiry to be held immediately into all the circumstances connected with his absconding; and whether he is aware that the alleged newly appointed clerk is a brother-in-law of the late clerk.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the Petty Sessions clerk referred to has resigned and left the country. His accounts have already been examined, and there is no deficit upon them; on the contrary, a small balance is payable to the late clerk. The gentleman who has been elected by the magistrates is brother-in-law of the late clerk, but the election has not yet been approved.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that at the election of Petty Sessions clerk held at Malin, North Donegal, on. the 18th instant, one of the magistrates, named Robert Scott, who voted for Mr. Mundell, one of the candidates, had been appointed to the commission of the peace only a week or two before the election, and when the election was pending; that he had not been a magistrate when the vacancy occurred; that he received no notice of the said election; and whether such a vote is invalid and election void.
  MR. BIRRELL: Objection has been taken to the votes recorded by Mr. R. Scott, and certain other magistrates at the election of the Petty Sessions clerk referred to, and the matter is being investigated. In the meantime, the Lord-Lieutenant's approval of the election will be withheld.

  Land Purchase Annuities.
  ME. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of cases in which legal proceedings have been instituted for the recovery of annuities due by tenant purchasers under the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903.
  MR. BIRRELL: In March last the Land Commission directed proceedings to be taken for the recovery of land purchase annuities due on the preceding 1st December in 1,074 cases which were

  871
  in arrear out of a total of 38,963. By the 1st of the present month payment had been made in 769 of these cases, leaving 305 still in arrear.

  Advertising Irish Pleasure Resorts.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tourist traffic to Lame, County Antrim, is suffering from want of advertising, and that the Lame Urban Council complain that they have no power to spend any money in this way; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Irish Local Government Act to enable local authorities like Lame to use a small portion of the funds which they administer for this purpose, as is done by some local authorities in Great Britain.
  MR. BIRRELL: I think it would be desirable to give power to local authorities of places such as Lame to expend a reasonable amount on advertisements of the nature indicated, and I understand that such a provision would be welcomed by the people of seaside places in Ireland generally. A clause on the subject might be inserted in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill at present before the House, assuming that the progress of the Bill would not be thereby endangered. I should be glad to discuss the terms of such a clause with the hon. Member.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself propose the necessary clause?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, if an agreement can be come to.

  Belfast Health Commission.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what was the total cost of the Belfast Health Commission; what was the amount expended by the Local Government Board, the Belfast Corporation, and the Belfast Water Board, respectively; and how much of the expenditure of the Local Government Board will be borne by the Treasury and
  872
  how much by the Corporation and by the Water Board respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: The costs of the Local Government Board amounted to £1,931 10s. 10d., of which £500 will be borne by the Board and the balance will be charged to the City. No apportionment of this balance has yet been made between the different local bodies. The Local Government Board have no knowledge of the costs incurred outside their own department.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Commission?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

  Potato Blight in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received any reports as to potato blight in County Clare; and, if so, what steps his Department are taking to deal with this evil.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): A few cases of potato blight have been reported from districts in the East and West of Clare and spraying as a preventive is being carried out through the county generally. The Department have already suggested to the County Committee of Agriculture that they should purchase a number of hand-sprayers to be hired out to small farmers at a nominal daily charge in addition to those purchased last year.

  Agricultural College for County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will consider the claims of the County Clare for the establishment of an agricultural college; and when he will be able to receive a deputation on this subject.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope to arrange to receive a deputation on this subject from County Clare early in August.

  Donegal Dairy Farmers' Grievances.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware of the hardships that the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, will inflict upon the small farmers in many parts of Donegal; and seeing $hat if the Order is enforced they will require to build a new stand of office houses, which is entirely beyond their means, whether he will state what steps, if any, he will take to have the Order modified or withdrawn from operating in the poorer districts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Order in question is an Order of the Local Government Board and not of the Department of Agriculture. It contains a clause which prescribes that the provisions as to the lighting and ventilation of cowsheds shall not apply if the medical officer of health or a veterinary surgeon appointed by the local authority certifies that the existing arrangements are sufficient. The provisions of this Order are very necessary in the interests of the public health.

  Limerick Postal Staff Grievances.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if trivial irregularities committed by certain members of the Limerick postal staff are being recorded in the error book at that office; and, if so, will he take steps to have the instruction, governing the treatment of minor irregularities, contained in the Post Office Circular, No. 1,812, strictly adhered to in future.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received no appeal on this subject from any member of the staff at Limerick. Any appeal made will, of course, receive careful consideration.

  Bad Debts in Ireland.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether £9,500,000 has been written off as a bad debt from sums advanced by the Treasury, the Public Works Loans Commissioners, the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland), and the Irish Land Commission, to
  874
  public bodies or private, persons in Ireland since 1881.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE): No, Sir. The amount of the loans written off in that period is £1,744,427.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Has the hon. Gentleman added together the amounts in the Paper to which I was referred last night, and is this the correct total?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have looked carefully through the amounts submitted to me, and this is the total.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Has the hon. Gentleman added them up or is that beyond his power?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Licensing Bill.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When will the terms of the guillotine Resolution on the Licensing Bill, which I understand is to be proposed on Friday, appear on the Paper?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. As-QUITH,): To-morrow.

  PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 230.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 321.]

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 231.]
  Bill to be taken into consideration Tomorrow.

NEW BILLS.
  TOWN TENANTS BILL.
  "To improve the position of Tenants of certain houses, shops, and other buildings in Great Britain," presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Mr. Barker, Sir John Benn, Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Timothy Davies, Mr. Gibb, Mr. Maclean, Sir Charles McLaren, and Mr. Rowlands; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 322.]
  BUILDING OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING WORKS BILL.
  "To make better provision for the health and safety of persons employed in certain Building Operations and Engineering Works, and purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Secretary Gladstone; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 323.]
  GRAND JURY (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend Section 67 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, with respect to Piers, Quays, and other works; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. T. W. Russell; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 324.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 6:
MP. LAURENCE HARDY MP. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford) moved to omit all the words in subsection (3) following the words "forty thousand pounds." He said he did so in order to obtain an opinion from the Chan-
876
cellor of the Exchequer as to the bearing which this clause had upon the county councils. He hoped they would be told exactly the reason why these taxes had been handed back after being taken last year by the Exchequer. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was fear amongst the local authorities that this change was not going to be for their benefit, and that the £40,000 which had been allotted to enable them to collect these taxes would not be found sufficient. According to the clause the money was to be expended exactly in proportion to the amount raised by each local authority. He assumed that the change had been made for two reasons; the first being that the raising of the duties by local authorities would be more efficient than by the Government authorities, and that they would in some way also secure economy. If that was so he thought they ought to understand exactly how they stood. As far as he could see, the £40,000 was something under 2 per cent, of the money to be levied, and when they considered the extremely arduous duties in connection with dog licences, game licences, and licences of that character, and the necessity for an efficient staff throughout all the area of the local authority, they must be aware that in the case of the small local authorities the amount obtained by them on the actual amount levied would be extremely small. They understood that the Government's action last year was a preliminary step to dealing with local taxation as a whole, and he thought it was acknowledged by the Government and by all parties in the House that in any case of dealing with local taxation more rather than less would have to be given to the local exchequer. He moved his Amendment in order to secure from the right hon. Gentleman some information which would satisfy the smaller local authorities that they would not lose by the proposals which the Government now made.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 16, to leave oat from the word 'pounds' to end of line 19."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said the hon. Member had moved his Amendment rather with a view to getting a statement from the Government as to the general effect of their proposals, but he hardly thought this was the point at which that statement could most appropriately be made. He thought it would be far better for it to come on the Amendment to omit the whole clause. He would suggest to the hon. Member that it would be bettor to have one general debate on the whole question later on, for he had asked for an explanation on one small point, and it would be difficult to give that without explaining the whole position.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that when they got to the discussion on the omission of the clause it would be impossible to move any Amendment of any words in the clause itself, and, therefore, they were barred from raising any question, whilst if they got the information he desired now they would be able possibly to obtain some Amendment of the clause. Discussion became purely academic if they reserved it until the Motion for the omission of the whole clause.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would point out that there were only two points: first, whether it was desirable to transfer, the collection to the local authorities at all, and secondly, if they decided in favour of that, whether the amount paid by the Exchequer was adequate for the purpose. Neither of those two points could be raised by way of Amendment except by the excision of the whole clause, and therefore he thought it was far better to take the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Rye. The effect of the present Amendment would be that no provision at all would be made for the distribution among the county councils, and that this sum would simply accumulate to the Local Taxation Account, which could not be the object of the hon. Member.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked how they were to
878
raise any points that might arise after they had got the right hon. Gentleman's answer on the question. There was one very material point with regard to Clause 6, in the first part of which Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1907, ceased to apply to these licences, and that section included a guarantee.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that arises on this question.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid ho only wished to show that they could not discuss this question at all if they were dealing with the omission of the clause alone.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the hon. Member had shown that his suggestion was the best, because ho started criticising on this Amendment something which they had already passed.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the questions of principle in this clause were the question of the transference, and the question of the amount, and those two subjects could only arise on the Motion for the omission of the clause, but that was why he took this opportunity of bringing forward a particular grievance on the part of the smaller local authorities, who thought that the proposals of the Government were not sufficient to cover the cost. He wished to keep this question apart from the general discussion on the clause.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there were two subsidiary questions which they wished to raise apart from the big question which would naturally be raised by the Motion for the rejection of the whole clause. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not desirable that they should mix up the big question of whether this change should be made at all with the subsidiary question of whether, if it was done, it should be done in the particular manner proposed, and he suggested, in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that they should leave the main question for general discussion on the Motion

879
of the hon. Member for Sussex. Assuming that this change was to be made, was the distribution of the payment fair, not as between the Exchequer on the one hand and all local authorities on the other, but as between one local authority and another? Amongst the smaller authorities the amount collected would be relatively inconsiderable. It seemed to him that the point of his hon. friend still remained that remuneration in proportion to the amount collected was not necessarily in proportion to the expense incurred. He did not quite know what language to use to express the function of the local authorities in this matter, but they were to be a sort of watchman. They had to ascertain who had not paid and then take steps to make them pay. It was true that the Money would be collected by the Post Office, but the work of seeing that those who ought to pay did pay and inquiring who should have paid was not indicated by the amount collected. That seemed to him to be a contention of substance, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with it on this Amendment. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was as anxious as he was not to have two discussions and to keep this small point apart from the larger question.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was in the hands of the Committee. He was prepared to take the subsidiary question at once if they wished.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it would be inconvenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the precise functions of the Post Office at that stage.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would take the Leader of the Opposition as interpreting the views of the Committee in the matter. Nothing was further from the intention of the Government than that the local authorities should be called upon to set up new machinery for collection. If they had to do that, £40,000 would obviously be very inadequate. First of all, the Revenue authorities would print the necessary notices to persons they believed to be liable. These notices would be distributed by the local
880
authority, but the money would be collected by the local post office. There was no idea of the local authorities appointing Revenue officials for the purpose of going from door to door to collect dog and game licences. The holders of such licences would call at the local post office and pay their licences. A certain number of people would try to evade payment, and that was where the function of the local authority came in. They had much more effective machinery at their disposal for dealing with this matter than had the Revenue officials. The police knew every man who had a dog, gun, or carriage, and evidence was already very largely given by police officers in prosecutions of this kind and at the present moment they were largely dependent upon the police for information of this kind.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards old-age pensions as well?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; but he had had enough of old-age pensions for a while. The police supplied this information now. Whenever the police discovered that a person had a dog or went out shooting they gave information to the Excise officer, the police undertook the prosecution, and the evidence was very often given by the police officer himself. So far from the local authorities losing in regard to this work, he thought they would gain considerably. The functions transferred to the local authorities were not very onerous, and they would not be very costly, so far as administration was concerned. They would send out notices printed by the Revenue authorities, book-keeping and collection being done by the Post Office, and the distribution of the £40,000 carried out by the Local Government Board upon a certificate from the Revenue as to the amount collected. It was said that the amount collected was not always a satisfactory criterion to take. But one must have a rough-and-ready test in cases of this kind, and he did not see what better test could be substituted for that which was now proposed. The local authorities were being liberally treated. The entire cost of collection was now on the Revenue authorities, and amounted to 2½ per cent. In future at least half

881
the burden and labour of distribution would be borne by the Imperial authorities, especially the Post Office, and still the local authorities would be paid exactly what the Government were now paying for collection.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the Post Office authorities would transmit the notices free of charge as was done now.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the position at the present moment was that the notices must be stamped, but communications were taking place on that subject. The matter was a serious one, but he thought there was sufficient margin to cover it. The local authorities, in his opinion, stood to gain under the new arrangement. They would not be put to a cost of more than £40,000. The change, however, must necessarily be an experiment as far as expenditure was concerned, and if necessary the local authorities could make representations to the Treasury when the results became known. The collection would certainly be more thorough than at present, because the local authorities had in a special degree local knowledge and machinery at their service, and besides that he thought the local authorities stood to make a very considerable profit out of it. A deputation waited upon him the other day from the County Councils Association and the municipal corporations, and they discussed matters very fully. The members of the deputation asked most searching questions as to the method of administration. He thought he could say that they went away satisfied that the new arrangement would work well, and that there would be no loss to the local authorities. As a matter of fact, from the purely financial point of view, the local authorities would benefit. There was one case where the cost of collection of their own local revenue was about 10s. per cent. He agreed that that was not altogether a test if they had one man paying on behalf of the whole lot. There were discounts given in some cases in order to facilitate collection. But there was a considerable margin between ½ and 2½ per cent. They recognised that they could not collect these assessed taxes as cheaply as local rates, and they were allowing a considerable margin on that
882
account. He thought it would he found that they were making a fair bargain, and that the view of the Government was on the whole a generous one to the local authorities. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired to take this opportunity of raising the general question of principle. If he did, he thought he could anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman would say. If he did not mean to take this opportunity of discussing the general principle, he would be satisfied for the moment with making this explanation of the method of collection and distribution.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very interesting one and raised points which probably had not occurred to many of them. Certainly the question of the division between the revenue and the county councils was one of a somewhat complicated character, and no doubt it would be possible to discuss it on the clause as a whole with greater advantage than on this Amendment. He did not think that the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given altogether met the point he desired to raise, because he had not really dealt with the question of how far as between the local authorities themselves it was fair to allocate money. If they merely gave a percentage on the amount levied, it would be an encouragement to those who received the larger amount of money to put pressure on their district as against the smaller local authorities. It should be remembered that these taxes wore in respect of luxuries. They were levied on persons who had establishments in London and in different parts of the country, and it was quite possible that under the percentage arrangement on the amount actually levied there would be great competition between the county councils, and that those which were better organised would be able to get larger sums than the smaller ones which were not in the same fortunate circumstances. It was all very well to say that it was automatically collected, but they knew that a great part of it would have to be collected by inquisition, especially in regard to dog, gun, and game licences. He did not know whether this matter had been discussed by the deputation to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He still thought that it would have been

883
better to have given some margin in this matter instead of laying it down so definitely. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had evidently made up his mind thoroughly on the question, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. HICKS BEACHthought there was on the face of things a slight disadvantage to the counties as compared with the towns in this matter of collection, because in the towns it would be more convenient and less expensive to collect these various duties. A borough policeman, for instance, in going his nightly round would be able to see a dog standing on a doorstep, and would not have to spend any extra time, whereas in the country if a policeman had to do this duty he would have to spend a considerable amount of extra time in finding out the various people who possessed dogs, guns, and carriages. It would be the policeman's duty, for instance, to go to shooting parties and make inquiries with regard to game and dog licences. He dared say the policeman would enjoy spending his time in that way; but he did not think it would be a good thing for the local authority. It would surely mean that the Standing Joint Committee would have to pay more to the policemen in their districts for the collection of these duties than would have to be paid by the borough authorities for the collection of the duties in their areas. That meant that there might be the possibility of loss to the counties as compared with the boroughs.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved to leave out the proviso "that if the rate of any such duty is altered, that duty shall, unless Parliament makes provision to the contrary, cease to be a duty to which this section applies." He thought it was better that these matters should be left to be dealt with at the time. He thought that it would he rather a hard matter if, by the action of the Government in raising or lowering any one of these licences, it was to be automatically removed from the new arrangement with the local authority. He thought the Government ought to come back to Parliament and explain why they wished
884
the duty to be raised or lowered, so that the local authority would have an opportunity of knowing the reason for the Government's altering the bargain made with them. If a tax was raised or lowered, that would at once remove it from the category of a transferred tax. If the dog licences were taken away in that manner, it would mean the taking away of more than a third of the money which came to the local authority. That would upset the whole arrangement, and if this proviso was passed, the local authority would have no say in the matter. They would he left with their organisation, though there would be a large diminution in the money they now received. It was far better that these changes should not come automatically into effect, but that they should form parts of future Finance Bills.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, to leave out lines 25 and 27 inclusive—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked what was to happen in the case of an increase of duties. The proviso would imply that if there was any alteration in the duties they would cease to be duties to which the section applied. Last year when similar clauses wore considered, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took back into his own control the various licences under Section 17 of last year's Act, and he gave a guarantee to the Municipal Corporations Association and the County Councils Association that any action of his in altering the duties should not diminish the net amount receivable by the municipalities and county councils. They were grateful to him for that, and they slept in peace. It seemed to him that under this proviso the guarantee would now be withdrawn. [An HON MEMBER: "No."] He would be glad to have an assurance to the contrary, because as the proviso stood he thought the guarantee would be withdrawn. If duties were reduced the counties and the municipalities would receive less, but if they were increased the whole of the increase would go into the Exchequer. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would

885
add words which would make it perfectly clear that the guarantee to which he had referred was not taken away.
MR LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the words were inserted purely in order to revive the guarantee and the pledge of last year. The pledge was that the proceeds of the present duties would be made payable to the local authorities. Supposing the duties were doubled the proceeds would enure to the Exchequer, but would be sent down to the county councils and municipalities.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that the guarantee was that the proceeds would enure to the Exchequer, but that the county councils and the municipalities should not receive less under the circumstances than the average of three years.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that in fact they received more. The same thing happened under this proviso as under the Act of last year. If the duties were doubled the proceeds would go to the Exchequer, but would go down afterwards to the local authorities. The only difference from the old system was in the collection. There was the guarantee still, but whether it was dog, carriage, or motor-car licence, Parliament would have the right to allocate the proceeds to the Exchequer or to make arrangements with the local authorities. It was not assumed that any increase would necessarily go to the local authorities, but when the time came for any real increase of the duties the position of the local authorities would be considered. That would be the case under any tax. The amount at present allocated to the local authorities could not be withdrawn without altering this proviso, and the position of the local authorities was not damaged by the proviso. It was a purely drafting proviso rendered necessary in order to continue the guarantee given last year.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: What if the duties were lower than last year?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would say that that was very improbable, having regard to all the circumstances. Before they could lower any of these duties they would have to come to Parliament and to the local authorities. It would be very
886
difficult to carry anything through Parliament which would deprive the local authorities of any sums without giving them some compensatory amount.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he recognised the intention of the Government in this matter, but he could not quite see how the proviso carried out that intention as expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proviso said that if "the rate of any such duty is altered, that duty shall, unless Parliament makes provision to the contrary, cease to be a duty to which the section applies." The section applied to duties to be levied by the local authorities, but there was nothing in the proviso to say that the duties not levied by the local authorities were to be paid to the local authorities, and so far as he could see the proviso did not convey what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the proviso only referred to the provisions contained in the Act of last year.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman was only restoring the position of last year, and as there could be no loss to the local authorities, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cleared up one or two points; but there was good reason why this clause should be deleted from the Finance Bill. He contended that the machinery which would have to be set up by the county councils would be exceedingly costly. Very little could be advanced in favour of the clause. It was a device to maintain machinery for carrying out the old-age pension scheme which the Act itself did not provide. They imposed on the local authorities, instead of leaving them to the Excise officials, the duties of collection. He would not find much fault with the idea if there was any reasonable probability that the work to be done by any county would be more or

887
less constant. There was no assurance of the kind. In certain districts a certain kind of tax preponderated very largely, and the right hon. Gentleman had hinted that he might have to increase the sum of those duties next year. But when the present or any other Government raised those duties the whole thing would be immediately changed, and the work of collection might be taken out of the hands of the local authorities. The proportion paid out of the £40,000 to any particular authority would vary immensely, and whilst some would gain others would lose. Machinery would have to be set up, because the county councils could not carry out these duties with the staffs they had at present, and it was possible that that machinery would be unnecessarily large and costly. At all events, the uncertainty which existed from year to year was sufficient reason for asking the Government to find some other method of carrying out their scheme. Under the clause the Government of the day would find their hands tied. They might want to increase the duties in any particular direction, and they would then find that either they had to set up machinery or else lose the revenue they might derive. He thought it would be far better for the Government rather than the county councils to set up the necessary machinery. They would have to do so in the long run, and they might just as well do so at once. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could do it through the post office just as well. It would be far more desirable than the hybrid scheme at present contemplated. He hoped the clause would he deleted.
MR. KETTLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, since this transfer was a good thing, from the point of view of the local authorities of this country, it was not extended to the local authorities of Ireland. They had county councils in Ireland, and in one concrete instance with which he was personally acquainted this was a serious matter. The machinery of local taxation in its relation to the Exchequer and Exchequer Grants to the objects of local authorities was very complicated, and the only thing of which he was sure was that local taxation in Ireland was like the hand of providence—very heavy and
888
hard to avoid. There were certain taxes allocated to the relief of local taxation, and one very important tax in that section which had a place in the inventory of the English Local Government Act had no place in the Irish Local Government Act. That tax was the carriage tax. In this country it went to the local authorities in the cities as well as to the county councils. In the city of Dublin the carriage tax yielded every year between £3,000 and £4,000, but not a penny of that went to the local authority, nor did they get any grant equivalent to it. That tax went directly to the maintenance of the police. It was collected by the police and retained by them. The county councils in Ireland wore obliged to maintain the roads, but they got no carriage tax or equivalent grant. It was that tax to which he wished particularly to call attention. There was also the question of the grant of £40,000. That grant on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing would more than pay for the cost of the collection. It would give a bonus to the local authorities of this country, and what he wished to know was when the right hon. Gentleman was going to extend the advantage of a similar bonus to Ireland. He was well aware that Royal Commissions were not regarded by the House as of much account, but there was a very valuable Report of a Royal Commission which in 1902 investigated the subject of local taxation in the three countries England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The unanimous recommendation of that Report was that substantially the machinery of local government with regard to the relation of the local authorities inn Ireland to the Exchequer was the same as in Great Britain. They recommended, therefore, that no change of this kind should be made in Great Britain without being extended, as far as possible, to Ireland. There was no Amendment on the Paper, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman with the pressure upon him of old-age pensions, had not had much time to consider the question of Irish local taxation, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the matter, and next year give to the Irish local authorities the same privileges which local authorities in this country enjoyed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas not quite certain that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was right in his belief that any advantages were derived by the local authorities in England from the functions now under discussion. It was quite certain that the Government wore not doing this out of love for the local authorities. The Government had been singularly inconsequential in the matter. Last year, with a flourish of trumpets, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, undertook to make a change in his Budget., by which all receipts from those taxes should be paid directly into the Exchequer, by which means the right hon. Gentleman suggested that a more accurate knowledge of the sum received from such taxation would be obtained, and the accounts synchronised. So far as it went, no doubt that was a good thing. But the Government having done that, and taken credit for it, set to work this year to undo that arrangement, with the result that the accounts instead of being simplified, had been rather elaborated, and a greater expense incurred. Because in order to get the local authorities to collect these taxes and keep them, the Government had to give them something more. It was true that the Post Office had to encash the money, but the local authority was to be the active agent in seeing that the debtors paid, and in order to persuade the local authorities to carry out these functions, they were to be paid rather more than the taxes would cost to collect. Therefore it was not so economical. All this showed that it was not a good change. The Government did not contend that the change was desirable in itself, or one which they would have made for its own sake; it had been made for the purpose of setting free the revenue officers for the pensions scheme. They would never have attempted it if it had not been that they desired to set free these officers. Against the Inland Revenue officer as an Inland Revenue officer, he had not a word to say; he did his work well, but he did not think that the position of an Inland Reveille officer in the town in which he resided qualified him to be an officer to administrate the Old-age Pensions Bill. The Government did not pretend that the Inland Revenue officer had been chosen because he was fitted for that purpose. They chose him because they
890
unable to find anybody else to do the work. The Poor Law Commissioners were soon to report. What the Report would recommend no one knew, but the common expectation was that they would recommend a thorough overhauling of the Poor Law Administration, and the people carrying out that administration would very likely be changed considerably. It might be that if that arose, the very organisation which the Government required to carry out the pension scheme would be found there. That was his objection to this clause. It was a clause to meet a temporary difficulty, and it was not desirable that it should be made permanent. He suggested, therefore, that the clause should be postponed until the Poor Law Commissioners' Report was issued and they knew who would be the new authority. Under the circumstances if the hon. Gentleman went to a division he would follow him into the lobby.
MR. LANE-FOXthought none would deny that the Government had kept their secret remarkably well, but if any Member had a doubt as to what was the meaning of this clause the notices which some of them bad received from county councils throughout the country would have enlightened them. He had received one from the West Riding County Council which said many hard things, but he frankly admitted that if they had heard the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would not have said such hard things about his proposal as they had done. Everyone would admit that it was difficult on the spur of the moment for them to say what would be the effect of such a proposal and whether it should be approved or not, but one very strong objection to it last year was pointed out. They had a distinct guarantee given that these revenues would be secured to the local authorities, and now, not only did there seem to be some question on the matter, but there appeared to be a considerable burden of work thrown on the county councils to collect these revenues, which work did not exist in the past. He maintained that the county councils had got all and more than they could do, and it was a great mistake that any extra work of this kind should be thrown upon them. The new procedure was at best a very complicated matter. They had

891
circulars printed by the Government, distributed by local authorities, and collected by the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman had not told them what was going to be the cost of sending out these circulars or who was going to defray it, and the expense was likely to be considerable. Another point was that the police were not the servants of the county councils. They did a certain amount of duty, especially in the rural districts, but there were districts where a certain amount of friction existed between the Standing Joint Committee and the County Council, and that might be a strong reason why duties of this kind should not be thrown upon a county council. It seemed to him far better that the Government should increase the number of Excise officers and continue the existing system, which had worked very satisfactorily in the past, and about which no complaint had been made. He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman had given any sufficient reason for their supporting the clause, and he should certainly vote against it. The proportion which the West Riding would receive from the £40,000 was about £1,500, and he would be very much surprised to find that these licences could be collected in that enormous area with its enormous population, and its many authorities, for the sum of £1,500. He hoped that it might turn out to be so, but the whole case of the county councils in connection with this proposal must rest mainly on the question of cost. If the right hon. Gentleman could prove that the cost would not be in excess of the sum allowed, their opposition to the proposal would disappear; but if the new proposal involved a loss to the county councils then he hoped that loss would be recouped to them.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that although this clause did not apply to Scotland, yet the principle which it embodied in regard to levying certain duties would be viewed there with some interest. They had just heard that a third of the motor cars were registered in London, but a very large proportion of those cars before long would be careering along the highways of his native land doing a considerable amount of damage to the roadways. What he was a little concerned about in view of the provision of this clause was that
892
where the local authorities were accustomed to collect this duty and to receive the benefit of it, it would be much more difficult to effect a further redistribution of the taxes levied on motor cars in fair proportion to the damage that they did to the highways throughout the country. He would like to see that subject dealt with before the provisions of the clause were extended to the local authorities. There were two questions to be considered in the matter. One was that these cars paid an amount which seemed very insufficient, and the other was as to the redistribution of the receipts from the tax. He thought that that point was prejudiced by the clause, and unless he could obtain some assurance on the point, he should vote against it. He would again point out that though the greater proportion of the tax on motor cars was levied in England, the larger proportion of the damage was done to the highways of Scotland.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that the new scheme to which the clause under discussion related was confined to England alone, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not applied to Scotland because of any difference which existed in the allocation and distribution of the tax, which was collected by the Excise authorities at present. In regard to the sum now being voted to the English county councils to undertake this work, naturally the Scottish authorities would desire to share in it if any advantage would be gained by it. Was it impossible to apply the clause to Scotland because, as a matter of fact, in this country, the share placed to local taxation was distributed under the Act of 1889 in certain proportions according to rateable value and so forth, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not apply the new system which apparently he would apply in England? Was that the reason for not having included Scotland, and under the circumstances was any alteration to be made in the position of Scotland?
MR. LLOYD - GEORGEindicated a reply in the negative.
MR. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and he might assume that there was to be no alteration with regard to Scotland.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he was not enamoured of the clause; still, he did not take up the hostile attitude towards it that he had done before the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on the front bench. A week or two ago the municipalities had assumed a strongly hostile position in reference to the proposal, but since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met a deputation from them, and in his eloquent way had induced them to believe that they were going to make money out of the change, their hostility had not been so great. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him if he said, as one with some fifteen years experience of borough council work, that he did not entertain any great hope as to what the municipal authorities would gain as a result of the change. To his mind the £40,000 would not cover the increased cost to the ratepayers of the country. He felt quite convinced of that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, had stated that the municipalities were not going to be compelled to collect the whole of these taxes; but at their meeting in London they were under the impression that they had to do the whole of the collecting work. That impression, however, was now removed. Still they would have to issue the notices, and when all that had been done, they had, through the police, to find out the defaulters. His experience of municipal work was that if they got any additional work whatever they could not get it done without having an official or two extra. It was always used as an excuse for getting an increased staff, and he felt as certain as he stood there that as soon as the Bill was passed every municipality in the land would increase its staff in order to carry out the provisions of the measure. He did not say that it ought to be so; he thought it ought not to be so; he was only stating what followed from an Act of Parliament of this character. He could see the chief constable walking into the meeting room of the watch committee and speaking of the large amount of work devolved upon the force in order to catch delinquents, which the Act said they had to do, and it would be asked that addition should be made to the police force up and down the country. In view of these circumstances be thought £40,000 was not sufficient. The work was being performed now, but he rather
894
gathered from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, and from remarks which had fallen from Members above the gangway, that it was not being performed efficiently. They were going to bring in men who were not accustomed to it, and to his mind that would tend to increase the cost. He could not, however, after having heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, go to the extreme point of saying that he would go into the division lobby for the deletion of the clause.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the Committee were entitled to know what was the object of the proposed change. He thought it made a considerable difference whether the object was really to set free the Excise officers for the work of old-age pensions, or whether it was recommended by the Government on its merits, because both propositions required argument. If it was recommended to the Committee because it would set free the Excise officers for the work of old-age pensions it seemed to him to be rather a piece of political trickery, because it would then become part of the old-age pension scheme and would be thrown on the rates. The Excise officers at present were paid out of Imperial funds, but when they were taken over by the local authority for the work of old-age pensions, as a matter of fact the burden of investigating claims would be thrown on the rates. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that to be an incontestable proposition, though of course it would only apply to the extent by which the local authorities exceeded the £40,000 provided under the section. It seemed to him more than probable that that £40,000 would not be nearly enough, especially in thinly populated and scattered districts, where, as the Committee would be well aware, it would be much more difficult and require much more work to get the provisions properly carried out. Another question which he should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the £40,000 was whether in calculating the cost of the work, the expense of issuing the notices had been included. He understood from the remark he made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire that it was not yet decided whether the expense of posting these notices was

895
to be paid by the Imperial Government or by the local authority. It was rather odd that that should be still a matter for negotiation when the £40,000 to be paid to the local authority had been fixed, because it must either have been included in the £40,000, or else, if it had not been thought of and it turned out that that expenditure had to be paid by them the £40,000 obviously could not be an adequate sum. Then the procedure as regarded the post office, about which the right hon. Gentleman satisfied a deputation the other day, seemed rather complicated. As far as he could gather from his answer to the deputation, the money would be paid into the post office and then would be sent from the local post office to the General Post Office and back again to the local authority. He did not quite follow how, if that was going to be done, the local authority was to have any check upon the amount which it received for the General Post Office. They were throwing upon the local authority the responsibility for seeing that the money was properly collected, but giving them no means of checking the amount handed over to them. That was a great draw back to the scheme, and it certainly required explanation. Then there was the question how one local authority was to get information as to licences taken out by persons resident in its area as well as in other areas. It very frequently happened that persons took out their licences in one place and spent a good deal of time in another. There must he some machinery provided by which the local authority, where the licence had not been taken out, could find out whether it bad been taken out or not, and there was nothing of the kind provided by the plan of the Government. Further, he was not at all sure that it was very desirable that the function of making people pay and of finding transgressors who had not paid should be thrown upon the police as part, of their duty. It was all very well now, when in the course of their ordinary duties they came across cases of licences not being taken out, that they should report them to the Excise authority, but he did not know that that was quite the same thing as making it part of their duty to go on purpose to places and see whether the correct number of licences had been taken out. It threw a rather inquisitorial duty upon the police, which was not very
896
desirable. One had always been led to believe that the police were people with whom law-abiding citizens need not come into contact at all. But, under this proposal it would not be so. Everybody, whether he had taken out licences or not, would be liable to visits from police officers at his house, inspecting the number of dogs, carriages, male servants, and so on. It was not a proper function for the police to perform and would make them unpopular. It had been quite effectively performed hitherto by Inland Revenue officers, and he thought it was far better that that duty should remain with them. He understood that notices were to be printed by the Government and issued by the local authority, but the answer to that appeal made by the local authority must be given to a third party, the Post Office. He wondered whether it was contemplated under the Government scheme that when anybody received a notice from the local authority they should be able to make their payment direct to the local authority who issued the notice instead of going to the Post Office, and if they had to pay the Post Office direct how did the local authority know whether the licence bad been paid or not? What means were there of communicating between the Post Office and the local authorities? In default of its being shown that this proposal was brought forward on its own merits, quite apart from anything to do with the old-ago pensions scheme, he should certainly vote against it.
MR. SOARESsaid he could quite understand that boroughs were in favour of the clause, but he was not quite so sure about county councils. The county council of Devonshire had passed a very strongly-worded resolution to the effect that they did not consider that the collection of establishment and other licences by local authorities would tend to economy or efficiency, and that there were strong economic and financial reasons against the course proposed to be taken in the clause. They were certainly under the impression that a new staff would have to lie set up to collect licences over a large and scattered area, which would entail considerable expense. He thought too the allocation of the £40,000 was not at all fair as between thinly and thickly populated districts, because in

897
the former the cost of collection would be larger. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied that in thinly populated districts there would be a decrease of the rates, he would be very pleased to vote for the clause, but they ought to have a pledge that if his expectations were not realised, and there was an increase of the rates, it should be altered in next year's Finance Bill.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid the counties and municipal associations accepted the clause as perfectly correct. They had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday, and under the fascination of his eloquence they gave way at all points. He himself was not present, and whilst he felt in some difficulty in raising any doubts about the clause, yet one could not heap feeling that it was difficult to see bow this would profit the boroughs and the counties. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that in the long run it would mean a considerable increase of revenue and that they might even make a profit upon the collection. It was very flattering to municipalities and to counties that they should be able to conduct their business on such excellent principles and in such a way that, whereas the cost was 2½ per cent. to the Treasury, when it came to municipalities they were to do much the same thing and to make a profit on the transaction. It looked as if at any rate one body conducted its business considerably better than the other. It was mentioned that the portion appertaining to Liverpool and Manchester would be about £380. There were about 24,000 dogs in Liverpool, and it would cost £100 in postage alone to apply for licences for these dogs, if everybody paid the moment he got his application. If second or third applications were required the balance of the £385 would become very small. The addition to the police force that would be entailed had been alluded to. As Chairman of the Finance Committee of the City Council, nothing distressed him more than the enormous addition to the police force which was going on every day in consequence of Acts passed by Parliament. He had not the slightest doubt that this Act would require an immediate addition to the force, and the Chief Constable would come and say that these extra dirties needed so many extra police, with so much
898
extra wages and so much extra superannuation. Whatever the 2½ per cent. did it did not provide for extra police. Another objection was that the relations between police and the collectors of these licenses would not altogether be pleasant. At present the licences were imposed from London. Now that they were imposed in the locality and one's own friends and neighbours put police in action to collect them, it would create a bitter feeling between various parties which so far had been avoided. Though the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken away all the sting of the opposition of the representatives of the local authorities, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a somewhat sanguine view, and that the clause had not been considered with that close attention to detail which was necessary in a transaction of this sort. He had always felt considerable doubt as to these gifts from the Treasury, for he had never found in all his experience one turn out a profit. They were often told that grants in aid were going to do this, that, and the other, but when they came to make up their accounts at the end of five or six years they invariably found a loss. Although the explanations given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer silenced the objections of the deputation, he was not satisfied that the change would be a profitable one for local authorities. Whilst he should be inclined to vote for this clause after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he was afraid that in the end the local authorities would suffer by the arrangement.
*Mir. EVERETT, said he could not help, when listening to the Chancellor's explanation of the clause, thinking of the old saying, "Why not let well alone?" He knew from personal experience and observation spread over a good many years, that the taxes had been hitherto collected very well, very efficiently, and in as convenient a manner for all parties as, he thought, was possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that if he handed over the collection to the local bodies and gave them £40,000 to cover the cost, they would be able to make a considerable profit out of it. They all knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very much in want of money next year, and he could not

899
see why he should not continue to have these duties efficiently discharged as now, and take the profits to himself. He did not know about the borough councils, but the county councils did not wish these new duties to be imposed upon them. They were perfectly prepared to let well alone; and, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some better reason to offer than he had already given for the change he thought he would he very wise to withdraw the clause and let the matter remain on the satisfactory basis on which it had been hitherto. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman proposed the change in connection with the old-age pensions which, thank God, had at last been set on foot in this country. He was sure that the credit which would come to the Exchequer, to the Government, and to this Parliament, for granting that enormous boon to the people of the country would be so great that the Exchequer might very well take to itself any additional expense which might be incurred and not seek to impose it in a sort of underhand way upon the county councils. He would conclude as he began with the old motto, "Let well alone."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his hon. friend had just explained why the Government made this change. He had given the best answer that could be made to his own speech. The change had been made in order to liberate the Excise officers for the purpose of administering the old-age pensions scheme. His hon. friend had not suggested any alternative, and he would like to know what suggestions he had to make as to the best method of administering the old-age pensions scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had said that the decision to transfer the collection of these duties was associated with that scheme. That was no secret, for the Prime Minister explained, when he outlined the scheme to the House, that it was proposed to transfer these duties to the local authorities, because the Excise officer could not discharge his present functions and at the same time discharge the duties placed on him under the Old-Age Pensions Bill.
*MR. EVERETT: Then get more Excise officers. It is perfectly simple.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Government did not find it so simple.
900
They had given a good deal of attention to the subject and had acted upon the advice of expert officers. It was easy to appoint officials, but it was not so easy to pay for them. The Committee had treated the matter as if it were a suggestion that had emanated for the first time from the present Government. As a matter of fact, the idea was originated by the Unionist Government of 1886 and was incorporated in their Bill of 1888. It was then contemplated that the collection of these duties should be transferred to the local authorities, and it was to be effected by the simple process of an Order in Council.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that the Unionist Government did not carry out the suggestion because the Treasury officials advised them that the thing would not work.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was his information in regard to it. There was no more difficult thing to carry out than any reform which involved a reduction of staff. The Government had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived for putting into force what was proposed in 1886 with hardly any protest, and he hail heard no real reason why it should not be done. His hon. friend behind him had given a very conservative reason—a reason he would have expected to have come from the other side of the House. It was that they should let well alone. The hon. Member for Sunderland had said he was against change——
MR. SUMMERBELL: I said I looked on it with suspicion.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was the first time he had noticed suspicion in his hon. friend's atttitude towards changes. There was a very strong reason for making the change at this particular moment. It was in order to secure the entire services of these officers for more important and difficult duties. But that did not mean that there was nothing to be said for the change on its merits. The noble Lord opposite asked whether the proposal was made for the sake of old-age pensions or on its merits. There was nothing inconsistent in the two propositions. Meritorious propositions often took a long time to carry through, and this great reform had been enshrined,

901
in an Act of Parliament for twenty or thirty years.
MR. YOUNGER: But the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the status quo in Scotland.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not see how that was relevant, because they were not dealing in Scotland with local revenue, and he was not aware that the Local Government Act in Scotland contemplated the change. He was dealing with the case on the assumption that these were purely local revenues, and they were following the precedent set by a previous Unionist Government. They were of opinion that these revenues would be collected better by the local authorities. With regard to the objections taken by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, the County Councils Association came to him the other day, and he then explained the whole method of procedure to them. They were under the impression that they would have to set up machinery, and when it was explained that that was not so they were quite satisfied. The hon. Member for the Everton division of Liverpool had admitted that they were satisfied, although he could not see why they were satisfied. The Member for Leith Burghs was rather concerned about motor-cars. He said English motor-cars tore up the roads in Scotland. They left a good deal of money there, too. But what had that to do with this particular matter? They were not altering the principle of distribution. They were making no difference in Scotland oven in the method of collection, and they w ere making no difference here in the method of distribution. Whatever motor-cars paid to the local authorities now they would pay in future. It might be that they did not icy enough. It might be that it was unfair that licences for motor-cars should be paid in London and go to London revenue, whereas the motor-cars tore up the roads in Surrey. That, however, had nothing to do with this section. Concern had been expressed because the printing of the notices was to be done by one party, they were to be issued by a second, and the revenue was to be collected by a third. As far as collection was concerned, it would be carried out very largely as it was now. The Exciseman did not collect one-tenth of the revenue. Probably 85 per cent. of the money was collected by the Post
902
Office at present. The new machinery, instead of being more complicated, would be much simpler than the old. There was at present collection by the Post Office, there was payment to the Inland Revenue, then a transaction with the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board sent clown a cheque. In future the General Post Office would send a cheque direct to the local authority on the allocation made by the Local Government Board. The local authority would in consequence enjoy the considerable advantage of getting its money sooner. An hon. Member from. Ireland wished certain licences to be issued and the money collected by the local authorities. There was not much to be gained by such a change. The Excise officer in Ireland would be able to discharge both the functions of which it was suggested he should be relieved and the duties entrusted to him under the Old-Age Pensions Act. The choice of the Excise Officer as the officer to act under the pension scheme had been criticised. He did not think that was the proper occasion for discussing that point. It had already been decided by the House. Complaint had been made that the Government were casting part of the burden of old-age pensions on the local authorities. The noble Lord who made that complaint seemed to think the Government might have given a few thousands more money. Let it be assumed that the Government ought to have given £50,000 instead of £40,000. The Government were giving six or seven millions out of the Imperial Exchequer, and, on the ground that by this subterfuge they sought to extract a subvention of £10,000 from the local authority, the noble Lord denounced the Government for political trickery. If the Government wanted to make a great raid on local funds surely they might make a better attempt than that. The idea that the Government were attempting to shift their burden by making too hard a bargain with the local authorities was also untenable. The difference was too small and insignificant to admit of such an explanation. The Government were trying to do what was fair between the State and the local authorities. If the proposed arrangement were found to cast a heavier financial burden than had been contemplated on the local authorities, if, as the result of a couple of years working, it

903
was discovered that a considerable additional expense was involved in the creation of new machinery which was not adequately met by the £40,000, he would be prepared for a reconsideration of the matter. After the Government's explanation the representatives of the local authorities admitted that their fears had been removed. In those circumstances, and seeing that the House had already resolved that the Excise officer should be utilised for old-age pensions, he thought the Committee would come to the conclusion that the Government had acted fairly in the course which they bad taken.
MR. GUINNESSsaid that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly showed the convenience of having Excise officers available for the duties to be imposed upon them in connection with the old-age pensions scheme, but it had done little to satisfy those who were interested in the position of the county councils in relation to the new machinery proposed to be set up. In listening to the debate that afternoon he felt that the more one knew of the proposed machinery the more one was convinced that it would be very cumbersome, and that it would cause inconvenience in administration quite out of proportion to any advantage resulting from having Excise officers to look after old-age pensions. The chief argument which the Committee had heard from the Government was that the local authorities would not have to spend any more money because they would be able to do the work with the police. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash had pointed out that there would be a great deal of friction if that were put in force. He would like to point out the difficulties which would ensue in London where the police were not in any way under the control of the London County Council. He did not know what provision the Home Secretary would propose to meet that difficulty. He did not think the police could serve two masters. Whatever might be the case in the country, he thought that in London very large additional expense would have to be faced in providing officers for the detection of those who were trying to evade their liabilities in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
904
said that 2½ per cent. in addition would be allocated to the local authorities to meet the expenses of collection; but that percentage was founded on the actual cost to the Exchequer. It was quite obvious that the Exchequer could do that kind of work much more cheaply than a local authority, because they did these things on a much larger scale. It could not be expected that county councils and county boroughs could do it as economically as it was done by the Exchequer. The county councils had no staff to do the work. They had no officials to go from house to house to make inquiries and no officers for collecting rates, that it meant the appointment of an entirely new staff of collectors. The new duties would also require the opening of new offices throughout the country, and that would involve a very large expenditure. Moreover, it would undoubtedly cause great inconvenience to those who had to pay the duties. The hon. Member for Sunderland had raised a laugh by his reference to the way the dog licence was levied, but he had entirely misunderstood the point raised by an hon. Member on that side of the House. The point was that at present people took out their licences in perhaps a different county from that in which their shooting was, and they did not always have their licences in their pockets. Perhaps they might have a motor car licence, a gun licence, a dog licence, and several other licences, and it would be a very great inconvenience always to have to carry them all and fill their pockets with them. He knew that in driving a motor car it was sometimes a great nuisance to carry the licence and a great inconvenience to be asked by the police to show it. At the present time there was a central registry for motor licences; and he knew that every year he got a circular from the Post Office calling attention to the fact that he had taken out a licence the previous year and that he had not done so this year; but if he had taken out a licence somewhere else he need not trouble to answer the letter. In that way a great deal of trouble was saved; but in future the only way the local authority would have of checking whether a licence had been taken out elsewhere would be to plague the licensee to take

905
out the licence. Further, there was no identification to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out that the proposed method would be simpler, but he could not see it. Another point was that it was not proposed to take over the whole of the licences. Why should the particular duties mentioned in Clause 6 be singled out to be collected by the local authorities, and the Excise officers he still able to look up liquor licences, auctioneers' licences, pawnbrokers' licences, solicitors' licences, and other licences? If some licences were handed over to the local authorities, why not hand over all? The most objectionable feature, to his mind, was in Clause 4, which provided that this duty of collecting licences might at some future time revert to the central authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to some former case in which the local authorities had been willing to take over the duty of collecting certain licences; but at that time there was no proposal that they should take over that duty for a year or two, set up an expensive staff to do it, and that then the duty might be taken away. At the present time, if the staff were set up and the pension right created, the liability for the pension might cease and there would be no work for the staff; or the Chancellor of the Exchequer might alter the system. Again, these proposals must throw an apple of discord into the whole system of local government. At the present time the local authorities were circularising the whole neighbourhood with a view to induce people to take out their licences, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals became law, they would cause an indiscriminate scramble for the spoil. If there was to be a continual demand for licence duties there would be a considerable waste of time in calling upon people to take out their licences in one part of the country and not in another. He should vote against the clause.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he had always voted for the licences being collected by officers of the Inland Revenue. It might be well done in England, but in Scotland
906
they had harder work than in England, and it would impose still harder work upon them if they were to collect all the licence ditties. He was obliged: to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply with regard to the allocation of the tax on motor cars. At the same time he held that this new machinery would tend to localise the receipts of that tax and therefore his objection to the clause was removed.
LORD R. CECILsaid that it had been found difficult for some reason to enforce the Act of 1888. He did not think that it mattered much what was done under the Act of 1888; but, at any rate, it was not necessary that it should be done now. As to Scotland and Ireland, he did not understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant. The question was whether, if an Imperial officer in Scotland could discharge the duties of the Pensions Bill as well as his present duties, why could not an Imperial officer do the same in England or Ireland? There were very few licences in Ireland. Had the existing Imperial officers in Ireland not enough to do? If not they were overpaid, and the proper course was to reduce their pay—a thing that should have been done some time ago. He, however, did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that. The broad point he put was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to pay the county councils £40,000 a year in order to do a certain amount of work at present done by the Inland Revenue officers, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman thought it cheaper to pay that £40,000 than to appoint new officers to do the work. That was the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. Was it not perfectly plain that if new work was placed on the local authorities sooner or later they would have to appoint new men to do it? It was not worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to saw to the local authorities: "You can get this work done by people you already employ," when he knew that the county councils would have to appoint new people. In urban areas fresh work could not be thrown on policemen.

907
They would have to appoint fresh officers or pay the existing officers something extra. It really came to this—that to carry out the work a fresh staff would have to be appointed; and why could a fresh staff appointed for the purpose be a more economical way of doing the duty? Why should rot the existing staff of the Government do the work? They would be merely performing the same kind of duty which they at present discharged. And why should not all the licence duties be collected by the one hand? If it were necessary to have in some way or another a large number of people employed by the Inland Revenue Department in order to discharge the duties under the Old-Age Pensions Scheme, why not appoint them at once? They would not in the end save any money; they would be merely transferring the burden from the central authority to the local authority. In these circumstances, he thought the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were very unbusiness-like, and if his hon. friend went to a division he would vote with him.
MR. ROGERSsaid he could not admit that his dislike to this clause had been modified by what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals were not fair to the county councils. The right course to take was to appoint additional Excise officers to do the work. He thought that the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that policemen should be employed to discharge these duties was unworkable. It had this great draw-back, that the police were not the servants of the county councils, but of the Standing Joint Committee, though they were paid by the county council. The proposed new machinery would, he believed, inevitably be found in practice to be very cumbrous. The county council would receive the produce of the licences, but all the inspectorial work would be carried out by the police, who were not the servants of the body to whom the money went. Some hon. Members had referred to shooting licences. He, in common, he supposed, with many other Members of that House, sometimes found himself
908
well into the shooting season without a licence. Under the present condition he got a reminder from the Inland Revenue and the licence was taken up, but under this Bill who was to know whether he had taken out a licence or not? The only people who could possibly know were the police, who were not the servants of the county council in any way. Further, who was going to pay in future the costs of any prosecution which might be instituted for not taking out a licence? In the past that had been done by the Inland Revenue authorities. He supposed under this Bill it would be done by the county council. He did not refer to the small prosecutions, such as proceeding against a man for keeping two dogs with only one licence or anything of that kind. He referred to those important test cases that arose from time to time. He had in view a case which was brought a few years ago by the Inland Revenue authorities against the owner of a large estate with respect to a number of under gardeners. The Inland Revenue contended that these men were taxable servants. The owner of the estate contended that they were only labourers and that no licence was necessary. That case was fought out, counsel were employed on both sides, and great expense was incurred. He contended that cases of that kind should be undertaken by the Inland Revenue, and that the onus of taking such proceedings should not rest upon the local authorities. He gathered that such expense would not be covered by the 2½ per cent. to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. On all these grounds he disliked this change exceedingly, and should vote against it.
MR. HICKS BEACHdesired to emphasise the objections to this change which had been raised by hon. Members, especially when it was made only to relieve the Excise officers of their present duties in order that they might undertake-the duties of pension officers. Surely the simplest way if these men were required for the purposes of administering the pension fund would be not to relieve them of these duties, but to give them a little clerical assistance. The notices which they had to send out now could

909
easily be sent out by a youth who had just left school, and of that part of their duty these officers could be relieved. That was a much simpler plan of relieving them than to place the duties on the county council who did not desire to undertake them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the county councils would make a very good thing out of it. That was a singular argument for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance, because his primary duty was to look after the interests of the taxpayer and of the Treasury, and the fact that the county councils were going to make a good thing out of the £40,000 showed that the right hon. Gentleman must have given them more money than was necessary for the purpose of collecting the licences. With regard to the distribution of the money between the borough councils and county councils, he pointed out that it would cost the borough authority considerably less to collect the licences than the county authorities who had large and sparsely populated districts to cover. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that the county authorities would receive the same fair proportion of the £40,000 as the borough authorities got for collecting the licences in small densely populated areas. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that a Unionist Government passed a clause in the Bill of 1886 under which the Government by an Order in Council could give the local authorities the right to collect these taxes, and had said it was clear that the local authorities wished to have that right at that time. If they did, they did not wish for it long, because it had never been carried into effect. It was not carried into effect because the Inland Revenue authorities conclusively showed that if the duties were collected by the local authorities a great deal of inconvenience would be caused. It had also to be remembered that under the Act of 1886 if the duties on the various Excise licences were increased in amount the revenue then gained was to go to the local authorities and not to the Exchequer, and no doubt the county councils at that time, with the hope of getting some relief out of the taxes, would have taken over the collection of
910
the licences. But now that the Government had taken into their own hands any revenue that might be obtained from an increase in the duties the county councils had no desire to undertake their collection.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought they had heard for the first time that day that in future the Inland Revenue officer would no longer have anything to do with Inland Revenue, but would be occupied with duties connected with inland expenditure. It was in connection with that new position that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. The Inland Revenue officer was no longer, as he understood, to have anything to do with the Treasury in the same way as before. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the whole time of the Inland Revenue officers would be applied—he certainly thought they would be required—to duties connected with the Government's scheme of old-age pensions. If that was so, who was to be their official chief? Were they still to be the servants of a board whose whole duty was dealing with public Revenue? Were these gentlemen who were to have nothing to do except to manage this pensions scheme to be under the control of the Chairman of the Excise and Customs Board? The eminent persons who presided over our Customs and Inland Revenue would know nothing about conducting inquiries into qualifications for old-age pensions. He did not understand that any change was going to be made in their duties. He did not understand that the Government were going to ask the Chairman of the Customs Board to qualify himself for that duty, and, therefore, he would not be qualified to judge as to whether these officers were carrying out their new duties properly. The result was that these gentlemen would be engaged in duties of which their superior official would know nothing, and in regard to which they were not expected to know anything. The real chief of the local so-called Inland Revenue officers would not be the Board of Inland Revenue but the President of the Local Government Board, because the head of the Local Government Board would be the only person high up in the official

911
hierarchy who had any opportunity of knowing whether they satisfactorily performed their duties in connection with old-age pensions. Their nominal chiefs would be absolutely divorced from any knowledge of how they did their work in regard to old-age pensions. This seemed to be an arrangement for which there was no justification, which was quite outside any precedents which could be quoted by the Government, and entirely contrary to common sense. Surely the superior officers of these men should have an opportunity of knowing how their duties were carried out, and should be expected to qualify themselves to judge. The Government were going to cut the Inland Revenue service into two and hand over a great part of a popular service to the Local Government Board, who would have no hierarchical authority over them, but yet the President of which was the only person who could say whether they were performing their duties in the manner required of them by Parliament. This was the first opportunity that Parliament had had of hearing how the right lion. Gentleman was going to construct this branch of the Civil Service, and he would be glad to have some further explanation on that point.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he certainly did not mean to convey there would be no more Inland Revenue officers. Of course, there would still be Inland Revenue officers who would be charged with the collection of an enormous amount of revenue. Publicans' licences, the licences of tobacco dealers, pawnbrokers' licences, plate-dealers' licences, and other licences, would be collected by the Excise officers. The right hon. Gentleman had reverted to the criticism or complaint at their having chosen these particular revenue officers for the purpose of inquiring into claims for old-age pensions. He thought that was hardly the opportunity for debating that point. It was a matter which the House of Commons had already decided, and it had approved of the plan of the Government. Therefore, he did not think it was a desirable course to resume discussion on that particular question. It had been decided, for better or for worse, so far as the House of Commons was concerned. But there
912
was one criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his arguments which was perhaps more germane to this Bill than to the Old-age Pensions Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggested, now they were separating the functions of the revenue officer, or rather splitting them in two, that for one purpose he would be the revenue officer, and for the second purpose he would be a Local Government Board officer. That was not so. The officer would still be a Treasury official; he was there to watch for the Treasury; he was there primarily as a Treasury official; and they had chosen him because he was a Treasury officer responsible to that Department. That was the scheme. He wanted the Committee to bear that in mind where the whole burden had been cast upon the Imperial Exchequer. In every other scheme that had been brought forward half or at least one-third was to be borne out of local revenues. Therefore, this scheme was essentially different in character. As long as the local revenue bore a portion of the expenditure there was some check upon it; they appointed a local officer for the purpose, who would see to the extent of one-half or one-third that the expenditure did not increase unduly. But here they had made the burden exclusively an Imperial one, and they must, therefore, have an officer representing the Exchequer. There the Excise officer was, still representing the Exchequer, still representing the Treasury, which, after all, was responsible for those officers. The point was as to Parliamentary responsibility. The Excise officer would be responsibile to the Inland Revenue, the Inland Revenue would be responsible to the Treasury, and the Treasury would answer to the House of Commons in respect of anything that happened with regard to these particular officers. To that extent the Excise officer chosen for this work was still a Treasury officer, and was not at all responsible to the Local Government Board. The only function of the Local Government Board in the matter was as a Court of Appeal on disputed points. The officer was not responsible to them at all. They sat in judgment on him in respect of issues arising out of the administration of the

913
Act, but he took his directions not from the Local Government Board but from the Treasury, and, therefore, he was still a Treasury officer.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was really an important point, anti he did not think they had yet had it quite defined. The reason he had said that these officers were officials of the Local Government. Board was because it was only that Department which had an opportunity of supervising their work and seeing that it was efficiently carried out. It was true that the Board of Ireland Revenue and the Customs were under the Treasury, but both were technical expert Boards who dealt with very difficult revenue questions connected either with Customs or Excise, the yield of taxes and the collection of taxes. These gentlemen were the superiors and only superiors of these Excise officers, who were now, however, to cleat with old-age pensions. If these superior officers had no knowledge of old-age pensions work, how could it be expected that, as part of their functions, they would know anything about the methods or procedure which should be adopted by those who had charge of the old-age pension work? It was no answer to say that the Treasury were responsible. The Treasury had no means of seeing the persons who carried out these duties in regard to old-age pensions.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not see that the relation between the Local Government Board and these officers as regards old-age pensions has anything whatever to do with this clause. I was out of the Committee a short time recently and do not understand how we have got on to this point.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he certainly would not pursue the subject. How they had got on to it was in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, almost necessarily, after the way the debate had gone, had to discuss how these Officers would have to deal partly with revenue and partly with old-age pensions, and in discussing the position of these officers in relation to the collection of revenue, it was very difficult to keep their new
914
status outside. But he had already made his point, such as it was, quite clear.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid there was one important point on which he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. It had reference, to the duty, now performed by Inland Revenue officers, of preparing agricultural statistics. He believed it was a very irksome and very heavy duty. Would it be carried out by these officers?
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the point as to what arrangement would be made between two local authorities where a person under one of them took out his licence under the other. How were they to know?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that there would be no difference. If the money was paid in a particular town the money went there. If there was a grievance, they had nothing to do with it. They did not alter the system.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: Do you write to the Postmaster-General in St. Martin's-le-Grand?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Post Office weekly or monthly informed the local authorities who had taken out licences.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that at the present moment these licences were collected by the officers of the Central Government, and the service of every office was the same. But when they joined the local authority, how, when a man in Birmingham said he had taken out his licence in London, or, being in London, that he had taken it out in Birmingham, was the local authority to satisfy itself of the truth of the statement?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the local authority would communicate with the district where the licence was taken out.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman now suggested.
that the local authority was to hunt up a man who had taken out his licence elsewhere, and call upon him to produce it—which meant a house to house visitation for the purpose; or they were to make inquiry of another local authority, thus being forced into a corres
pondence which he did not think either practicable or beneficial.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 193)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Agnew, George William

Devlin, Joseph

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Alden, Percy

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

Jackson, R. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

Jenkins, J.

Astbury. John Meir

Duckworth, James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker. Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jowett, F. W.

Balfour. Robert (Lanark)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Joyce, Michael

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Barker, John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kekewich, Sir George

Barnard, E. B.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Kelley, George D.

Barnes, G. N.

Erskine, David C.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Beale, W. P.

Evan, Sir Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Beck, A. Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St Pancras, E)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann. R. C.

Bennett, E. N.

Findlay, Alexander

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Berridge. T. H. D.

Flynn, James Christopher

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fullerton, Hugh

London, W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lupton, Arnold

Black, Arthur W.

Gill, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bowerman, C. W,

Glendinning. R. G.

Lynch, H. B.

Branch, James

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brigg, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Brodie, H. C.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macpherson. J. T.

Brooke, Stopford

Hall, Frederick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Halpin, J.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

M'Callum, John M.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

M'Crae, Sir George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

M'Kean, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Killop, W.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

Byles, William Pollard

Harmsworth. R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

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

Cameron, Robert

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Harwood, George

Mallet, Charles E.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marnham, F. J.

Cleland, J. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Massie, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meagher, Michael

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

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

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Henry, Charles S.

Menzies, Walter

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Middlebrook, William

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hodge, John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cox, Harold

Hogan, Michael

Mond, A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Crean, Eugene

Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Crooks, William

Hope, W. Batemar (Somerset, N

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crossley, William J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Morrell, Philip

Cullinan, J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morse, L. L.

Curran, Peter Francis

Hudson, Walter

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Robinson, S.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Nicholls, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tillett, Louis John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Tomkinson, James

Nolan, Joseph

Roe, Sir Thomas

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Norman, Sir Henry

Rowlands, J.

Toulmin, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Verney, F. W.

Natall, Harry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Vivian, Henry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walsh, Stephen

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Joseph

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sehwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Wardle, George J.

O'Dowd, John

Seaverns, J. H.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

O'Grady, J.

Seddon, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Seely, Calonel

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Shackleton, David James

Watt, Henry A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Weir, James Galloway

Partington, Oswald

Shipman, Dr. John C.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smeaton, Donall Mackenzie

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Snowden, P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitehead, Rowland

Pollard, Dr.

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Pansonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Wiles, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Steadman, W. C.

Wilkie, Alexander

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')

Sutherland, J. E.

Winfrey, R.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Yoxall, James Henry

Richardson, A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ridsdale. E. A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, R)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomasson, Franklin

NOES

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Arkwright. John Stanhope

Gretton, John

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Ashley, W. W.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sears, J. E.

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd,

Sheffield., Sir Berkeley George D.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Sir Clement

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Soares, Ernest J.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Joynion-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale. John Brownlee

Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Whitbread, Howard

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Younger, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Roberts. S. (Sheilield, Ecelesall)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Courthope and Viscount Helmsley.

Fell, Arthur

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

clause 7:
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall) moved to substitute 11d. for 1s. as the income-tax for the present financial year. He saw that when the advance was made in the tax for the purposes of the war the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the income-taxpayer ought to be the first to receive relief when the war was concluded. The war had been over about six years, and the only relief was that given last year to those who earned incomes under £2,000 a year, amounting to £1,250,000 out of a total of about £32,000,000. In his first Budget in 1906, the present Prime Minister said—
"In regard to the income-tax, I do not hesitate to associate myself with the declarations of more than one of my predecessors that an income-tax at a uniform rate of 1s. in the £ in a time of peace is impossible to justify and difficult to defend. It is a burden on the trade of the country which, in the long run, affects not only profits but wages, and from the point of view of the nation it is open to the same objection as the continuance at an abnormal figure of the floating debt, namely, that it tends to destroy, or at any rate, contract the most readily available reserve on which the State can draw in a sudden or unforeseen emergency."
The Prime Minister put it very clearly that it was not only a tax upon profits, but, ultimately, a tax on the working people, because profits could not be earned unless wages were paid, and, therefore, if there was less money to invest, the workman himself must really feel the burden. The second reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave, that it must tend to contract, the most readily available reserve, was also a very sound financial one. The income-tax was first imposed by Pitt over 100 years ago as a war tax. It continued during the wars with France at a high rate. When the war was over the income-tax dropped, but it was revived again by Sir Robert Peel in 1843. The point was that the income-tax and the Sinking Fund were our two great reserves for emergencies. In order that those two great reserves might be the powerful engine which the late Mr. Gladstone said they ought to be, they must have in times of peace the income-tax at a low or moderate figure, whilst on the other hand they must have the
920
Sinking Fund at a high rate. If they had those two conditions the country was in a safe financial position in case war broke out. Now what did Mr. Gladstone say on this point? He said—
"Much as might be said of the importance of an Army or a Navy Reserve and having your armoury and arsenals well stored. I say this fiscal reserve is no less important."
With regard to the present year the Prime Minister gave a welcome relief to those deserving people who were earning under £2,000 a year. It was also true that a great many deserving people with small incomes earned in past years received no relief at all. He wished to put in a plea on behalf of those people. It was true that abatements were allowed, but it was also true that the income-tax of 1s. was charged on those incomes. The amount of relief given only to the income-tax payer amounted to £1,240,000 or less than a halfpenny in the £, and as a matter of fact during the last financial year the Chancellor of the Exchequer received in cash as much as £1,880,000 in excess of his Budget estimate of income-tax money. That was actually £780,000 more than the sum paid the year before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in his Budget statement—
"Last year I gave a substantial relief to a large number of income-taxpayers; this year, therefore, it would be the natural course for the indirect taxpayer to be relieved."
The right hon. Gentleman had relieved the indirect taxpayer, whether wisely or unwisely, by remitting over one-half of the sugar duty. What he wished to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the fact that he thought the Prime Minister, in his Budget statement, was hardly right in his statement that he had really given relief to the income-taxpayer, because he received £780,000 in excess of the receipts of former years. He would like to emphasise another point in connection with direct and indirect taxation, viz., that the death duties were really an income-tax paid out of capital. Let the Committee, for example, take an estate yielding £100 a year. The estate duty would amount to 11d. in the £, extending over the whole life of the person inheriting the money. Therefore, that man had not only to pay

921
income-tax, but he had really to pay estate duty in addition. He would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what obtained in this matter in other countries. The fact was that in many of the largest and most important countries in the world there was no income-tax charged at all. The United States of America collected a large amount of money, amounting to £56,000,000, by the Customs duties, but there was not a penny paid in income-tax. There was no income-tax in Russia, nor in Canada. It was true that in France an Income-Tax Bill had been brought before that Chamber, but did the right hon. Gentleman know what had happened to it? The matter was discussed in the French Chamber, and one of the Radical Deputies canvassed his friends to rally to his relief when he moved a Resolution that the French Chamber should sit until that Income-Tax Bill was passed. The Resolution was to the effect—
"That the Chamber being resolved to carry through the Income-Tax Bill in good time counts on the Government to promote it and prosecute discussion thereon."
A division was taken, and the Members of the French Chamber were so anxious to get away to the country that the Resolution was defeated by 294 votes to 220, and so the Deputies had gone on their holidays and the Income-Tax Bill has been deferred to a more convenient season. There was no income-tax in Belgium or Portugal. There was an income-tax in Germany, but the highest point of 5 per cent, was not reached until incomes amounted to £5,000 a year. In Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway there was a very moderate income-tax charged, and the only two countries where there was an excessive charge in regard to the income-tax wore Italy and Spain, where the tax was very high indeed. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the claims of the income-tax payers of this country, first, on the ground of the promises given to them when the tax was raked from 8d. to 1s. that they should be the first entitled to relief when the war was over; secondly, because the tax was not only a tax upon profit but upon the wages of working people; and lastly,
922
because it was financially a sound policy to keep the income-tax at a reasonable figure, otherwise, in times of war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself in very great difficulties. Compared with all the other countries he had mentioned this country alone had an abnormally large income-tax, which was far higher than the people ought to be called upon to pay. He had much pleasure in moving the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 35, to leave out the words 'one shilling,' and to insert the words 'eleven pence.' "—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the clause."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member had proposed that the Committee should accept an Amendment which would reduce the revenue of the year by £2,500,000. Of course, the Government could not accept that proposal unless the hon. Member was prepared to substitute something else. Was the hon. Member prepared to put another 2d. on tea or put back the sugar duty?
MR. FELL: There is the coal tax.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he could easily find the right hon. Gentleman some more money by taxing manufactured articles.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it must be obvious to the hon. Member that he could not accept such a proposal. No doubt if they went thoroughly into the question a ruthless examination might result in a very considerable sum of money being obtained for public purposes. At the present moment it was obvious that they could not allow a reduction of a penny in the income-tax. The hon. Member had quoted the speech of his predecessor in which he said that the income-tax payer had claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer whenever the opportunity came for a reduction. As far as he could see that opportunity had not yet arrived and he did not see

923
any immediate possibility of its arriving. The Prime Minister in the very next Budget gave considerable relief in the most hard cases, and more especially to the professional classes who were perhaps more pressed than any other class by the income-tax, by reducing the income-tax upon earned incomes from 1s. to 9d. The hon. Member had spoken of other countries in which the tax was considerably lighter, but he would remind him that in some cases the taxes on the necessaries of life were very much higher than here. If they had to elect between a tax on the necessaries of life and a tax on income, especially incomes in the region of £1,000, £2,000, £3,000, he thought the people of this country would prefer taxing income which was only essential for superfluities rather than imposing it on the necessaries of life of the poorer classes. The hon. Member had left out one important Empire when he surveyed the income-tax imposed by the various countries of the world. He did not state what Italy charged. There was another very interesting State, namely, Japan, where a graduated income-tax had been imposed. He was told that it ran up to 5s. in the £. That was a very interesting experiment, and he was told that on the whole it had been successful. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] The highest authority he could quote was the Japanese Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed him, much to his satisfaction, that there was a graduated income-tax working in Japan, and that it was a successful experiment. It was true that it had only been in operation for a couple of years, but the Japanese finance minister was very satisfied with the results. He thought the graduated income-tax had also been successful in Germany. He could not in the present Budget contemplate the possibility of knocking off another penny.
*MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he could understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he could not in the present Budget contemplate the reduction of the income-tax by 1d. for fear of upsetting his financial arrangements for the year. But when the right hon. Gentleman asked hon. Members on that
924
side of the House what tax they would impose in lieu of the 1d. proposed to be taken off the income-tax he would remind him of the coal tax which brought in a large revenue. In the opinion of many of the right hon. Gentlemen's own colleagues the taking off of that tax was a very great mistake. His hon. friend had put the case clearly for a reduction of the income-tax. The present Prime Minister admitted last year or the year before that a high income-tax was a very great disadvantage, and that in its ultimate issue it was a tax not only upon profits but also upon wages. It was obvious to the Committee that if every individual had to spend a certain portion of his income in payment of taxes, that portion was diverted from more productive expenditure on which it would otherwise be expended, and it thereby tended to diminish the amount of money spent throughout the country on productive wages. What to his mind was the important aspect of this question was that the high income-tax was imposed and kept on for the purpose of paying off our liabilities in connection with the South African War. The tax was raised during the war from 8d. to 1s. 3d., and though it might have been justifiable to keep the tax at a high limit during the time we were actually engaged in that war, and when it was still necessary for the purpose of paying off the liabilities incurred during the war, he felt that it was a very serious thing for any Government to contemplate a high income-tax during a time of peace. They were told no doubt that, with a Liberal Government in power, there was very little prospect of the country being forced into a great war, but nobody could tell what would happen in ten years time. This country might be engaged in a serious war involving considerable expenditure, and, therefore, it was a very serious thing to keep the income-tax at the high level at which it now stood, not for the purpose of paying off liabilities of the late war, but for the purpose of paying the normal expenditure of the country. It meant that the income-tax was now kept at a high level for the purpose of paying for some expensive schemes, such as old-age pensions, which had been introduced by the present

925
Government. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think of the desirableness of the income-tax for the purpose of paying the cost under the old-age pensions scheme, he personally was strongly of opinion that when a scheme was introduced by them based on a non-contributory basis, the least the Government responsible for that scheme could have done would have been to keep on some such tax as the sugar tax, which would have yielded a large revenue, and to which everyone of those interested in the old-age pensions scheme would have contributed. Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer, including Mr. Gladstone and the present Prime Minister, had declared that it was a very great mistake to keep the income-tax at a high level, because it destroyed the great reserve of this country in time of war. That was the chief argument against maintaining the tax at a high level, and for that reason alone, even if there was no other, he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Last year the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced a scheme of differentiation, under which relief was given to certain income-tax payers, and it had the curious effect that it did not cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much as he thought it would, because people became more ready to bring in the full amount of their income to assessment. He thought that was a very good point in favour of the reduction of the present tax from 1s. to 11d. Last year's relief did not touch a large and deserving class of people—namely, those who had an income derived from savings which by the exercise of thrift they had put by during the time they were working. He wished again to enter his strong protest against the line taken last year in granting relief to people whose income took the form of pensions, and not to people whose sole income was derived from savings. He admitted that income derived from pensions was in a different category from income derived from no effort, but surely if it was fair and just to give relief to people whose present income was derived from pensions on the ground that a pension was really deferred income, it was equally fair and just that similar relief should be given to those who had been thrifty
926
and saving at the time when they were working hard and were now living on incomes derived from savings. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point in the interval between now and the Report stage of the Bill and see whether he could not grant relief to the most thrifty class of the population.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed, like many others, to entertain the fallacy which was widespread that a shilling income-tax actually existed. The Prime Minister in his Budget statement this year had pointed out that it was a complete misnomer to call it a shilling income-tax, and that, as a matter of fact, it was much less, amounting on the average to only 9d. or 9½. in the £. The income of the income-tax paying classes this year could not be less than £1,000,000,000, and that at 1s. in the £ would yield £50,000,000, but as the revenue from income-tax did not yield that amount the tax could not be 1s. As a matter of fact there were about 200,000 people at the outside who paid at the rate of 1s. Who was to blame for this misapprehension? If they passed an Act of Parliament every year which set out that the income-tax was 1s. in the £, they could not wonder if Members of Parliament and others constantly repeated that as a sort of parrot cry. He found in speeches and in electioneering literature that the tax was stated as being 1s. in the £. Why not have the income-tax so graduated as to show on the face of it what the rate really was in respect of different amounts of income, instead of having it graduated in the absurd manner which now obtained? What had happened? As the necessity for more revenue had arisen successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, irrespective of Party, had in making each rise in the income-tax granted concessions to the middle class taxpayer, who was the object of worship on both sides of the House. That system had been carried on until under the late Government they reached the point where the income-tax was graduated up to £700 a year. Last year another Step was taken by the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the

927
Exchequer, when he made a concession to those persons who were alleged to have earned their income up to £2,000 a year. If those persons showed that their income from all sources did not exceed £2,000 a year they were allowed to claim a 9d. rate; that was to say a nominal 9d. rate. He said nominal, for they were granted all the original abatements, so that the 9d. rate in its turn was graduated. He would be sorry to endeavour to give to the House off-hand an idea of what the graduation amounted to. It was done in the Inland Revenue Report, but he defied any hon. Member to carry the details in his memory; and that was why there was that great misapprehension which led to Amendments like that now under discussion by which the Committee was asked to reduce the 1s. income-tax which did not actually exist. Why could not this clumsy, obscure, and unjust system be discarded in favour of a plain system such as obtained in Prussia? In that country the income-tax was 4 per cent, up to £500 a year, but at the same time the assessment to Imperial taxes was also the assessment for the local income-tax; and it followed that the rich man paid a larger proportion with a pro tanto relief to the poorer taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman opposite had drawn a touching picture of the woes of a man who had a little sum in Consols and who had to pay income-tax upon it. The way to give that man relief was to ascertain precisely where the income of the country was, and to obtain a proper contribution from persons who had large incomes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked the other night about robbing the hen roost. [IRONICAL cries of "No."] Well, about visiting the hen roost; but it was necessary to ascertain first its address and what was in it. If they only got to know that, information could easily be got as to how the income of the country was distributed, and if the doctrine of taxation according to ability laid down by Adam Smith long ago were applied, and regard were had to the principles which had been subscribed to in theory in this country for generations, the relief of the middle class taxpayer must follow. Of the enormous sum which came under review, as was mentioned by the Prime
928
Minister in his Budget speech—it was a sum approaching £1,000,000,000 sterling—£600,000,000 sterling lay above the £700 a year limit, and if that were taxed at 1s. per £, it would alone yield £30,000,000 a year. In that event the hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to go to his constituents and tell every one of them who had an income under £700 a year that he would be entirely relieved of the payment of income-tax. To speak seriously, he was the last one to say that a middle-class man with £500 or £600 a year ought not to make a proper contribution to the national expenses, for he served his country neither as an officer nor as a private. He only grumbled, and it seemed to be the province of hon. Gentlemen opposite to encourage him to grumble, but it could not be said that the sum which such a man was called upon to pay unjustly pressed him. Once more he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the financial condition of the country, in view of the fact that we were widening out expenditure in directions believed by both sides of the House to be proper, to set our direct taxation on a proper footing. What was the virtue of direct taxation? It was that they could go to a man directly and inquire what his income was. What was the argument against indirect taxation? It was that it was capricious, and that it hit the wrong man at the wrong time. By a graduated income-tax on a proper scale they could deal with each man according to his deserts, and, making all allowance for his circumstances, call upon him to make a proper contribution for the upkeep of the country.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Member had stated, that the income of the country was one thousand millions. On what foundation did he make that extraordinary statement? It was merely a guess.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, told them that the income of all classes, as returned for income-tax purposes, had leapt up by 35 millions on the gross total of 980 millions the previous year, and everybody knew that a lump of 35

929
millions in a single year did not show the whole rise.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the explanation of the hon. Member only showed that the Prime Minister had made a guess in the same way as the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, there were no accurate figures in existence which showed the income of the country. It must also be remembered that there were abatements which had to be considered. The real argument which would induce him to vote for the Amendment was this. Since they had had the privilege of being governed by the Radical Party they had had reductions in indirect taxation to the extent of something like six millions or seven millions—two and a half millions of coal duty, three and a half millions of sugar duty, and one million of tea duty. But they had had practically no reduction at all in direct taxation. There had been a nominal reduction of taxation on earned incomes below £2,000 a year; but, as his hon. friend had told the Committee, the extraordinary result had accrued that although there had been a reduction in the tax, there had been practically no reduction in the receipts. He himself last year ventured to say that something of that sort would ensue, because he believed that there were a large number of people—and in that he had been corroborated—who would not submit to the ordeal of publishing what their income really was. While, therefore, there had been practically no reduction in direct taxation apart from the reduction on earned incomes under £2,000 a year, there had been an increase in the death duties, and the right hon. Gentleman must not forget that even supposing the 9d. reduction was an advantage, there was a corresponding disadvantage in the increase of the death duties. Therefore, taking the most favourable estimate, from the point of view of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, they arrived at the conclusion that they had had a reduction of nearly 7 millions in indirect taxation and no reduction in direct taxation. He had been in the House of Commons for sixteen years, and had heard it laid down by Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides that when there was a reduction in indirect taxation
930
there must be a corresponding reduction in direct taxation. All that had been swept to the winds by hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the fact that the direct taxation was imposed for war purposes, and, therefore, when the war was over and the amount of direct taxation was not required, that amount should have been reduced. His hon. friend said that, in his opinion, because they were blessed with a Radical Government, the chances of going to war were not very great. He did not agree with his hon. friend. They were reducing the Army, and apparently were going to reduce the Navy, and. if foreign countries saw that we were not in a position to defend ourselves the temptation to come over here and take some of the thousands of millions of which the hon. Member for North Paddington told the Committee we were so full in this country would be very great. The instincts of the robber did not belong entirely to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; they were shared with him by many countries. He sincerely hoped the hon. Member would go to a division on this question, because there was no doubt that to keep the income-tax at the present high rate pressed extremely hard on all classes of the community. The income-tax was too high, and ought to be reduced. We were not in the position we were in ten years ago. Our securities did not stand so high, and it was very difficult to raise money. The right hon. Gentleman had been trying for two years to raise £5,000,000 for Irish stock. What would be the case if we went to war and had to raise £60,000,000? It would be much more difficult to do now than it was ten year ago. When in 1890 Consols stood at £117, they were told that they were the war chests of the country, and stood against the war chests of France and Germany. He did not want to blame anyone for the condition of things now, but if he were challenged he could show that money was leaving the country fast, because people knew that if they left their money here they would he visited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his satellite the hon. Member for North Paddington. It was not wise of the right hon. Gentleman to put

931
all his hopes on this particular tax. It was an advantageous tax to look to in an emergency, but it was not a tax to be used for the purposes of the ordinary finance of the country.
*MR. FELLsaid it had been stated that though the income-tax was described as being 1s. it was in fact much less. But many dividends were paid in this country, and he would like to point out that in every case they paid 1s. income-tax. The hon. Member for Paddington had suggested that every tax should be paid at the source at 1s. and that those who were entitled to pay less should be left to struggle with the authorities to get back that which they should not have paid; but the Committee knew they would never get it back. Though the tax, as the Prime Minister had said, might be 9d., many poor investors paid 1s. because it was deducted from the dividend before they got it. One fact he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had possibly ignored. In the Budget which the Prime Minister was supporting the right hon. Gentleman took credit for the fact that he had given an abatement of income-tax of over £1,000,000, but he did not take into account that he had annexed that income which in previous years was allowed to be returned to falling businesses and which last year amounted to some £700,000. With regard to the inquisitorial nature of the tax he very much questioned whether other countries which had an income-tax collected it in the way we did. In the United States and Canada they relied on indirect taxation as a source of revenue, and scouted the idea of an income-tax. We were not the only people blessed with great intelligence, and in giving up indirect taxation and maintaining at an increased rate direct taxation we were going in the directly contrary way to those great Powers the intelligence of whose people was not inferior to our own. The Amendment could not be carried, but the question of whether the tax should be 11d. or 1s. was one that should
be discussed. He had an Amendment on the Paper in which he proposed it should be 8d. which was the normal rate of the income-tax before the war. He would not move that Amendment, but as a protest against the retention of the tax at its present high figure he should heartily support his hon. friend.
MR. LEVERTON HARRISpointed out that the hon. Member for Paddington, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and who complained that this tax pressed very hardly on the industry of this country, had stated that in fact the income-tax was not 1s., but 9d. in the £. Had the hon. Member considered what the income-tax was likely to be to a good many people this year, and whether they would not have to pay considerably more than 1s. in the £? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister when introducing the Budget said that he budgeted for an increased revenue from the income-tax. The right hon. Gentleman was informed then that there would be no increase, because trade was falling. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that trade might be falling, but pointed out that inasmuch as the income-tax was paid on the average income of the past three years it would make no difference; that although the incomes might decline the revenue from the income-tax would increase. So that this year as a matter of fact many people were going to pay an income-tax far in excess of income. He would not press that point further, except to say that in the case of a great many people the income-tax would be more like 1s. 4d. in the £ than 9d., and in some cases it would be even higher than 1s. 4d. On these grounds and because he believed that a high income-tax must have a damaging effect upon the prosperity of the country, he supported the hon. Member in his Motion for the reduction.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 194).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, Charles P.(Stroud)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)]

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Agnew, George William

Astbury, John Meir

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Barker, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Hedges, A. Paget

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnes, G. N.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Partington, Oswald

Beale, W. P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bell, Richard

Henry, Charles S.

Pollard, Dr.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Hodge, John

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

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hogan, Michael

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E

Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex, Romf'rd

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

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

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Horniman, Emslie John

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Black, Arthur W.

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Boland, John

Hyde, Clarendon

Reddy, M.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Idris, T. H. W.

Richards, T. F. (Wolv'rh'mpt'n

Bowerman, C. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richardson, A.

Branch, James

Jackson, R. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Brigg, John

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brodie, H. C.

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberston, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robinson, S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Joyce, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kekewich, Sir George

Rowlands, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kelley, George D.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cameron, Robert

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Lamont, Norman

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E)

Sohwann, Sir C. E. (Manchest'r)

Cleland, J. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Sears, J. E.

Clynes, J. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seddon, J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Seely, Colonel

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shackleton, David James

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crean, Eugene

Lynch, H. B.

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

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Devlin, Joseph

Macpherson, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dobson, Thomas W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duckworth, James

M'Callum, John M.

Snowdon, P.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Crae, Sir George

Soares, Ernest J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Kean, John

Spicer, Sir Albert

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Essex, R. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fenwick, Charles

Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry)

Summerbell, T.

Flynn, James Christopher

Meagher, Michael

Sutherland, J. E.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim,N)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fullerton, Hugh

Menzies, Walter

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Gill, A. H.

Middlebrook, William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John

Molteno, Percy Alport.

Thomasson, Franklin

Glendinning, R. G.

Mond, A.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Tillett, Louis John

Hall, Frederick

Morse, L. L.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Vivian, Henry

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Nicholls, George

Walker, H. Do R. (Leicester)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Walsh, Stephen

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wardle, George J.

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

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

934

935

Weir, James Galloway

Wilkie, Alexander

Wood, T. McKinnon

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro)

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wiles, Thomas

Winfrey, R.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanier, Beville

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Renton, Leslie

Fell, Arthur

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

TELLERS FOR THIS NOES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Leverton Harris.

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

Gretton, John

Salter, Arthur Clavell

*MR. FELL*MR. FELL moved to amend subsection (2), which provided that all enactments relating to income-tax which were in force on April 5th, 1908, should have full force and effect by inserting the proviso "except such as relate to the method of assessment of the profits of companies and corporations." His object, he said, was to call attention to the way in which the profits of some companies were assessed. He believed that he had the sympathy of the Prime Minister last year, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when he said that there were grave anomalies in the assessment of the profits of companies and corporations, but that he hoped before next year to do something to correct those anomalies, though it was a matter of difficulty and probably he would have to re-draft and consolidate in some way the clauses of the Acts under which those profits were assessed. But, of course, there was always the question in regard to companies why they were not taxed on dividends instead of upon profits. They were assessed under Acts which were sixty years old, and it was impossible on that occasion to go into the case in detail. These Acts with the decisions of the Courts upon them formed a sort of law under which the Commissioners of Taxes at present worked, recording to various precedents. Of these Acts the greater numbers of persons were totally ignorant. He had in mind the case of a company which was one of
936
clear hardship, and which probably would meet with the sympathy of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was the case of a company whichshowed a paper profit of £30,000, and it had no cash available at all in this country to pay dividends to the shareholders, yet it had to pay income-tax at the rate of 1s. in the £, on the whole of that £30,000. He objected to the tax of 1s. in the £ being paid, because if those profits had been paid as dividends to the shareholders, the latter could, many of them, as they had heard that night, have obtained an abatement of the tax to 9d. It was a very singular thing that though no dividends were paid to the shareholders, yet the income-tax was deducted from their profits at the rate of 1s. in the £, and they had no chance of getting it back. The company of which he spoke had shown a profit of £15,000 this year, and they had again to pay 1s. in the £ income-tax without having paid any dividend to the shareholders. Their capital had been reduced by that amount, and they would never under any circumstances get any of it back. The Government had got 1s. in the £, though not entitled to more than 9d. He believed that the case which he cited was perfectly unanswerable, and it was to meet such cases that he moved this Amendment. There was another point on which he had the sympathy of the Prime Minister last year, and that was with regard to the deductions allowed

937
to be made in the balance sheet before the net profit was arrived at. The Commissioners in assessing the profits of a company, did not allow many deductions which the auditors of the company said must come off the profits before the net profits were arrived at. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue did not allow these deductions to be made, and assessed the companies in nearly all cases at a considerably higher amount than their profit and loss accounts showed. It was a dry subject, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer met them in a sympathetic, way last year and confessed that there were great anomalies in the way these profits were arrived at, and he understood he was going to look into the way profits Were arrived at in the case of companies and corporations. Attention had been called to the case of companies with wasting concerns—mines which only had a few years to last. The best example was that of a big nitrate property in Peru which would be worked out in four or five years. They shipped so much every year and made a very handsome profit on it, but it was capital which they returned on their balance sheet and not profit. The capital would all be used up in a few years, and they should be allowed to deduct this. Another example of these curious anomalies was the sinking of shafts in collieries, for which the income-tax did not allow deductions. On what possible grounds were the income-tax authorities to settle what was the proper way of keeping the accounts of a colliery, and, when the directors and auditors stated their profits after writing off proper amounts for expenditure, to refuse to allow this, that, and the other deduction? That was a case which frequently arose. The prudent investor put by a portion of his interest to recoup his principal, but the principal, when he got it bank, would pay income-tax as well as the income which he received. The law had been made up by all these Acts and various decisions of the Courts on them. The ordinary investor was at an immense disadvantage in discussing these things, because he had very great difficulty in understanding these cases. He was ready to pay what he was legally liable to pay, but he was not ready to pay the
938
sums on which the tax was assessed in many cases. The hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs made a very strong speech last year in favour of the payment of tax only on income, and not on capital in the case of wasting securities. He had every confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he could find time to devote his fair mind and his acute intelligence to this subject, would see that there were grave anomalies existing, one of which was unanswerable—the case of a company which showed a paper profit but distributed no dividends. It paid full income-tax on the profits, while, if they had been distributed, the shareholders would have been able to get an abatement.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 36, after the word 'tax' to insert the words 'except such as relate to the method of assessment of the profits of companies and corporations.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. REESsaid he would like to support to some extent the arguments used by his hon. friend opposite. It seemed to him that if a company could show on its total transactions for the year that it had not made a profit, it was hardly fair that it should have to pay, when a considerable amount of its expenditure was nominally capital. Take the case of a company which returned £4,000 or £5,000 profits on its ordinary operations and at the same time had a big contract on which it exhibited a very large loss, or, at any rate, expenditure. The same people were perhaps putting up the capital for the contract on which there; was a loss, as held shares in the capital on which the small profit was made. The small profit was completely swallowed up in the large expenditure on which there was no return. In a case like that not only had the company to pay upon its nominal profits, but if it was paying any interest during construction it had to pay on that too, although the interest during construction came out of the pockets of the people who were putting up the capital, and when under no head of the operations of the company

939
was there any profit at all. There ought to be a balance struck of the actual results in each case, and if on the year's operations, for any reason, no profit came home to those who held the capital of the company, these charges ought not to be made. He did not understand that any special rate was proposed under the Amendment, but only that the assessment should be made in a different manner in the case of companies and corporations. He believed there should be some different method of assessment, and that substantial justice was not done when a company, whose total operations might, so far from resulting in a profit, show for some years running a very large loss, should be charged at this unnecessarily high rate on the nominal profits which were swallowed up in the actual expenditure.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said the cases which the hon. Gentleman opposite had put dealt with questions which were rather outside the actual wording of the Amendment. What he understood he wanted was that where a company showed its shareholders a profit upon its transactions, it should be assessed in some method different from that by which the ordinary individual who might be engaged in exactly the same business under exactly the same terms, was assessed. That, of course, would alter the whole practice and policy of the income-tax from the time of its creation. The whole aim and object of the income-tax had been to treat individuals and companies as two identical entities for the purpose of taxation—to lay the same burden of taxation on them—and the Amendment would upset the long-established practice, which had been exceedingly profitable to the State and had not been unduly burdensome, as far as assessment went, on the corporations. The hon. Gentlemen had alluded to the fact that his proposal would affect corporations in several ways. It would affect wasting assessments and expenses incurred in connection with the formation of companies. He had talked about the Court of Chancery. It seemed to him that the Court of Chancery would never
940
permit investments in the kind of companies with which he was dealing.
MR. FELLsaid they had assets of that nature in their trusts—collieries and things of that sort.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that, quite apart from the loss which would fall upon the Exchequer for the present and succeeding years, he thought it would be quite impracticable and undesirable to distinguish in this invidious manner between individual and corporation.
*MR. WATTsaid the Amendment would lead to this state of things: that if a company made profits and did not distribute them they would not be called upon to pay income-tax of one shilling in the pound on those profits. He thought that was desirable. The present position was that a company which made profits and did not distribute them was put in a worse position than a company which made profits and distributed them. The average body of shareholders were found to be in such a position financially that a quarter of them got the rebate, and the income-tax charged upon that company amounted to 9d. in the £, whereas the thrifty company, which thought it wise not to part with its profits in the way of dividends, was charged by the Government at the rate of is. in the £. He ventured to say that that was inequitable and the Government would be wise in adopting this Amendment, whereby the company which was thrifty and did not part with its profits would be put upon an equality with the company which parted with its profits in dividends.
Amendment put, and negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:
MR. FELL, in opposing the clause, said that hitherto the assessors had been paid by results, and judging by the returns they had done extremely well. Under those circumstances he could not see why they should not go on with their remuneration as it was,

941
and there was no necessity to alter this arrangement in the Finance Bill this year.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that although it was true that the assessors were paid by results there were certain principles laid down in regard to the basis of payment which prevented the Government from taking into account the special work. It was in order to enable the Government to deal with these cases on their merits, without being rigidly bound by the rules which were in force at present, that the Government made this proposal which would afford a little more elasticity.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
MR. FELL, in moving a new clause providing that "No Excise or other duties shall be levied on any sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom from beetroot," said that in the course of the last few years experiments had been conducted in Suffolk and Lincolnshire with regard to the growing of white beetroot and they had been very successful. The percentage of sugar obtained from this beetroot averaged 17 per cent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he understood the hon. Member was moving that no tax should be put on any sugar manufactured from beetroot in this country. No such tax was imposed at present, and therefore he contended that the Amendment was not in order.
MR. FELLsaid that what happened last year when this question was raised was that the Prime Minister said there was no Excise duty because there was no sugar grown here, but if sugar was grown in this country an equivalent duty would be put upon it.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If there is no Excise duty levied at the present time of course the hon. Member cannot move this new clause, and it is out of order.
*MR. WATT, on behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, moved a new clause providing that the income-tax should be charged at one shilling,
942
"provided the incomes of husband and wife be taken to be the income of separate persons." He thought the Amendment had some inherent merit. It seemed to him an injustice that the income of husband and wife should be added together in estimating the income. The tendency of the law during the last thirty years had been to separate the incomes of husband and wife, and the last link that remained with the past was the system of estimating the two incomes as one for the purposes of the income-tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to be thoroughly up-to-date in this matter, he would accept the Amendment. There was no reason in the world why for this specific purpose husband and wife should be considered one individual and have their incomes added together. He begged to move.
New clause—
"Provided the incomes of husband and wife be taken to be the income of separate persons."—(Mr. Watt.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not see his way to accept the Amendment. This was a hardy annual which, if accepted, would cost the revenue about £1,500,000, and he must resist attempts to raid the revenue by means of Amendments of this kind. He did not think a hard case was made out. Husband and wife pooled their income in the vast majority of cases. It was the family income, after all, that was being taxed. If he had any revenue to dispose of he would not begin to rectify matters in this direction.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that in some cases there was a measure of hardship; but it was really inseparable from the administration of the tax. By treating the incomes of husband and wife separately they would not get rid of anomalies and hardships; they would only alter their incidence. New hardships would be produced. The hardship had been a little aggravated as the result of the change in regard to earned income. It was in respect of the abatement that the hardship really arose;

943
and in proportion as the abatement extended the area, of this particular hardship would be increased. In the case of small incomes being united, persons who would separately be entitled to abatement might not remain so entitled. The Prime Minister could not see his way to afford relief in those cases last year, and if he were Chancellor of the
Exchequer he would not see his way himself. The hardship was one which certain people had to endure in order that the State might wield this great financial weapon—the income-tax.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 227. (Division List No. 195.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Helmsley, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Clark, George Smith

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Crean, Eugene

Magnus, Sir Philip

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Watt and Mr. Ashley.

Gretton, John

Renton, Leslie

Guinness, Walter Edward

Ridsdale, E. A.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crooks, William

Hodge, John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Devlin, Joseph

Hogan, Michael

Agnew, George William

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Donelan, Captain A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duckworth, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Astbury, John Meir

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Idris, T. H. W.

Barker, John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jackson, R. S.

Barnard, E. B.

Essex, R. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Barnes, G. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jardine, Sir J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Beck, A. Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Joyce, Michael

Bell, Richard

Findlay, Alexander

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Flynn, James Christopher

Kekewich, Sir George

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kelley, George D.

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Laidlaw, Robert

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gill, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

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

Gleudinning, R. G.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Black, Arthur W.

Glover, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Boland, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gooch, George Peabody (Ba th)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bowerman, C. W.

Hall, Frederick

Lundon, W.

Branch, James

Halpin, J

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bright, J. A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lynch, H. B,

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brodie, H. C.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Brooke, Stopford

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Maclean, Donald

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

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harwood, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haworth, Arthur A.

McCallum, John M.,

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

McCrae, Sir George

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hemmerde, Edward George

McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Clynes, J. R.

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

Mansfield, H. Rondall (Lincoln

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Higham, John Sharp

Marnham, F. J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Meagher, Michael

Mcehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Menzies, Walter

Richardson, A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Middlebrook, William

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Mond, A.

Robinson, S.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Tomkinson, James

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Morse, L. L.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowlands, J,

Vivian, Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Nicholls, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walsh, Stephen

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Wardle, George J.

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wason. John Cathcart (Orkney

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Weir, James Galloway

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sears, J. E.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seaverns, J. H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Seddon, J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Seely, Colonel

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Wiles, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilkie, Alexander

Partington, Oswald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Snowdon, P.

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

Pollard, Dr.

Soares, Ernest J.

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

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.

Steadman, W. C.

Winfrey, R.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wood, T. McKinnon

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Rendall, Athelstan

Summerbell, T.

*MR. CHIOZZA MONEY*MR. CHIOZZA MONEY moved the following new clause—
"Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by Section 48 of the Income-Tax Act, 1842 (which section relates to the delivery of notices by assessors) requiring him to make a return of his income chargeable to duty under any and every schedule of the income-tax, shall make a return, in the form required by the notice, which shall show the amount of his aggregate income from all sources, whether he is or is not chargeable with duty, and upon what part or parts of such aggregate income, if any, income-tax has already been paid under the Income-Tax Acts by deduction at the source, and in default shall be liable to a penalty under Section 55 of the Income-Tax Act, 1842. Provided that a penalty inflicted in the case of a person proceeded against for not complying with this provision, who proves that he was not chargeable to income-tax, shall not exceed five pounds for any one offence."
He said that this was the second year that he had moved in this matter. On the last occasion the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he would give it his most careful consideration this year; but he (Mr. Money) was unable to see that any attention had been given to it so fur. He submitted that the importance of the subject was great,
946
and that in the interval the case for his Amendment had been, considerably strengthened. Last year the inquisition into employees salaries was strengthened, and the method of going behind the backs of small taxpayers to their employers, combined with the abatement system now revealed the incomes of the greater number of the income-tax payers. It had been said that if they endeavoured to secure an abatement or the 9d. differentiation, that constituted the declaration a voluntary one, and that that robbed it of the character of inquisition; but if a man did not, in his declaration, show the amount of his aggregate income from all sources, a penal character attached to the declaration. It was generally conceded that the income-tax needed revision. There was a point in our national development at which public opinion demanded social reforms. But these social reforms cost money; and more money, therefore, had to be raised. It would be seen that if the present fiscal system were to be maintained there was only one legitimate means of paying for social reform, and that was that the income-tax should be

947
thoroughly revised and reformed. He regarded his Amendment as an essential preliminary to the re-adjustment of the income-tax, and a proper reform of our entire taxation. It had been admitted that compulsory declaration by persons with incomes over £700 would bring to light more incomes than had been revealed in the past. Last year, the differentiation brought to light £35,000,000 more income—not new income, but income which obviously had escaped taxation in the years before. If that were so, he asked the Committee to believe that probably a very much larger amount of income would come to light for taxation purposes if the rich man had to make a compulsory declaration of his income from all sources, whether that income was taxed at its source or not, as the poor man now had to do. If the Amendment were carried he would have to make such declaration, under penalty if he made a false return. The Income-tax Committee, in their Report, made a recommendation which was worth attention. They said—
"Your Committee are of opinion that a personal declaration of total net income in respect of which taxes payable by everyone who may be called upon to make it should be compulsory, and would be of great value in preventing evasion and avoidance of full assessment, and in supplying information on which a system of graduation and differentiation could be based."
Two meanings were attached to that declaration. Some of the Members of the Committee took it to mean what he himself thought it meant, viz.: that the taxpayers should make a list of the whole of the items of his income, whether taxed already or not. Other Members of the Committee took it to mean that if a man had so much of his income taxed at its source, he had not to insert that in his declaration of income. It would be seen that a great difference lay between the two interpretations. In moving his Amendment he asked that the Committee should accept what was indeed the recommendation of some of the Members of the Income-tax Committee, viz.: that a personal declaration should be made by the taxpayer of the whole of his income. It was high time that in dealing with the income-tax they should cease to work in the dark. He contended that as at present levied the income-tax was not a
948
direct, but an indirect tax. If his Amendment were accepted, income at its source could be taxed moderately; and an additional tax could be put on such persons as had not already made a just contribution to the national revenue under a graduated scale. He thought that any reform of the income-tax ought to be preceded by the institution of some such provision as he suggested. He begged to move.
New clause—
"Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by Section 48 ol the Income tax Act, 1842 (which section relates to the delivery of notices by assessors), requiring him to make a return of his income chargeable to duty under any and every schedule of the income-tax, shall make a return, in the form required by the notice, which shall show the amount of his aggregate income from all sources, whether he is or is not chargeable with duty, and upon what part or parts of such aggregate income, if any, income-tax has already been paid under the Income-tax Acts by deduction at the source, and in default shall be liable to a penalty under Section 55 of the Income-tax Act 1842. Provided that a penalty inflicted in th8/8/2007 12:30PMe case of a person proceeded against for not complying with this provision, who proves that he was not chargeable to income-tax, shall not exceed five pounds for any one offence."—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEadmitted that it would be desirable to obtain the information which the hon. Gentleman wished for if a system of graduation were on the point of being established; but he did not think that on the whole it would be justifiable on the part of the Government to impose upon persons the necessity of making returns of that kind in the absence of any provision for taxation to be based upon them in the current year. The demand would, in such circumstances, be purely of an inquisitorial character. The Government could not possibly demand to know what a man's earnings were in order to know what to tax him next year.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: The Income Commissioners themselves pointed out that it would lead to the declaration of further income.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was no advantage in such, an inquiry until the time came for the imposition of a tax. He did not want declarations. He wanted revenue. He could not think that this was a practical step, because it would not help at all next year. This year's declarations were already issued and such declarations as would be returned were returned. It was not, therefore, desirable to make men return a second declaration in the course of the same year unless it was for a definite purpose. If it was for a definite purpose—if there was a scheme in the Budget—it might be justifiable, but there was no other cause for inflicting a penalty of this kind on the business men of the country, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that though it might be true of a particular trader that all the profits he made were used by him in his business to assist it, that was a fact known only to himself. The usual return made by individuals might be of the whole of their income or it might not. No one inquired whether it was or not under the present system. The hon. Member for Paddington suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be content with such a return, but that the taxpayer should make out a return as to how his income was made and from what source. The demand that a man should make a return showing the particulars suggested was different from any demand made on an income-tax payer at present, except to secure benefits allowed by the State in certain circumstances. It was one thing to ask people to give the information to show that they were entitled to relief; another thing to call for it from all persons in order to pluck them to one's satisfaction. He thought the hon. Gentleman was suffering from a confusion of ideas, and whatever were the merits of his scheme he thought it would not hold water.
*MR. BYLESrepudiated the idea that the hon. Member for Paddington suffered from confusion of thought. That was the very last accusation that should be levelled at him. Few Members addressed the House with such clarity of thought as his hon. friend.
950
So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that this return would cause a great deal of annoyance was concerned, he pointed out that eight out of every ten income-tax payers of the country were already required to make this very declaration. He admitted it caused a certain amount of annoyance, as he knew from personal experience. Why the rich should be exempted from the annoyance he could not see. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted revenue. So did everybody else. His hon. friend the Member for Paddington wanted revenue, and he wanted this declaration as a necessary channel through which to obtain revenue. So far as its practicability, which was denied by his right hon. friend, was concerned, he could only say that everybody desired to see a graduated income-tax which should reach the highest incomes in the land, and no such method of graduation was possible unless they obtained the declaration proposed by his hon. friend, which was already required from eight income-tax payers out of ten.
MR. GRETTONsupported the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. He contended that the valuation proposed in this Amendment was not possible in the present circumstances, and thought that the hon. Member who spoke last had rather given away the case for the Amendment.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the support he had just received. His right hon. friend had quite overlooked the fact that the new clause not merely created declarations but brought to light new income. Even in the past year £35,000,000 more income had come to light, owing to the new regulations, and if another £50,000,000 was brought to light as the result of this Amendment the additional yield would be equal to 1d. on the income-tax all round. As for what the ex-Chancellor had said as to present declarations being voluntary, what we now did in fact was to impose a very heavy fine upon persons who made no personal declaration. A man with an income of £500 a year, if he made no personal declaration, was penalised, and had to pay as much as the rich man.

951
That amounted to penal legislation and it could not be said that the poor man' declaration was voluntary.
MR. STUARTthough the hon. Gentleman had raised a very important point in this Amendment Most Members on the Ministerial side of the House looked forward to the time when the man with a large income would pay a higher tax. No doubt the hon. Member thought that something like the Amendment he had moved was necessary and sufficient for the purpose of carrying out that principle. Although it would not be adopted at present it certainly ought to commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer side by side with other schemes which no doubt would be suggested for the graduation of the income-tax. He knew the difficulties, but he also knew that it was a practical question which had to be worked out. The principle had been admitted by the graduation of the death duties, and, the rubicon having been passed, hon. Members were entitled to expect that the graduation of income-tax might be carried out by some such means as the hon. Member for Paddington had suggested, so that an adequate contribution might be obtained from the rich for the benefit of the poor, in order that some amends might be made for the present social condition in which they found themselves.
Proposed clause negatived.
MR. HUNTproposed a new clause, the object of which was to repeal the duty on raw cocoa. He imagined he would have the support of all the teetotallers in the House, because cocoa was about the best temperance drink. It had none of the disadvantages of tea or coffee. He would like to point out how cocoa was recommended in the great organ, the Alliance News and Temperance Reformer. It there said—
"Cadbury's cocoa is a liquid food, a genuine high-class beverage, made under ideal conditions of labour in an English factory, where the health and well-being of the workers receive the constant care of the firm."
Yes, and it was taxed to the extent of 1d. a pound, and that was the reason why they could do so well, and why their
952
employers were able to look after them so well, but he did not know whether that was the reason why the head of that firm just before the last general election gave £20,000 to the free import party. He had never been able to make out quite how that was. That great bulwark of the Liberal Party, Lord Carrington, told them in the House of Lords that he could not put any import duty on hops, because it was the raw material of the poor man's beer, and surely if they could not put a duty on hops they could not put it on raw cocoa, especially as hon. Gentlemen opposite were so very strong on temperance. Were they going to tax the poor man's cocoa and put nothing on hops, thus encouraging hint to drink beer and discouraging him from drinking cocoa? It appeared that under what was called free trade, they could tax raw cocoa, which employed no British labour, but on hops, which employed an enormous amount of British labour, they might not put any import tax at all, and the reason, no doubt, was that it might have the effect of employing an enormous amount of British labour and getting for that labour a great amount of wages; they must not do it because it would help the British and would be a bad thing for the foreigner. It struck him that it would also have the effect of keeping many in the country if they grew their own hops instead of buying them from abroad. When hon. Members opposite called themselves free traders and taxed the law material of the very poorest of he poor, he really thought they had lot one single leg to stand on, and he country was rapidly beginning to think the same. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some sort of reason why he kept this tax on the raw material of a great industry and also on what was food and drink for the poorest people.
New clause—
"On and after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine, the duty of Customs of one penny in the pound on raw cocoa shall ease to be payable, and so much of the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, as refers to this duty is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Hunt.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Gentleman was capable of waxing eloquent on any topic, and he was glad to see he could get hilarious on cocoa. The very famous firm of cocoa manufacturers which he had named would no doubt be thankful to him for the advertisement. He was not sure what complaint the hon. Member had against the Government. The tax had been on cocoa for some time.
MR. HUNT: You keep it on.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that amongst the duties they had been able to get rid of they had not yet been able to get rid of the tax on cocoa. He did not think they could see their way to do that. It would cost £200,000. They had done something in the way of the reduction of the duty upon another raw material, sugar, and they could not possibly go further and give an abatement of the duty on cocoa. He was not aware that the cocoa manufacturers had any considerable grievance, but with regard to sugar, the Government had been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and they had responded substantially to the appeal made to them. He was not aware that there had been any great pressure so far as cocoa was concerned. He was afraid, therefore, he could not see his way to accept the proposed new clause.
Proposed clause negatived.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY(Lincolnshire, Horncastle) moved the following new clause:—"It shall be lawful for any person owning and occupying woodlands to elect to be assessed to the duties of income-tax chargeable under Schedule D, and in accordance with the rules of that schedule, in lieu of the assessment to the duties under Schedules A and B." He said that it raised a very important question to which he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his careful consideration. I He was extremely doubtful whether the acceptance of the clause would have the effect of in any way reducing the revenue. It might indeed have the effect of bringing in a larger revenue than the Chancellor
954
was obtaining at the present time. Anyone who had for a moment considered the question must be well aware that in many cases the taxation raised on woodlands was excessively high, while in other eases it was his belief that people escaped taxation who might well afford to pay. He explained the principle on which income-tax was paid on the greater part of the woodlands in the country. For the purpose of the income-tax the assessment of the land for local rates was taken and the income-tax was charged first of all under Schedule A. practically without any deductions whatever. In addition to that a charge for income-tax was made under Schedule B. viz. one-third of the assessment, and consequently all those proprietors of land who attempted to improve their woods and to go in for re-afforestation had to bear considerably increased taxation, whereas those proprietors of woodlands who devastated their property, cut down all the wood, and sold it, escaped taxation to a very large amount. The proposal he made was that any person who owned and occupied woodlands should be, as far as the woodland was concerned, assessed for income-tax in the same way as trades and occupations were assessed on Schedule D, and pay income-tax on the average profits for three years. If this were done, they would remove from this portion of the income-tax one of the faults which Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Mill, and other great economists found in it, viz., that in many eases it was not equitably raised, but frequently paid on incomes which were never received. There were hundreds of thousands of pounds collected in income-tax from the owers of woodlands which had never been earned, and he believed that the present system of collecting income-tax under Schedules A. and B. was very unfair. It was well worth the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he could not change it and collect the tax in woodlands under Schedule D. These cases were always difficult to explain in actual figures, and he thought he would be making it more clear if he took an actual concrete case which had come under his notice, and which showed how badly the present system worked. He was

955
the tenant of certain grass land for which he paid 5s. an acre. His landlord paid income-tax on 5s. an acre, and that was quite right. In the winter there was a great deal of unemployment among the labourers in the surrounding villages, and his landlord came to him and said: "Will you give up these fields for the purpose of afforestation." He replied that he was only too willing to do so, and his landlord during the winter employed a large amount of labour in this way—men who would otherwise have been out of work. That was a very good thing for the country and good for the men. What happened with regard to income-tax? Did the landlord get any advantage whatever from his action? No; he was severely handicapped by the assessment committee. The moment the land was planted the Assessment Committee came down and assessed that land at 10s. an acre, because they said that was the general rule in the country. Therefore, under Schedule A., the landlord was assessed at 10s. an acre, and under Schedule B. at 3s. 4d. an acre when he got nothing for the land in lieu of the 5s. which he was previously getting and putting into his pocket. That was an absolutely wrong principal of taxation. If they adopted the principle he suggested he did not think the Exchequer would be the loser by it. If a man cut down all his timber and sold it and planted nothing, making no provision for the future, he had not to pay income-tax. Any man who looked into the fairness and justice of the matter must see that it was in the interests of the country at large that they should encourage people to try and improve the land rather than encourage the man who devastated what he had. The present system of assessing woods was one of the worst forms of protection he knew of. In the first instance they were taxing raw material, and they were placing taxes on raw material grown in this country. What an outcry there would be if they put, say, 1d. or 2d. a square foot on all imported timber; and yet the moment a man took a bit of waste land and planted it he was charged a heavy income-tax, and when the timber was cut down in 100 or 120 years time every square foot of timber sold would
956
have had to bear a tax of 1d. or 2d. a foot. This fact was well worthy of the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed they were handicapping re-afforestation, which many people considered a good thing. They would not encourage any private owner in England to plant. In Scotland they were treated much more fairly. The assessment committees did not place such enormous assessments on the woodlands, and consequently the tax came to a very small amount. In England the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say it was a question for the assessment committees and not for him, but he believed if the right hon. Gentleman took up the question, it would have a big effect on the assessment committees. At present it was absolutely vain to plead before the assessment committees, because they consisted mostly of farmers and landowners whose object was not to allow woodlands to be got down at lower assessments, because he supposed it meant they would have higher rents to pay on their farms. There was nothing which found more work for the unemployed daring the winter months, and there were hundreds of labourers who would be at work during the winter if re-afforestation could be carried on. He felt perfectly certain it would be a great boon to the country districts if private owners were encouraged to plant instead of having to pay on incomes which they did not receive. He was not trying to get taxation off anybody, but the principle he liked to see was that a man should not pay on income which he did not receive. There were plenty of people who were paying not 1s., but 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d., for the simple reason that they were assessed for the purpose of income-tax on a far greater income than they were receiving. There was absolutely no, remedy, and it was well worth the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he could not make some alteration in the law.
New clause—
"It shall be lawful for any person owning and occupying woodlands to elect to be assessed to the duties of income-tax chargeable under Schedule D., and in accordance with the rules of that schedule, in lieu of assessment to the

957
duties under Schedules A. and B."—(Lord Willoughby de Eresby.)
Brought up, and road a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the noble Lord had supported the clause which he had moved with very great force and eloquence, and he was very much impressed with the case which he had made. He could not at the present moment accept the clause, because he was not quite sure that that would be the best method of dealing with the matter, but he would promise to give it careful, and he hoped practical, consideration. He was personally very interested in the question of re-afforestation, which he had urged a good many years ago. not on a Unionist but on a Liberal Government. A Commission was appointed which he hoped would report in the course of the next few weeks, and the matter would come in a very practical way before the Government. There had been a Report as far as Scotland was concerned, and there had been a very interesting Report for Ireland, and he hoped there would be one for England, as to the best and most practical method of re-afforesting the country. But it was of very little use coming to the Exchequer for grants for re-afforestation if private owners were to be discouraged. If he found the case which the noble Lord had made was borne out by the examination which he would undertake to give to the matter, and if private owners had to pay an unreasonable rate in respect of income which they did not derive, he certainly thought it was a case not merely for consideration but for readjustment. This was certainly not a time when they ought to discourage re-afforestation. He hoped the Government would be able to do something, but they would not be able to deal adequately with the needs of the country in that respect unless their efforts were supplemented by those of private owners. If the noble Lord would take that promise that he would look into the matter very closely, he trusted he would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Committee would have heard with great satisfaction the assurance which the right hon, Gentleman had given. He did not remember ever to have heard this question raised on the Budget Bill. Like the right hon. Gentleman, he was very much impressed with the case which the noble Lord had made out, but they would all admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deal with it offhand, and the promise he had made to consider it favourably if the case was sustained on examination was all they could expect at the moment. He hoped his noble friend would accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given and not press his new clause to a division.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERhoped the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, he knew there was a great deal in what he said. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think it was rather a landlord's question. It was not that, though it was a question to a certain extent between a good and a bad owner of land. But it was a question of people in the country, because there were many places where afforestation was not a landlord's question at all, but a question for the population. There were rubbish beds and old coal pits which paid practically nothing, but the moment they were planted the owner would have to pay income-tax on them. He agreed with every word the noble Lord had said as to the effect of the income-tax, because he knew it
Proposed clause, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved the addition of a new clause declaring that income arising from dividends on shares in a private company, held on the condition, express or implied, that the holder should give his services in the management or conduct of the business, should be deemed to be earned income within the meaning of Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1907. He said it had become increasingly the practice in this country for traders to turn their businesses into private companies, in which the only shareholders were the partners who

959
formerly carried on the undertaking, and the dividends paid represented the profits earned by them. It was arranged that they should not be paid anything for their services, but should share the dividends, as they formerly shared the profits. A particular case of this nature had been brought to his notice in his own constituency. It was the case of a business carried on by three brothers. They formed a company, took the whole of the shares themselves, received no salary from the company for carrying on the business, but they received the whole of the dividends which were derived from their exertions after paying all the costs of working the business. The question whether such dividends were "earned income" was raised in the course of debate on 3rd July, 1907, and the Prime Minister, speaking then as Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the case ought to come within the definition, and he thought it did; and the right lion. Gentleman added that where a partnership was transferred to a company composed of the same people and carrying on the business in the same way and not offering their shares to public subscription, it was the clear intention of the Government that that should make no difference at all. He did not think anything could be clearer than that, because the Prime Minister expressly rejected that Amendment on the ground that the point was already covered by the words in the Act, the right hon. Gentleman's argument being that the word "remuneration" was sufficiently wide to cover I the particular case he had in his mind. I In the case he had put before the Committee, the gentlemen concerned applied for abatement, and a considerable correspondence took place between them and I the Income-Tax Commissioners, who decided that the particular case did not I come within the words of the Act. The Commissioners did not state their reason for taking this course, but he conceived that they might have acted on the ground that there was nothing in the Articles of Association which expressly made a contract by which those gentlemen were to receive dividends in lieu of salary. But surely that made no difference to the principle. He thought his Amend ment made clear the intention of the
960
Prime Minister that the more technical difference between a partnership and a company was not to make any difference I in regard to assessments for income-tax—that, if the whole of the dividends were paid away to the former owners, it i did not matter that they now called dividends what before the formation of the private company were called profits, the rationale of the case was exactly the same. The object of the change was to exempt people who had to work for their bread from paying the same as those who received their income without working. He thought the words he had suggested were adequate, but if the Government thought otherwise he was willing to accept an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question would be looked into before the Report stage. He begged to move.
New clause—
"Income arising from dividends on shares in a private company held on the condition, express or implied, that the holder shall give his services in the management and conduct of the business shall be denned to be earned income within the meaning of Section 19 of the Finance Act of 1907."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was placed at a great disadvantage in dealing with a very complicated matter of this kind in not having had an opportunity of considering the Amendment.
LORD R. CECIL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state that I did send him a copy of it before the sitting of the House to-day.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had only had time to look into what was said in the debates on the Finance Bill of 1907. He understood that if the income was derived from shares which were given to a man as part of his remuneration for the management of a business, it was now treated, as earned income, provided the dividends and the possession of the shares ceased the moment he ceased to manage the business, otherwise they could hardly be treated as part of his remuneration.

961
That was the distinction which had been drawn by the Inland Revenue. Take the case of a company formed, say, with a capital of £100,000, the shares of which were not issued to the public. The man who owned the business which was converted into a company became the managing director, and a certain payment was made to him by way of remuneration. That clearly was earned income. But suppose instead of retaining all the shares lie got £50,000 in cash. Surely the noble Lord would not suggest in that case that the dividends which he got on the re investment of that money should be treated as earned income? That would clearly be unearned income, and he did not see that any difference should be made if he retained the £100,000 of shares in his own possession, because, if it were, it would be giving an advantage to a man purely because he did not part with his shares.
LORD R. CECILsaid the whole point was whether the income arose from his own exertions. The income in the private company which he had suggested did arise from the exertions of the gentleman who received the dividends, and in the ordinary sense of the word he earned the dividend. It was quite true that, in the other case, it technically belonged to the company, but it was due to the man's exertions that the dividend had been earned. That was earned income in exactly the same way as the private company's income was earned income before it became a limited company.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was the man who earned the money, even when the concern was carried on with public capital. It was the brain behind the business that counted in the earning of the money, and whether the money was earned for himself or for the public did not matter. Most capital was the accumulation resulting from individual exertions, and the owner of capital received a return for it whether he parted with it, reinvested it, or allowed it to remain in a business. He did not see, therefore, that it should be treated purely as a kind of remuneration for labour.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not quite grasped the
962
point. He would put it in another way. Two men—say the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself—became partners in business, and agreed to divide the profits. They earned £3,000 and divided it equally. Under the Finance Act of last year they would be able to claim an abatement from 1s. to 9d., because they were each earning £1,500 a year. Then they agreed, for a variety of reasons, that they would turn the business into a limited company, that they would retain the ordinary shares, and that they would do the whole work of management of the company. The result was that they were still earning £1,500 a year each, but were taxed 1s. instead of 9d. That was the whole point. But supposing they retired from business, they would, of course, have to put someone in their place to do their work, thereby reducing their earnings from £1,500 a year each to. say, £500. Was a man in that case, and this was the real point, to be penalised because he put the word "Limited" after "Lloyd-George, Banbury & Co.," or simply left it "Lloyd-George & Banbury."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give rather more consideration to this subject. He was, of course, labouring under great difficulty, inasmuch he did not receive the notice of his noble friend; he did not know why.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the notice had only come at question time, and he had been occupied ever since.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in any case the right lion. Gentleman was labouring under difficulty, and had not been able to read the debate which took place last year. The hon. Gentle man was, of course, then not directly concerned in the Budget, but there was a very interesting discussion on this subject with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of which that right hon. Gentleman gave ah assurance to his noble friend and himself, which appeared absolutely to meet the case they had propounded. He expected that his noble friend had, like himself, been the recipient of a considerable number of letters from people who

963
expected abatement on account of the assurance given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but who had been denied that abatement. The statement did not appear in The Times report of the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it appeared in Hansard. It was to the effect that not only must the conditions and circumstances remain unaltered, but that the articles of association of the company must provide that the dividends were paid as remuneration.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Here is the quotation—
"The remuneration in that case as provided for by the articles of association, would still be treated as income."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that there were some such passage as that; and when some of them wrote to the Inland Revenue authorities and said: "Here is a case of the exact kind we put in the House of Commons," and asked for relief, the relief was refused, and the passage that was relied on to justify the refusal of the Inland Revenue authorities was that very passage used by the Prime Minister. The line taken now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wholly inconsistent with the line taken by the Prime Minister last year. The Prime Minister said that, provided the fact was that a private partnership was changed into a limited company for family reasons, that should make no difference to the method in which the partners were assessed for income-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now argued that it ought to make a difference. So long as a firm was a private firm he did not have regard to their capital, but treated their profits as earned by their exertions. But directly that firm was turned into a limited company, the Inland Revenue said that part of their earnings was merely interest on their capital, their buildings, good will, and stock-in-trade. That was true, but the same was true of a private partnership. The buildings were the same, the good will was the same, and the stock-in-trade was the same. The difference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to draw between, the two was not only not the distinction made by the Prime Minister last year, but was wholly in-
964
consistent with the line of his argument in defending the Budget at that time. Limited by the conditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, the Prime Minister's assurance was almost worthless. He could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the conditions he imposed struck at the basis of the reasons for turning private partnerships into private companies and deprived the latter of all the advantages which they believed they had secured from the Prime Minister's statement. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that there were a large number of cases where great disappointment had been felt on account of the line which he had taken. It would prevent many companies being formed, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the spirit if not actually with the letter of the Prime Minister's assurance; and he hoped that before next year the right hon. Gentle man would look into the matter and see whether those people could not get the full benefit which the Prime Minister intended.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that the point which the hon. Baronet opposite had missed was this: If this firm of Lloyd-George, Banbury & Co., earned £3,000 a year profit, and divided £1,500 between them, and they turned the firm into a company they capitalised their earnings, which at 5 per cent, would amount to £30,000. They had got, therefore, on paper, something representing the full value of twenty years earnings, and were not entitled to take off their income-tax.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they might no doubt reduce their capital, but the capital in the new company might be and in many cases was the same as the capital of the partners in the private firm.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that assuming that was so, the remedy lay absolutely in their own hands, because they could not pass a resolution that each of the directors should receive the same remuneration as he got before.
*MR. DUNNsaid their sympathies need not always go out to the trader who for various reasons had turned his business into a limited liability company. There were many advantages and probably some disadvantages in his so doing. The payment of 1s. instead of 9d. might be one of the disadvantages. There were, however, many compensating advantages. The difference of the word limited in the name of the firm might make all the difference to the hon. Gentle man the Member for London if the business in which he supposed himself to be in partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not successful. If it was a private firm and was not successful a terrible calamity might happen. That House might even lose the presence of the hon. Member. But if it was turned into a limited liability company it mattered not whether the business was successful or not. The position of the hon. Member was assured. They could still retain his presence and listen to his speeches. Having regard to the fact that directly a business was turned into a limited company the whole of the private estate of the members of the company was protected, he did not think it was too much to ask them to pay a little increased income-tax as the price of the indemnity both to person and estate, that the company status conferred. In
addition to that, as had already been said, it was an easy thing for the directors by means of a resolution to agree to pay a reasonable sum for the services they rendered. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
MR. BOWLESsupported the new clause. He said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a flippant and roystering speech, but had not, if he might say so, met the point of his noble friend's new clause. The point was whether or not a particular kind of income was earned or unearned. There were many cases where a man in a company's service had to take shares on the understanding that when he left their service the shares would revert to the company. The dividend on the shares was the reward of his personal exertion, and ought to be regarded as income. If this were not recognised, the whole system of giving employees an interest in a business would be imperilled; profit-sharing of employees would be penalised. The refusal to recognise this was another instance of straining the letter and breaking the spirit of the Act of last year.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 266 (Division List, No. 196).

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Renton, Leslie

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lannark, Govan

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winshester)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

Stanier, Beville

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Guinness, Walter Edward

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Cave, George

Lane-Fox. G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Clark, George Smith

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury, John Meir

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Micklem, Nathaniel

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gulland, John W.

Middlebrook, William

Barker, John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Hall, Frederick

Mond, A.

Barnes, G. N.

Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Mooney, J. J.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Beale, W. P.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Back, A. Ceeil

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Morrell, Philip

Bell, Richards

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

Morse, L. L.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Alorton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Bennett, E. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Barridge, T. H. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Black, Arthur W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nolan. Joseph

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Branch, James

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brigg, John

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

Bright, J. A.

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

O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

Brodie, H. C.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Brooke, Stopford

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Dowd, John

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

Hodge, John

O'Grady, J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Partington, Oswald

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Byles, William Pollard

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hudson, Walter

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

Cleland, J. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Clough, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Clynes, J. R.

Jackson, R. S.

Radford, G. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Raphael, Herbert H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rea. Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cooper, G. J.

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Richards T. F. (Wolvorh'mpt'n

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Richardson. A.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kelley, George D.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Cox, Harold

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Crean, Eugene

Law, Hugh A.(Donegal, W.)

Robinson. S.

Crooks, William

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Robson. Sir William Snowdon.

Devlin, Joseph

Lever. A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands. J.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lupton, Arnold

Russell. T. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Edwards. Enoch (Hanley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Erskine. David C.

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Esslemont. George Birnie

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seaverns. J. H.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Callum, Join M.

Seddon. J.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Crae, Sir George

Seely, Colonel

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shackleton, David James

Findlay, Alexander

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

Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fullerton. Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gill, A. H.

Markham. Arthur Basil

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Snowden, P.

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Soares, Ernest J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Menzies, Walter

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

968

969

Steadman, W. C.

Toulmin, George

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Verney, F. W.

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Vivian, Henry

Wiles, Thomas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilkie, Alexander

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Walsh, Stephen

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Surnmerbell, T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Watt, Henry A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Weir, James Galloway

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Tomkinson, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MR. HICKS BEACH, in moving the following clause:—"In addition to the deductions of one-eighth and one-sixth allowed under Section 35 of the Finance Act of 1894, there shall also, for the purposes of collection, be allowed the cost of insurance and a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent, of the gross annual value," said he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to assessments for income-tax under Schedule A. Under Schedule A the owner was supposed to pay income-tax on the net income of his property. But in many cases he paid on a sum which was much more than the net income. Under the schedule he was allowed to deduct from the gross rental one-sixth in houses and one-eighth in land. That deduction was supposed to represent the actual cost of repairs to such property, but as a matter of fact, the allowances made did not by any means cover the actual cost of upkeep, and the owner of an estate paid income-tax at the rate of about 2d. in the £ more than he ought to do. When this clause was moved last year, the Prime Minister said he saw no reason to interfere in a matter in which a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen fit to take any steps. But his point was that while there was graduation of income-tax nothing had been done to remedy this grievance. Suppose there was a small landowner who derived an income of £1,200 a year from his property and £1,000 a year from his profession, his total income brought1 him beyond the limit of £2,000, and he was not allowed to claim a deduction in respect to his earned income. But that income received from his property, which was assessed at £1,200, was not £1,200 but very often only £800, and in that case he certainly ought to be allowed to claim the deduction. The differentia-
970
tion in the income-tax introduced last year threw additional hardship on the small property owner and the small land owner. The clause he had put on the Paper was framed very moderately. It only asked that an allowance should be made for insurance similar to that made to shareholders of industrial companies before their gross profits were assessed for income-tax, and that a small sum should be deducted for cost of management. In the case of an industrial company every allowance was made for cost of management, and, in asking for an allowance of 5 per cent, on the gross income, he was not putting forward any excessive claim. It was based on a good precedent. Clause 7, subsection 5, of the the Finance Act of 1894, in dealing with the principal value of an estate for in come, provided that there should be allowed the cost of management out of the gross value of the estate. He did not plead for the big but for the small land owners of the country, and he did so because he thought the assessment under Schedule A did a great injustice to them. He begged to move.
New clause—
"In addition to the deductions of one-eighth and one-sixth allowed under Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1894 there shall also, for the purposes of collection, be allowed the cost of insurance and a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent, of the gross annual value."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HOBHOUSEreminded the Committee that the principle now raised had been discussed before. In the

971
discussion in connection with the Act of 1894 the allowance made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was raised from one-tenth to one-eighth in response to representations from both sides of the House, and, if not absolutely satisfactory to everybody, it, nevertheless, met with general assent as a reasonable figure. He recognised that there was some hardship with regard to the question of insurance, and, while he could make no definite promise, he would consider it as fully as he could between now and next year.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that, when they brought this question forward last session, they received a bigger promise than careful consideration, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a most emphatic answer. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that he would consider the matter, and if he found that income-tax was being paid on incomes which were not received he would not be slow to remove any such grievance. He took the trouble to send the right hon. Gentleman a case pointing out what they had always argued, that one-eighth on laud and one-sixth on buildings was not sufficient, and that in every case more income-tax was secured from land than was warranted by the income received from it. In addition to that, the legislation proposed this session practically meant paying a premium to the landowner to do nothing for the housing of labourers on the land. It was upon the building of cottages that the largest expenditure took place on the land, and therefore a larger percentage ought to be allowed off the gross rental. So long as they did not allow a proper percentage for the upkeep of those cottages on an estate and passed legislation to build cottages out of the rates it would be most disastrous to the ratepayers, and there would be a feeling of injustice.
MR. HICKS BEACHasked if it would meet the views of the Treasury if next year he put down a clause providing that a man might make a declaration of his income under Schedule D, setting forth the receipts from his farms on the one hand, and the cost of upkeep on the other. He ventured to assert
972
that a good case had been made out for this Amendment.
Proposed clause negatived.
MR. BRIDGEMAN MR. BRIDGEMAN(Shropshire, Oswestry) moved a new clause to repeal the excess duty on hackney carriages. His proposal was to relieve the cab-driver of 15s. out of the £3 he paid for his licence. He moved this new clause some two years ago, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then stated that the carriages to which he referred were instruments by which the business was carried on, and being a tax on locomotion erred against sound principle. On that occasion he was asked to be content with that expression of sympathy, and he had consequently possessed him self in patience for two years. He could not, however, remain content any longer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion he referred to suggested at the end of his speech that the matter should be deferred, and he would give it his careful consideration when the Government took up the question of the relation between local and Imperial taxation. He moved his Amendment now in order to see what position this very reasonable demand now occupied.
New clause—
"The excess duty of fifteen shillings for every hackney carriage as denned in Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, shall be and is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was really a matter for the local authorities rather than for the Exchequer, as the whole sum went towards local taxation. The question was whether, the Committee desired to take away £140,000 from the relief of rates. He was not prepared to recommend that course, and did not think that the hon. Member would find much support.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he wished to know when the Government were going

973
to carry out the promise made by the Prime Minister two years ago and take into consideration the relations between local and Imperial taxation. He did not wish this sum to be taken away from the local authorities. He wished to give them more, but he wished the tax to be taken off cab-drivers.
Proposed clause negatived.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved a, new clause providing that Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1898, shall apply in cases where the owner is a body of persons, corporate or incorporate, who is exempt from income-tax under the Acts dealing with exemptions for charitable purposes. He explained that it was devised in the interest of certain small charities, which, under a legal decision in the House of Lords, had been required to pay the land tax in full. He took a somewhat paternal interest in this matter, because it was on an Amendment of his own which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1898 accepted that this question had arisen. That Amendment gave con siderable relief to small payers of land tax. It also gave the same exemption with respect to income-tax. There were a good many small charities throughout the qpuntry—several of which were in his immediate neighbourhood—which had for a number of years received the relief given under the clause, but unfortunately in a case brought by the Excise, and decided by the House of Lords, it was held that the word "owner" did not apply to trustees. That case was taken in regard to the income-tax and had no reference to the land tax, but apparently the Inland Revenue had applied the decision of the Court to the land tax as well as to the income-tax. The result was that these small charities had had to pay the land tax in full. The matter concerned poor people whom the House was desirous of helping, as had been shown in the discussion on the Old-Age Pensions Bill. The effect of the legal decision given by the House of Lords had been to fine these poor people for no fault of their own. He could state on the authority of Lord St. Aldwyn, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1898, that it was intended to exclude charities of the character referred to from the land
974
tax. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could see his way to restore the exemption. It could not be a serious matter to the Exchequer, but it would be a great benefit to the pensioners who were receiving help from the charities. He begged to move.
New clause—
"Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1898, shall apply in cases where the owner is a body of persons, corporate or incorporate, who is exempt from income-tax under the Acts dealing with exemptions for charitable purposes."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)—
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the effect of the proposed new clause would be, not to restore an exemption, but to over ride a decision of the Courts interpreting an Act passed by a Government of which the hon. Member was a sup porter. The hon. Member had minimised the financial result of his proposal.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the Revenue authorities were in possession of all the facts already. They gave the exemption in earlier years, and they knew exactly what the weight of it was.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they could tell exactly what it was in those particular eases, but once the principle of the Amendment was accepted, they would have to extend its application very considerably. Under those circumstances he could not see his way to accept the Amendment, because it might mean considerable loss to the revenue.
*MR. EVERETTsaid he supported the new clause. He had had a good many communications from persons in his constituency pointing out that without restoration of the exemption great hard ship would be caused to numbers of very poor people.
Proposed clause negatived.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON(Cambridge University) moved a new clause, the object of which was to provide that in

975
future railway companies should be allowed to deduct from their income-tax the sums they had paid for railway passenger duty. This railway passenger duty was, he said, put on a long time ago, in 1831, and was a tax on locomotion. Its object was to prevent undue com petition with post-gigs and tramways—which latter had long since been practically relieved of the duty of 5 per cent. The matter came before a Select Committee in 1876 which reported that in their opinion a strong case had been made out, when the state of the revenue permitted, for a repeal of the tax, on the ground that the reasons for it had ceased to exist, and that it was unfair to continue a tax on one kind of locomotion when all taxes on other kinds of locomotion had been repealed. That argument was equally good to-day as it was in 1876. Indeed, the tax was far more unjust to-day than when the Committee reported, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, if not this year, in some subsequent year repeal it. He begged to move.
New Clause—
"Any railway company shall be entitled to deduct from the total amount payable by such company under this section the aggregate sum paid by the same company during the above-mentioned year for duty at the rate of five pounds per one hundred pounds under Section two of 5 and 6 Viet., c. 79, and to the schedule thereto, and for duty at the rate of two pounds per one hundred pounds under Section 2, Subsection 2 of 40 and 47 Vict., c. 34, upon moneys received or charged for the hire, fare, or conveyance of passengers upon or along any such railway. "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be road a second time."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not going to defend the railway passenger duty or enter upon its merits. He had to point out that this involved a sum of £350,000 which lie would have to make up by imposing taxes in other directions, and he did not think that anything could be gained by that. He did not think that the imposition of the railway passenger duty had ever really interfered with railway development or the prosperity of railway companies.
976
Under these circumstances no case had been made out for its abolition such as would justify him in accepting the Amendment.
Proposed clause negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

BEE PEST (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that his hon. friend the Vice-President or the Board of Agriculture for Ireland had kindly consented to the re-committal of this Bill to consider some Amendments be proposed to move on Clause 5. He would deal with the first of his Amendments, and if he was beaten on that he would not proceed with the others.
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 5.—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

Clause5:
SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved to leave out "may" and insert "shall." The object of his Amendment was to provide that the local authority should see that compensation was paid, not exceeding one-half of the value of the bees or articles or appliances which were destroyed. All previous Acts of Parliament which dealt with the destruction of diseased animals enacted that the compensation should be obligatory. There was a clause to that effect in the Diseases of Animals Act of 1984. In this case compensation would not be more than half. Sections 14, 15, and 16 all contained the same provision, that the compensation should be obligatory. They had been told that the reason it was not made obligatory in this case was that in the Insect Act of last session compensation was permissive. He found the Insect Act referred to the Act of 1877, cap. 268,

977
which dealt with the Colorado beetle. It was true that under that Act compensation was not compulsory on the local authority, except that it was not left in their lands whether or not they should pay, but in those of the Privy Council. The Acts he had cited practically compelled the local authority to pay compensation. The only Act which did not do so was the Act of last session, and that only dealt with insects which came over and destroyed crops. Insects were not kept as an industry as bees were. He was sure the House did not wish that the local authority should have any temptation to be unfair. They should not have the option of saying that one man was deserving and they would give him compensation and refuse it to another because he was not deserving. Having, taken a man's hive and all the paraphernalia of his industry they ought to pay in every case where in the interests of the community they destroyed bees.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."
*The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell,)said he wished to point out the radical difference between the Diseases of Animals Act and this small measure. In the first case the compensation came out of the rates or out of public money provided by Parliament. In this case it came from a joint fund, part of which was paid by the Department of Agriculture, and part out of a penny rate struck for the purpose of agricultural education. The committee of agriculture in each county was to administer the Act, and as they were engaged in the work of promoting these small industries they naturally took a great interest in these questions, and it would be possible to provide compensation up to a half in at least the great majority of cases, but if they made it compulsory the result would be that the Act would be blocked, and would not be enforced at all. The Bill
978
was founded on a clause of the Act of last session, and there was more analogy between bees and the insects that Act dealt with than between bees and bullocks.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGhoped the right hon. Gentle mm would not really oppose the Amendment. If he did he would be causing a great deal of injury possibly to a great number of innocent persons. The section would permit not only infected bees, but perfectly healthy full-blooded bees, in an area arbitrarily declared to be infected, to be destroyed. The fixing of that area was only a precautionary measure, and it was very probable that a large number of bees in the area would not be infected at all. The fixing of the area was only a precautionary measure to prevent the spread of disease, and if bees were arbitrarily seized upon and destroyed, the owners should be assured that they would get compensation, without having to go through the laborious process set out in the Bill. It provided that in the first instance the Department of Agriculture must find that it was just and proper that compensation should be given. But that was not enough. After they had issued their edict that the unfortunate beekeeper was to get possibly one-third of the value of his bees, that had to be corroborated by the local authority, and if they withheld their consent the unfortunate owner, through no fault of his own, got no compensation. Except that it was true that it was rather hard to compare a bee with a bullock, the principle underlying this and the Diseases of Animals Act was precisely the same. In the latter case the compensation was two-thirds of the value, and where an animal was not diseased, but was killed as a precautionary measure to prevent the spread of disease, the full value was paid. If the right hon. Gentleman could not do that the least he could do was to allow compensation to the extent of half the value to be compulsory. To restrict the compensation to a half was in itself a great injustice, but they were willing to waive that point in the hope that at least the compensation should be made compulsory in all cases.
MR. CARLILEdid not think the Committee realised that this was an important industry in certain parts of Ireland. There were in certain comities as many as 1,200 beekeepers who had appliances of more or less value and novel construction. It was proposed under the clause arbitrarily to take away their property. It was not shown by any means that it would be done when there was a foul brood; it would be done when any sets of hives were alleged to be contaminated, and it was to be done in an arbitrary fashion. The least the right hon. Gentle-
man could do under the circumstances was to adopt the Amendment and make the payment of compensation compulsory. No doubt it was true that in many cases the bees would die in any event, but on the other hand there was a large number of cases in which they were probably perfectly sound. He therefore had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:-Ayes, 169; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 197.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marnham. F. J.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Findlay, Alexander

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Middlebrook, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fullerton, Hugh

Mond, A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gill, A. H.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Barran. Rowland Hirst

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Gooch, George Peabody(Bath)

Morse, L. L.

Beale, W. P.

Gulland, John W.

Murphy. John (Kerry, East)

Beck. A. Cecil

Harcourt, Robert. V. (Montrose)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Bennett, E. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norton. Capt. Cecil William

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

Black, Arthur W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Brigg, John

Henry, Charles S.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bright, T. A.

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brodie, H. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

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

Hodge, John

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hogan, Michael

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

Byles, William Pollard

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Radfordm, G. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Horniman, Emslie John

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rea. Walter Russe'l (Scarboro)

Cleland. J. W.

Hudson, Walter

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

Clough, William

Islingworth, Perey H.

Richardson, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoin)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts. G. H. (Norwich)

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

Kettle. Thomas Michael

Robinson. S.

Cooper, G. J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Law, Hugh A.(Donegal. W.)

Russell, T. W.

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crean, Eugene

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Searisbrick, T. T. L.

Crooks, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seddon, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seely, Colonel

Devlin. Joseph

Lynch, H. B.

Shackleton, David James

Duckworth. James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macpherson, J, T.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Soares. Ernest J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Crae, Sir George

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

Essex, R. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Walsh, Stephen

Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

Summerbell, T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Watt, Henry A.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Tomkinson, James

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Toulmin, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Verney, F. W.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Starkey, John R.

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Anton Manor)

Renton, Leslie

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Clark, George Smith

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Charles Craig.

Coates, Maj. E. F. (Lewisham

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Forster, Henry William

Stanier, Beville

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Birrell.)

Clause agreed to, and Bill reported without Amendment; As amended, in Committee, considered; read the third time, and passed.

COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendments agreed to—
"In page 2, line 12, at end, to add the words '(4) No expenses to witnesses, whether for the prosecution or defence, shall be allowed at a Court of Assize or Quarter Sessions before which any indictable offence is prosecuted or tried, if such witnesses are witnesses to character only, unless the Court shall otherwise order.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'due,' to insert the words 'for travelling or personal expenses.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
"In page 3, line 42, at end, to add the words 'For the purpose of meeting any change in the financial relations between any counties and boroughs which may arise by virtue of the provisions of this Act as to the payment of any costs allowed under this Act, any necessary equitable adjustment may be made by agreement between the councils of the counties or boroughs concerned, or, in default of agreement, by the Local Government Board. The Board may at their option determine the matter as arbitrators, or otherwise, and, if they elect to determine the matter as arbitrators, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Board of Trade, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the Local Government Board and the determination of
982
matters under this subsection. For the purpose of this subsection the Local Government Board may hold any local inquiry, and subsections one and five of Section eighty-seven of the Local Government Act. 1888, shall apply accordingly.' "—(The Attorney-General.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 42, at end, to add the words 'and to remain in attendance for that purpose during the sitting of the Court, or until such hour as the Court shall direct.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
MR. CARLILEasked whether the clause with the Amendment of his hon. friend did not suggest a great waste of time on the part of this individual who was to attend the Court. Had he to be present under the Amendment the whole time that the Court was sitting, merely on the off-chance of having to provide certain payments which might not arise?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said the hon. Member had, he thought, omitted to observe the last part of the Amendment, "or until such hour as the Court may direct." They proposed to leave it in the hands of the Court.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. CARLILEasked who was the proper officer and how his decisions as to costs were to be controlled or checked. It seemed to him that the proper officer had too much of a free hand in fixing what the expenses should be. Then he wanted to ask whether the payment of a poor defendant for his defence out of the funds which would be ultimately provided from the borough or county council funds, would carry with it any disqualification for the franchise, as poor relief did.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Answer to the last question was in the negative. The proper officer was the treasurer of the borough, but he had not unqualified discretion.

TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. NANNETTIsaid he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, though he felt bound to tell the House that there was a good deal of opposition to its provisions in Ireland. His object in rising was simply to ask the Chief Secretary if the Bill could be sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, so that proper time might be allowed for the purpose of considering Amendments which some of his friends desired to introduce. In respect of one or two points connected with the Bill there had been a good deal of comment. Its provisions applied to every person who was troubled with tuberculosis, and when the medical officer of a district found that a person was suffering from the disease he had to report that person immediately, which meant an expenditure of 2s. 6d. per patient for the local authority. The question of providing sanatoria for these unfortunate people also came in, and there was no contradicting the fact that these establishments must cost a great deal of money.
984
He imagined that if the Bill passed, every working man who might be afflicted with this disease would, as it were, be singled out, and would be marked as an affected person. In many ways that might injure him, and more especially it might be the cause of his being unable to find employment. Other men, naturally, would not like to work in a place with a man who would be liable to spread infection, and under the circumstances he thought they should give the measure fair consideration in Committee in order to ensure that the least possible amount of harm should be done. Personally, he was in favour of doing everything that was possible to remove the danger of the spread of infection, but so many difficulties might be created and hardships caused that he thought they should be very careful how they went to work. He knew that the right I hon. Gentleman was animated by the best intentions, but it was necessary that certain precautions should be taken and that those interested in Ireland i should have an opportunity of considering the Bill in Committee with a view to inserting Amendments that would have the effect of minimising the worst results anticipated from the measure. He believed that the discussion of the Bill in Grand Committee would not take more than one day, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to allow it to go upstairs.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGagreed to a large extent with what had been said by the hon. Member for Dublin. One difficulty he had found in connection with the Bill was that whereas, as the, hon. Member had pointed out, it was rendered compulsory on the medical officer to report all cases of tuberculosis that he might meet with in the performance of his duties, so far as he could see the Bill did not state what the authorities were to do with the cases so notified beyond the very modest requirements of Section 2 of the Bill. As the hon. Member had said, the difficulty of the Bill was that it would to a very large extent mark these people down as comparatively dangerous members of the community, without at the same time insuring that any very serious steps would be taken towards curing them of

985
tuberculosis, if they were curable, insufficiently segregating them if they were in a state that was past curing. That seemed to him the fundamental objection to the Bill. Another object he had in rising to speak on the subject was that he understood that any hon. Member who took part in a debate of that kind was nearly always chosen as a member of the Grand Committee before whom the Bill would come upstairs. He was sure the Chief Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, would acknowledge that he had given valuable assistance in connection with another Irish Bill which had just left a Grand Committee, and he hoped the authorities who selected persons to serve on Grand Committees would note that he was a fit and proper person to serve in connection with the Bill now before the House.
MR. SUMMERBELLwished to appeal to the Government to be as fair as possible in dealing with a matter of this kind. In this Bill machinery was going to be set up with the object of preventing the spread of tuberculosis in Iceland, and no one would say that the object was not a good one. It was from Ireland we obtained a large number of our soldiers, and he hoped the House would take note of the fact that the Government were discharging from the Army every year about 400 men who were suffering from consumption. They were seat away to their homes as unfitted to continue in the Army, and according to the evidence on the subject they carried with them the liability to spread this dread disease among other people in various parts of the country. He contended, in view of that fact, that before they asked municipalities to be at the cost of setting up machinery in order to grapple with the disease, the Government ought to do their duty by guarding against the spread of disease by soldiers who were discharged from the Army. The War Office authorities had been appealed to on the subject, but they had declined to spend the few thousand pounds that would be required in order to effect that object. He took advantage of the present opportunity to appeal to them again to do their duty and see to it that they were not the principal people to spread the disease in various parts of the country.
986
At a cost of a few thousand pounds the War Office authorities might establish an institution for the treatment of these soldiers, and so prevent their going away, with the result, perhaps of communicating the disease to other persons. He had served on a Select Committee in regard to this matter, and he was strongly of opinion that before the Government brought forward a Bill of this kind they should agree to the small expenditure that would be needed to put an end to the risk now caused by the annual discharges from the Army of consumptive soldiers.
LORD BALCARRESwas sure that every Member of the House must sympathise with the desire of the Chief Secretary as embodied in the Bill, but he confessed that he had read the proposals of the Bill with a certain amount of doubt. He thought Members of the House ought to realise that tuberculosis was not a defined disease like scarlet fever or small-pox, but that two or three medical men often made different diagnosis in the same case. He himself—and probably every other Member of the House was in the same position—knew of individual patients who were stated by one doctor to be suffering from tubercular disease, while another doctor, equally well qualified, denied it. Tuberculosis was not a defined disease, and the Government admitted as much in the first three lines of the Bill, because it was provided that the Local Government Board should make an order prescribing the circumstances in which a person suffering from tuberculosis "of any form, or at any stage" should be notifiable. They did not think it necessary to state that forms of small-pox had to be defined by the local authority. It was a matter that could be determined, and it caused no criticism among medical men. That was not the case with tuberculosis, and the clause was drawn so widely that any person suffering from any form of consumption, or at any stage of the disease, had to be notified. The far-reaching character of the proposal might be gathered when he informed the House that he was told that three out of ten normally healthy persons were suffering from one form or another of tuberculous weakness. He did not

987
know whether the Government seriously intended that regulations of so severe a character should be issued. The matter was one of great importance, and such a Bill as this ought not to be rushed through after midnight, but should go to a Grand Committee for full consideration. The Bill said that the Board might from time to time prescribe forms and stages of the disease, but the House did not know in whom the right was to be vested. The position was rendered very difficult by the fact that there existed the great and substantial disagreement among doctors on the subject to which he had alluded. The hon. Member for Dublin had said that they were running a great risk of causing hardships. His own view was that they were running the risk of, so to speak, scheduling these people as suffering from a really serious disease and doing them more harm than they could possibly hope to do them good. They incorporated five or six different sections of other Acts in the Bill, and altogether it was about as complicated a case of legislation by reference as they could have. These six sections gave the local authorities the rights they now possessed in cases of small-pox. The Bill also authorised the local authorities to establish hospitals, and there was a point in regard to which he felt himself at issue with the Bill. The county councils in Ireland were authorised to spend a penny in the, and in certain cases twopence, in establishing hospitals and dispensaries. They were entitled to borrow money for that purpose and in suitable cases two or three had the right to combine for the purpose of establishing a joint hospital. Did the hon. Members who were acquainted with existing hospitals for tubercular disease seriously think that the average county council in Ireland was going to raise money to create an adequately equipped hospital to deal with that particular disease? They would not do it, and he did not think they could afford to do it on a rate of 2d. in the £. The provisions for recouping them were illusory, because in nine cases out of ten it would be impossible for the persons who were treated to repay the local authority the cost of their treatment, which he reminded the House was
988
extremely expensive. He thought that the Bill was based rather upon a misapprehension that tubercular illness was of purely a local character, and he could not bring himself to believe that a county council with an area of low rateable value was the proper authority to deal with illness which was certainly national in its character. They could not trace the source of the illness to any particular locality and he thought the matter ought to be dealt with in a far more comprehensive way than was proposed. It was almost ridiculous to suggest that a county council should appoint a bacteriologist to look into tubercular cases. It was a class of bacteriology which required a longer and more expensive bacteriological training than any other. The whole idea was impossible when associated with county councils. If on such exiguous funds skilled bacteriologists were to be appointed very little money would be left for other work, and the county councils could not keep men sufficiently trained to deal with the very difficult and intricate problems which. would have to be encountered. The Bill ought to receive more complete consideration than it could receive in the House, and should, if possible, be sent to a Grand Committee.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I quite admit this is a Bill which deserves full consideration. It has already received great consideration in Ireland. The Bill has been printed in all the Irish newspapers. Its principles have been affirmed by all the medical societies in Ireland. The Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, and the Irish National Association have all gone most carefully into it and considered its provisions, so that although undoubtedly there are points and matters to be considered in Committee, the subject, so far as Ireland is concerned, has already received very careful attention. It is not surprising that Ireland should feel a deep interest in the subject, for the ravages of this disease there have reached a positively appalling figure. The death rate from tuberculosis in England is 1·6 per 1,000; in Ireland it is 2·7 per

989
1,000. In fact one-sixth of the entire death rate in Ireland is due to tuberculosis. Twelve thousand people die annually from it. Now it is certainly known on the highest scientific authority that this disease, if treated properly, in its early stages is a preventible disease. It has also been clearly established that it is spread by very simple and now ascertained methods. Having regard to the fact that this terrible disease is steadily increasing in Ireland, it is not to be wondered at that the Irish people should be alive, and peculiarly alive, to its horrors. Owing to the untiring labours of Lady Aberdeen the subject has attracted an amount of attention in Ireland which would surprise people here. The Tuberculosis Exhibition, a somewhat gruesome thing, has visited nearly seventy places in different parts of Ireland, and has attracted and profoundly interested thousands of people. Lectures have been delivered, over three hundred, by scientific men from all parts, and these have been closely attended and eagerly followed. There have been also, what perhaps is even more interesting, some 900 demonstrations and popular talks with the people upon the subject of how this disease is spread by contagion, what particular acts should be avoided, and what care and what precautions should be taken. The medical men and the local authorities have participated in these efforts in a most remarkable manner. The clergy of all denominations have joined in; and really the matter has assumed something like a national campaign against the disease which, as I have said, is preventible, and the ravages of which can be, if not wholly removed, at all events largely destroyed. That is the state of the case. The noble Lord a little misapprehends the object of the first clause. I quite agree that it is one of the, horrors of this disease that it is a domesticated one, and that poor consumptives have long been regarded by affectionate families as? doomed but harmless people, who might
990
be allowed to remain in their houses, and were to be treated as if they were on the same footing as cripples or persons of inferior understanding, until they met their inevitable death—usually between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five. Now we are all agreed, I am sure, that you have to deal with the utmost tenderness with cases of that kind, and that it is impossible, however terrible the disease may be, to let doctors loose upon these homes and remove these people forcibly as it were, and stamp them as infected. That is the reason why, I believe, the first clause is worded in such a manner as to leave it to the Local Government Board, who have skilled doctors as part of their establishment, to determine the circumstances in which notification is to take place, to secure privacy, and generally to deal with this difficult matter in a spirit of the utmost care and in a tentative and most judicious way. The clause is so put down, rather with reference to public opinion than to health considerations. We cannot go ahead of public opinion, and the clause is framed and appears in its present shape so as to prevent our travelling too fast. With regard to hospitals, there are counties in Ireland, certainly, which are not in a position to establish, and which would never dream of establishing, hospitals on a scale large enough, but they could act in association with others, and even if it is only a small hospital that is established it is of great value, from the educational point of view, among the teachable population as showing how the thing can be dealt with in the cases of persons in an advanced stage. Then there are the sanatoria, which should be inexpensive indeed, the more inexpensive the better, because after a time they become so infected that they are better destroyed. The ravages of this disease affect us all, and most of us, I dare say, have friends who have derived enormous benefit from the treatment they have received in sanatoria in healthy spots in the country.

991
I should agree that if you had to deal in this aspect with the whole population it would be beyond the means of certain, counties, but that is not what is intended. The idea is to set the thing going in such a way as to show by hospitals for extreme cases, and by sanatoria in the best parts of Ireland for those who can be treated curatively, and in the hope of restoring them to society, how much can be done to check the inroads of this disease. There is also the dispensary system, which is enormously interesting and important, and which will enable us to treat people who are in their own homes skillfully, and with all the arts of medicine, so that the chance of the disease spreading by contagion to other members of the family may be reduced. The Irish people want these things, and the Irish people within reasonable limits will be prepared, I doubt not, to rate themselves for them. I point out again that the subject has been already considered by competent persons and has received the support of all authorities and of the people to a most remarkable extent. Everyone is prepared to join in the campaign, from the simplest and the humblest of the population, and to have the local authorities invested with the means of organising and maintaining of a complete campaign against tuberculosis, which carries off so many thousands in Ireland. I agree there are many points of detail which require consideration, and if the House will give the Bill a Second Reading it will be desirable, I think, to allow it to be considered in Grand Committee. I do not think that at this period of the session it would be very easy to deal with it on the floor of the House. The course of sending the Bill to Grand Committee may possibly delay the passage of the Bill at this period of the session, but we should, I hope, take it up again in the autumn.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: May I ask whether the effect of the statement just made is that if the Bill were com-
992
mitted to Committee of the Whole House the right hon. Gentleman could not get it before the recess?
MR. BIRRELL: That would depend, of course, upon the number of the Amendments, and I am rather disposed to think it would be very difficult at these hours of the night. If it goes to Grand Committee we could not get it till the autumn session.
Replying to MR. NANNETTI—
MR. BIRRELLsaid that it might be the best course to move that the matter be proceeded with in Committee of the Whole House. They could then see the number and character of the Amendments. Some of these might be dealt with by friendly intercourse without debate, and they might see what could be done in that way. He would, therefore, propose to move that the Committee stage be taken in Committee of the Whole House.
MR. FORSTERregretted the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his original decision to proceed with the matter by means of Grand Committee. He now proposed to take the measure in Committee of the Whole House. In that case, he (Mr. Forster) hoped Members would be given time to put down Amendments, because there were undoubtedly points which would have to be carefully considered.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Widnes Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Padiham Urban District Council Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill; Holderness water Bill.—Moved, that the Order made on the 25th day of March last. "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill.—Committed.
Holderness water Bill.—Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.]—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Bradford (Rural) Order.
Holderness Water Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill
762
(Bradford (Rural) Order).—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Central Ireland Electric Power Bill and other Bills, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Holderness Water Bill and the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (so far as it relates to the Bradford (Rural) Order); read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).
  Papers regarding—
  Orakzais.—Request of certain clans to be taken under British Administration.
  Zakka Khel Afridis,—Operations.
  Mohmands.—Operations.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) 1907.
  Part I. Criminal Statistics.

  EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
  Correspondence relating to affairs in the East Africa Protectorate.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of 31st March, 1908.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 8th July, 1908, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of auditor in the Local Government Board for Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required.
  Laid before the House, (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statute made by the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford, on the 11th March, 1908, amending Statute 16, Clause 12, of the Statutes of the House.
  Statute made by the Governing Body of Brasenose College, Oxford, on the 11th March, 1908, amending Statute III., Part II., 12, of the Statutes of the College.
  Statute made by the Governing Body of All Souls' College, Oxford, on the 28th February, 1908, and sealed on 3rd March, 1908, amending Statute 12A, Clause 2, of the Statutes of the College.
  Statutes made by the University of Cambridge (sealed on 27th March, 1908), amending Chapter VI., Statute B., Sections 12 and 13, Chapter VII., Statute B., Sections 2 and 4, and adding Paragraphs 8 and 9 to Chapter VII., Statute B., of the Statutes of the University.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No 152.)

SEED POTATOES AND SEED OATS SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL (No. 153).
  WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL (No. 154).
    TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL (No. 155).
    Brought from the Commons and read I and to be printed.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have given notice to call attention to the delays in connection with the provision and distribution of the funds required for the carrying out of the purposes of the Irish Land Act. 1903; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to secure the effective carrying out of the purchase provisions of the Act; and to move for Papers. I have done so in consequence of the lively dissatisfaction, and I think I may say the growing dissatisfaction, felt by all classes in Ireland at the increasingly slow progress that is being made.
764
There is no doubt whatever that at the time of the passing of the Act it was meant that the carrying out of its purchase provisions should be an expeditious proceeding. Mr. Wyndham stated, in fact, in so many words, that he hoped the purchase provisions would be completed in a period of fifteen years; and it is quite obvious to any one looking through the Act even in a most cursory manner that its provisions were drawn with the object of ensuring that the transfer of the land under the Act should be at a much more expeditious rate than we are accustomed to in the case of the transfer of property in land from one individual to another. The provision of the zones, the arrangements that were made to expedite the clearing of title, the enactment of a closing day, were all obviously meant to expedite administration, in the same way as the provision of the bonus was intended to expedite negotiations; and it is obvious, from the way the Act was originally worked, that the estimates in people's minds after the passing of the Act showed no difficulty or delay in being realised.
Shortly after the Act had been passed six or seven months was quite enough to get an estate through the Office of the Estates Commissioners. I am informed that even the Duke of Leinster's estate, which amounted to about half a million sterling, passed through all its stages in the short space of seven months. Latterly, the period from the originating application until the time of the receipt of the money by the owner has become lengthier and lengthier, and now there is a general belief in Ireland that it will be at least six or seven years before a landlord who arranges with his tenant to sell can hope to see his money, or before the tenant can get the advantage of the sinking fund. I think six or seven years in an extremely optimistic estimate. The time now required is very much longer.
At the present moment, roughly speaking applications amounting to £62,750,000 are before the Estates Commissioners, and in all ways £21,500,000 have been distributed £19,000,000 have been distributed by the Judicial Commissioner and £2,500,000 have been advanced through other parties who deal with

765
this matter. This subject has not been brought before your Lordships for over a year, but on 1st July last year my noble friend behind me, Lord Clonbrock, had the privilege of calling attention to it in this House; and it is interesting, I think, to compare the figures that he then gave with the figures that have been recently given us by the Government in order that we may inquire into the progress that has been made during the last twelve months. At about the same time last year £51,000,000 had been applied for, and just under £19,000,000 disposed of. My noble friend stated this latter figure to be £18,000,000, but the noble Lord opposite, Lord Denman, claimed that the figure was nearer £19,000,000—I accept, therefore, the Government figure. The average from the passing of the Act then worked out per annum at about £14,000,000 of property applied for, and just over £5,000,000 distributed. The position now is that £62,750,000 have been applied for, and £21,500,000 have been dealt with. The average now is £13,500,000 applied for per annum, and £4,600,000 distributed. Your Lordships will, therefore, notice that, as the result of the operations of the past year, the average amount distributed per annum since the passing of the Act has fallen from over £5,000,000 to £4,600,000.
But this figure does not show, I think, how serious the position has become. A year ago, as Lord Denman told us on July 1st, 1907, £19,000,000 had been distributed. Now £21,500,000 have been distributed. Therefore only £2,500,000 have been distributed as the result of the past twelve months working by the Estates Commissioners. Although, as I mentioned just now, the general idea is that a landlord or tenant will have to wait six or seven years for the completion of the purchase, at the rate of progress that has obtained during the past year it will be sixteen years before the last agreement that went into the Office of the Estates Commissioners is finally dealt with, and before the landlord receives his money and the tenant begins to pay his purchase annuities; or, to put it more simply, it will be eighty-five years before a tenant signing to-day will have the freehold of his farm vested in him.
LORD DENMAN: How does the noble Earl take his year to get the figure of £2,500,000?
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am comparing the figures given by the noble Lord on July 1st, 1907, with those given on June 25th, 1908. I think, as a matter of fact, the exact period is between eleven and twelve months. The figures I am quoting are up to 31st May this year. I am assuming that the figures in both cases were up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Denman, speaking for the Government, told us last year, in plain language, that we could not expect any very much greater progress than had hitherto obtained—that is to say, we could not hope for very much more than £5,000,000 to be distributed annually. I am quite sure the noble Lord had no inkling of the fact that the progress during the last twelve months would be so very much slower than in the previous years. Still, as far as I am able to tell from these official figures, the progress of distribution of money by the Estates Commissioners has fallen during the past year to an alarming extent—to the extent of 50 per cent. That is a most serious matter. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock asked the direct question last year—
"Why are you going so much slower than you did directly after the passing of the Act?"
I do not think that that question was directly replied to last year, but I should very much like to have a direct answer to it in the course of the debate to-day.
There has been no material diminution of the rate of progress in the Land Judge's Court or in the office of the Congested Districts Board. The delay evidently has taken place solely in the office of the Estates Commissioners. The position is bound to become very much more serious in the next six months; and for this reason. Your Lordships will remember that there is a provision in the Act which enables the Treasury to revise the amount of the bonus, if for certain reasons it is necessary to do so, and they obtain that power on 1st November this year. Now, if there is any revision of the bonus it will absolutely stop land purchase in

767
Ireland. Bargains have been going on for the last two or three years on the assumption that the bonus is to be 12 per cent., and the moment it is diminished you stop those bargains, and the parties will have to begin on an entirely new basis. Therefore, I think it would be a most lamentable thing if the amount of the bonus was varied; but that is not the point I wish now to put before your Lordships.
The point is this, that everybody in Ireland knows that there is danger of the bonus being varied on 1st November, and therefore great efforts will be made by landlords and tenants to get as many agreements signed as possible between now and 1st November, and the result will be an enormous increase in the number of agreements filed in the office of the Estates Commissioners. I have been in correspondence on another subject with one of the largest land agents who has already sold two or three great estates, and he informs me that he is at the present moment discussing sales to the amount of no less than £300,000, and this, of course, is being done under the spur of the fact that it is known that the agreements must be put in by 1st November; and if that is being done by one agent it is not unfair to argue that there will be an enormous increase generally. Therefore, though the block is serious now, it will be very considerably increased before your Lordships may again have an opportunity of discussing this subject.
My second Question is: Why is there any delay at all? Why was not the state of affairs that existed for five or six months, or longer, after the Act came into force, maintained throughout, or, at least, why was not the distribution kept up at greater speed? The answer is to be found in the Report of the recent Commission which sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Dudley. I do not think we could possibly over-estimate the value of the evidence that was given before that Commission, especially the evidence of members of Government Departments, which has given us insights into the working of these Departments that we shall not forget for many a long lay. Mr. Commissioner Finucane said—
"It depends entirely on the money. If we had £10,000,000 a year we could spend it
768
without the least difficulty, if we had sufficient staff for the purpose."
Later on he said—
"If you were to raise £30,000,000 to-morrow we could pay it all away in two or three years. It is a mere matter of increasing our staff for inspection, and so on."
Then this question was put—
"We may take it, then, that the block is due to the fact that the money is not there?"
And Mr. Commissioner Finucane replied—
"To nothing else—to want of money and staff."
Money and staff, therefore, are at the bottom of this matter, and that is admitted by the Government. If the man in the street were asked the cause of the slow working of the Act he would reply "money," and, as usual, I believe the man in the street would be wrong, since great as the evil under "money" may be, I think that there is far greater evil under the heading of "staff."
A story is told in Dublin—I relate it merely as gossip—to the effect that a Treasury official and an official of the Estates Commissioners were sitting over a friendly cup of coffee, and the Treasury official challenged the official of the Estates Commissioners to mention a single case of an estate in relation to which all questions of title and so on had been settled and in which the landlord was ready to receive the money, for which the money was not forthcoming. The story goes that the gentleman from the Estates Commissioners was unable to mention a single one. I tell that purely as a story; it may or may not have happened. The conversation may have taken place between a junior clerk in the office of the Estates Commissioners and a junior clerk at the Treasury; it may have taken place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on the one side, and on the other the noble Lord opposite who took his seat yesterday (Lord MacDonnell of Swinford) and whom all Irishmen are most glad to welcome to your Lordships' House; but, whether the story is true or not, it certainly illustrates what is believed to be the case in Dublin. We believe that in every case in which the papers have been ready and in order the money has been distributed by the Estates Commissioners. That, of course, may be explained by saying that whereas

769
the Treasury have given Commissioners very little money they have, at the same time, given them no more staff than was sufficient to distribute that amount.
I should be very surprised to hear that in no case have the Estates Commissioners made application for an increase of staff and been refused. But even if this is so the question of money is important, and it is evident that it is considered important by the fact that during the recess His Majesty's Government appointed a Departmental Committee of the Treasury, under the chairmanship of one of their Members, to inquire into the subject of the provision of money. I wish, first of all, to draw attention to the very peculiar terms of reference under which this Committee was appointed. They were appointed to inquire into Irish land purchase finance, but it was expressly laid down that they were to report how far the difficulties could be diminished or removed—
"Without imposing any additional charge on the Exchequer."
I cannot help thinking that the present Prime Minister when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he appointed that Committee drew up those words of reference with a very merry twinkle in his eye. Why should it be altogether out of consideration that any cost of the present difficulty should be put upon the Imperial Exchequer? Whose fault, after all, is it? There were, your Lordships will remember, three parties to what may be called the land settlement of 1903.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): Four.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Three main parties. I refer to the landlord, the tenant, and the State.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: And the Irish ratepayer.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: He is a part of the State; but, at the same time, the landlords and tenants of Ireland form a very large percentage of the Irish ratepayers and the attempt to confine the loss under
770
these transactions to the Irish ratepayer is practically an attempt to confine it to the landlords and tenants, the parties to the bargain. What happened in 1903 was this. The State said it was to the public advantage—I will not say why, though I have always maintained that the reason was. owing to the shortsightedness of the statesmen who passed the Act of 1881—that dual ownership in Ireland should cease and the land should pass from the landlord to the tenants, and that, in every case in which the landlords and tenants would agree to that transfer being made, the Treasury, that is to say the State, would lend the money, and would go further and provide the bonus which would ease over any difficulty in arriving at a price. The landlords and tenants have, to a large extent, made their arrangements, and now the State has difficulty in carrying out its side of the bargain, which is to provide the money.
The only hitch is that the State cannot provide the money as quickly as it is wanted for the carrying out of the Act. Why cannot, the State provide it? Because under present conditions it costs too much to get the money. Now the State says in effect, to the parties—
"I will set to work and see if I cannot provide the money without any loss to myself by seeing if the loss that is entailed can be made to fall on you."
That, in very bald language, is really the situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment as the result of the terms of reference that I have quoted. The block is simply to be found in the fact that the State cannot at the moment carry out her bargain fast enough, and the whole system of land purchase in Ireland is imperilled as a result. Any financial loss under the Act would not be due to an Irish cause, but to the depreciation that for the moment has come about in Imperial credit; and surely it is not unreasonable to say that any loss which occurs in connection with Imperial credit should be borne as an Imperial charge.
Landlords and tenants have, to a great extent, carried out their part of the bargain. The Attorney-General stated in the House of Commons the other day

771
that the shortcomings on the part of the tenants in repaying their instalments were practically infinitesimal. I claim, too, that the landlords have expressed their willingness to sell at a fair price—at the price they were expected to ask in 1903. This brings me at once to the details of some of the paragraphs in the Report of Mr. Runciman's Committee. We are bound to regard this document as one of great importance, though I know it is only a Committee's Report and that we have not been definitely told by the Government that they intend to adopt its recommendations. But it is the sole evidence of the working of the Government mind on this subject, and it would be disrespectful if we passed it by without consideration.
The Committee were placed in a position of very great difficulty. They were asked to advise how the Act was to be financed in future without loss to the Imperial Exchequer. It is quite obvious that if there is to be a loss it must fall on somebody's shoulders. Whose shoulders were they to put it on? Not on the Exchequer. That was ruled out by their terms of reference. Not on the tenants directly. That would obviously be a breach of faith that no Treasury would even dream of attempting, and it is, perhaps, not too unkind to point out that any attempt to get the tenants to contribute further towards the financing of this Act would lead to the Government having a very lively time with the representatives of those tenants in another place. Then there remain only the wretched landlords. I think it is generally admitted, or at any rate, the idea seems to have been in the Committee's mind, that any considerable increase of the burdens upon the Irish ratepayer was not at the moment very practical politics. Could the loss in any way be thrown upon the landlord's shoulders? As regards agreements signed to date, no. The Committee recognised that in the most open manner. Landlords owning property of the value of 80,000,000 sterling have made agreements with their tenants on the basis of payment in cash, and cash they will have to have if they desire it.
772
The Committee had to turn either to landlords who sign agreements after this date, in the hope of putting some of the loss on their shoulders, or to see if there was any landlord who, having signed already, would be foolish enough to allow some of the burden to be placed upon him now. Therefore they first of all set to work to try and show that certain of the landlords had been asking too much, and that it was not unreasonable, therefore, to put some of the loss that must occur on them. It is pointed out that there has been a fall in the price of trust securities—75 per cent. of the land in Ireland is in trust—and that this has operated greatly to the I benefit of the landlord, affording opportunities for investing his purchase money to so much greater advantage. The Committee go on to state, in paragraph 52, that the Irish Laud Conference adopted, as a basis of land purchase, the payment of a capital sum securing the landlord's income at 3 per cent, or at 3¼ per cent. But they will now be enabled, say the Committee, so to I invest the proceeds of the sale of their property as to obtain interest at 3½ per cent., and hence is drawn the suggestion that we could afford to accept a lower price or else that we had accepted too high a price and there was no great grievance in asking us to bear a little of the loss. I regret very much that the evidence taken by the Committee has not been published, in order that it I might be known upon whose testimony the Committee came to a conclusion I so utterly out of harmony with the real facts of the case.
Now, what happened? I wish to draw from the experience I have had of what has been done by a large number of landlords round me who have sold, and what has been done in a large number of estate offices with whose general policy in dealing with these matters I am acquainted. In Ireland estates are managed in larger units than in England. In England it is customary for a landlord to have his own agent, but in Ireland there are agents with large estate offices who see to the detailed management of an enormous number of acres spread all over the country, the object being that we desire, in the

773
highly technical legal system with which we are concerned, to have the best possible advice on all questions that might arise. Therefore we have an opportunity of finding out the policy pursued over large areas of land.
When the question of the sale of an estate came up and the tenants approached the landlord, the landlord's mind naturally went to preserving his present net income, and that had been guaranteed him by the Land Conference Report. When landlords found, as those of us did who were negotiating shortly after the passing of the Act, that we could get a higher rate of interest upon the capital obtained by the sale of the land than 3¼ per cent. a change was made in the situation. When we found that the higher rate of interest would enable us to obtain our present income on a smaller amount of capital, we gave the benefit to our tenants and agreed to accept a lower price than we would have done upon the Land Conference terms. Therefore I say that the prices obtained under the Act of 1903 have, as a rule, ranged lower than the Land Conference terms, and that the suggestion which the Committee has made is not a fair one. I repeat that I would like to know on what evidence that statement was made.
Having made that assumption the Committee, in a later portion of their Report, go on to outline a method by which it would be possible to throw some of the loss upon the landlord. In paragraph 103 they say—
"We therefore recommend that in cases which have reached the stage for making the advance, but for which cash is not immediately available, the landlords should be given the option of accepting their purchase-money in guaranteed 2¾ per cent, stock at the market price of the day if below par, subject, however, to a minimum price of £92, the bonus to be payable, as hitherto, in cash."
They go on to say, in paragraph 105—
"We think it probable that a considerable number at any rate of those landlords whose agreements have only recently been concluded will prefer to avail themselves of the advantages which it (the option) offers rather than wait their turn in the issue of cash advances."
I would like to know on what evidence that statement is made. In paragraph 106 the Committee add—
"We have suggested a minimum price of £92, because the yield of 2¾ per cent, stock at
774
that quotation is approximately 3 per cent., and we consider that if the landlord is assured of a return of that amount on his purchase money (in addition to the receipt of his bonus in cash) he may, in some cases at any rate, be induced to hold his stock as an investment, rather than throw it upon the market."
Subject to one reservation, to which I will refer in a moment, I have no objection to this option being offered in the hope of seeing whether anybody will be stupid enough to accept it. If His Majesty's Government are at all friendly towards this scheme, I sincerely hope they will not expect that any appreciable number of landlords awaiting the £40,000,000 which is now undisposed of will accept this offer. Why should they? They have been promised cash, and they know that cash would return them from £3 10s. to £3 13s. Why should any man in his senses, therefore, be expected to accept £3?
There are two other disadvantages in connection with this scheme. First, the minimum price at which landlords are to be offered the stock is 92. The average price of Guaranteed Lind Stock last year was 84¾; it fluctuated between 88½ and 81½, and it is unlikely that the average will be any higher in future, because since last year another 5,000,000 sterling has been put on the market. So that the Committee's suggestion is that landlords should be offered £100 of stock at 92, which is only worth, on an average, £84 7s. 6d. Does anybody think that any landlord will accept this unless he is under the thumb of a mortgagee and is forced to accept it?
The mention of mortgagees brings me to my second point. In the Committee's scheme no mention whatever is made of superior interests such as head rents. A great many of these head rents are paid to the Government. Many of us have borrowed money from the Government in order to carry out permanent improvements on our estates, and land improvement charges as they are called are all repayable by instalments over, as a rule, a period of thirty years; but at the time of the sale of an estate they have to be redeemed in full. Again, there are Crown rents, paid to the British Treasury, all of which have to be redeemed at the time of the sale of the estate. Are we to be allowed to

775
redeem these in stock worth £84 7s. 6d. which we are to say for the moment is worth 92? Nearly everybody knows the reputation of the British Treasury. When we have an obligation to the British Treasury every single farthing has to be discharged and discharged to the day and to the full. I shall be very interested to know whether, if the Treasury are to be allowed to give us stock worth on the average £84. 7s. 6d., and which they are permitted to treat as if it was worth £92, we in our turn are to be allowed to perpetrate a similar financial swindle upon them when redeeming Crown rents.
There seems to be one remaining fatal objection to the scheme of the Committee. You have promised the landlords cash. I should have no objection whatever—and this is the reservation I alluded to a few minutes ago—to this offer of stock if I was perfectly certain that it would in no way act to the detriment of the man who stood out and insisted upon being paid in cash. If this option is to be permitted, it must be clearly laid down that the flow of cash into the office of the Estates Commissioners is to be in no way retarded. Without such a pledge, the inevitable result will be that you will be using the issue of this stock to save yourselves trouble in raising further gold. That would be a gross injustice to the landlords of Ireland. They have been promised cash, and they have a right to expect cash. I hope we shall have a definite pledge that, if some such scheme of options is to be tried, proper safeguards upon the lines I have sketched will be introduced. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further on the subject of this Report. There are many other points that I object to in it, and several other inaccuracies, but they are not, perhaps, germane to the subject immediately under discussion, and I will therefore pass very briefly to the second part of the question—that of staff.
Have the Estates Commissioners sufficient staff? Do they make full use of the staff that they now have? We all know that the Estates Commissioners are very active-minded people, and that they are interested in very many schemes for the betterment of Ireland. It is
776
clear, from the evidence given before Lord Dudley's Commission, that some of the Estates Commissioners have given a great deal of time and trouble to the working out of a scheme for an ideal Ireland which I am quite certain none of your Lordships will ever live to see. No one is to have more than £100 worth of land; everyone who wants it is to have £10 worth of land, and we are all to live happily ever afterwards. This has all been outside the province of the Estates Commissioners. Most people take a Saturday to Monday rest, and I can only say that I sincerely hope that it is in such times that this scheme has been worked out, and that the working of the Land Act has been in no way retarded by the expenditure of public time upon it. There is no doubt that a great deal of the time of the Estates Commissioners has been taken up in a way that nobody expected five years ago—namely, in the working of the Evicted Tenants. Act.
The evicted tenants question has been allowed to grow into a very much larger question than anybody ever anticipated. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India considered the question so small in 1893 that he thought it would be solved by a sum nearer £100,000 than £250,000. Mr. Davitt, in 1899, suggested that it was only a question of 1,000 tenants, and we know that in 1903 Mr. Dillon mentioned £100,000 as the sum necessary. Therefore it is obvious that in everybody's mind it was a very much smaller question than it has been allowed to grow into, and a great deal of the time of the Estates Commissioners has been taken up in this way. I not now going to argue against proper administration of that Question, but unless you wish it to continue a block on the proper carrying out of the purchase provisions of the Act, you should appoint another Commissioner especially for this purpose or vastly increase the present staff.
I pass from the question whether they have sufficient staff, because we have not enough information to enable us to answer that, and I ask the second question. Do they make full use of the staff they have? A short perusal of the regulations made by the Lord

777
Lieutenant on 15th March, 1906, containing instructions as to the inspection of estates shows, I think, quite conclusively that a great deal of the time of these inspectors, whom nobody in their senses would accuse of being idle men, is being wasted by unnecessary calls upon their attention to matters some of which have nothing whatever to do with the Commissioners. One of these regulations states that—
"The inspector is desired to report upon the character of any demesne and how it is used."
There are cases, of course, in which the landlord sells the demesne to the Estates Commissioners and buys it back, and in that case it is reasonable that the inspector should make a report upon it; but in the majority of cases the landlord retains the demesne for his own use. It is left out of the sale, and the Estates Commissioners have no power to enter into the demesne in any way whatever. Yet this provision applies to every sale, and the time of the inspectors is therefore wasted. In another paragraph the inspectors are called upon to—
"Describe any timber that may be growing on the estate and report on the sporting rights and value thereof, and advise the Commissioners how in his (the inspector's) opinion such timber and sporting rights should be dealt with."
The timber belongs to either the landlord or the tenant, and it is no business of the Commissioners what is done with it. Sporting rights in some cases are reserved to the Commission, but in very few. In the vast majority of cases they are either reserved to the landlord or transferred to the tenant. It is part of the bargain that takes place, and it is no concern whatever of the Estates Commissioners what happens to those sporting rights.
Again, in Paragraph 6 of the regulations there is this instruction—
"The inspector should also state whether he considers the agreed price inequitable."
Section 5 of the Act gives the Estates Commissioners power to make such inquiries when the price falls outside the zones, but inside the zones they have no concern with the price whatever. Yet this paragraph clearly applies to all cases. The report when made is valueless. No evidence is taken on oath,
778
the inquiries are entirely at haphazard, no notice is given to the parties, and there is no guarantee that landlord's and tenant's improvements will be properly apportioned, and therefore the time of the inspectors is being in this way also unnecessarily wasted. Form E at the end indicates that the inspectors really have to go through the whole process of what is known as fixing a judicial rent. Their report has to be quite as detailed and quite as important as in our old friend the Pink Schedule. This is not his business, nor the business of his chiefs, who are solely concerned with land purchase, and is waste of time, for in the majority of cases a judicial rent will already have been fixed by the Land Commission. The inspectors under the Land Commission are the most hardworking civil servants in Ireland, if not in the United Kingdom; but it seems to me that by the action of their chiefs their time is being wasted, and this waste of time is retarding the progress of the Act.
The position is really one of vastly increasing anxiety. Agreements are being signed more and more, but there is less money being distributed, and the whole policy of land purchase is being, retarded. The Act of 1903 was, I believe, one of the best measures ever passed for Ireland. It was designed to cut out the canker of dual ownership which had sunk deep down in the whole of Irish agricultural life, and it is only because there is a feeling of the very gravest anxiety prevailing on the subject that I have ventured to bring the question forward, in the hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to announce some real and urgent amelioration of the position in Ireland.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House papers respecting the provision and distribution of the funds required for the carrying out of the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
*LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I venture to rise before others speak on this question, because I am not going to deal with the points brought forward by my noble friend opposite from the landlords' point of view. I think he has dealt with that side of the question very

779
exhaustively. I am going to take the point of view of an Irishman living in Ireland, and desirous to go on living in comfort and peace in that country; and I will also deal with the subject from the tenants' point of view.
This is not the first time that I have called your Lordships' attention to the question of land purchase. Twenty-four years ago I tried to induce the Government to embark on a large scheme of purchase, and I cannot help thinking that, if some of the suggestions that were made by those who were working with me at that time had been adopted, we should have been able to carry through by now a much larger and more successful scheme of purchase than is the case. I have often endeavoured to point out that this is not really a landlords' and tenants' question alone. It is not a local question. It is a great Imperial question which can be settled only on Imperial lines, as has been the case in Prussia, in Schleswig-Holstein, partly in Hungary, and even in Russia. In these countries the question has been worked out to a very successful issue by an arrangement of land banks. If the policy of land settlement can be carried out successfully in those countries, it is surely possible in this country to carry out a similar policy, especially as in those countries the Treasury has not in any way suffered from any drain upon it. The whole system is carried out by the issue of land bonds to the proprietors.
We are always told in the course of these discussions that the great difficulty is the danger of some loss to the Treasury. I read the other day the reply given to Mr. William O'Brien in the House of Commons on this subject. It was most satisfactory. It was to the effect that in the payments now being made by the tenant purchasers there had been very little default. To show the magnitude of the question I might inform your Lordships that applications for advances for land purchase under the Irish Land Act, 1903, have been lodged up to 30th April last for £60,890,000, representing 6,482 estates. About one-third of that number, representing a sum of about £23,000,000, have been paid to vendors or lodged in the Bank of Ireland pending ascertainment of incumbrances,
780
etc. Since April, a further number of estates have been lodged, and the purchase money of applications undisposed of amounts to about £42,000,000. Against this there will be about £4,500,000 available for purchase money out of the recent issue of stock. The amount, therefore, of pending cases will still amount to very nearly £40,000,000 before November.
My noble friend opposite, speaking from the landlords' point of view, said the present state of things constituted a very great hardship. I think the hardship is very much greater in many cases on the tenant purchasers, owing to the postponement of the period when they commence to pay off the sinking fund. The great difficulty at present in Ireland is the feeling of uncertainty and the sense of unrest which now permeate the whole country. This state of feeling is unnecessary, in my opinion, because it could be dealt with in the way I have suggested. It is not a question only for Treasury brains to consider how we can get out of this impasse. Neither is it a question of losing money on the Development Grant, which we are doing every year, or of paying out of the local rates. It is a question for the whole country. The ultimate security which is pledged is the credit of England, Ireland, and Scotland.
I believe I am speaking for a large I number of Irishmen when I say that we should be perfectly prepared, if it was found necessary, to pay from our local I rates if there is a default under the present system. But we would only pay if we found that there was continuity in the purchase policy, and if the scheme as outlined in 1903 was carried out rapidly and vigorously. But we should certainly be entitled to ask that the money we may have to pay should not be frittered away because the Treasury chooses to make issues at a lower rate than is necessary. I am credibly informed that j the Treasury could obtain all the money they want if they would take the advice of some of the big financiers in the city. Yet we are always told it is impossible to do this because we must carry on the old strict Treasury plan. Nearly every other country in the world is working on other lines in carrying on land purchase, and

781
they are doing so in a fair and equitable manner and with rapidity. They have adopted progressive methods, and absolutely sound methods also. Therefore I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to examine this question exhaustively. I think it would be advisable, however, to go slowly, but four million or five million pounds a year is too slow a rate.
To show how serious the condition of the country is, owing to the difficulty in carrying out land purchase, I would like to give your Lordships three illustrations. But let me explain before quoting those examples that the reason for the difference in the three districts is that in some parts the Act has worked quickly, in others slowly, and in others in a faulty way. After the passage of the 1903 Act, men waited to see how it would work, and, as we know, it worked well and rapidly for a certain time. Now they are beginning to see that the promises then made are being either forgotten or misconstrued, and there is a feeling of uncertainty.
In the three cases which I shall quote, your Lordships will see how clear this feeling comes out. In Wexford nearly seven-eighths of the county have been sold, and there the men are working quietly at their agricultural work, a certain number of the smaller towns are becoming very full of industrial progress, and there is a general feeling of security throughout the whole district. Then I come to another district—the county of Cork. In Cork five or six very large parishes have been sold. The result is that those districts are quieter, so I am informed by the parish priests, than they have ever been before, and the people are more contented. One of the parish priests said to me—
"We can now turn our attention from other matters, and work together for industrial progress and social development."
Then I come to the third district, which is a peculiar one, and shows, I think, very clearly the difficulty we have to deal with. In a district in Leinster a very large portion of the land has been sold to the tenant purchasers. It is an agricultural district where there are some large grazing ranches. These were agreed to be sold to the Estates Commissioners
782
two or three years ago, but, unluckily, the money ran short and the negotiations fell through. The result is that, though the tenant purchasers are remaining perfectly quiet, all the rest of the district is in a state of very serious turmoil, and simply because the agreements arranged with the Estates Commissioners cannot be carried forward for want of money.
To show your Lordships how serious the state of affairs in this district is, I would quote from a sermon delivered by the Catholic Bishop of Ossory to his parishioners. He said—
"He did not learn until a few days ago that a considerable share of commotion and disturbance had arisen in the parish of Rathdowney. He did not know what led to that commotion and disturbance; he could not speak on it, and did not like to venture to offer any opinion. He would not, therefore, go into the question, nor would he attempt to apportion the blame either on the one side or the other. He regretted it very much, as up to this the quiet and peaceful inhabitants of the parish lived in perfect concord not only with those of their own religion, but those who differed from them in religion. He regretted exceedingly that anything should crop up to precipitate those good feelings and kindly relations. He hoped that on both sides there would be reasonable forbearance, and that nothing would be done to create angry feelings that might develop into something worse. He called upon all sides—at least he had a right to call upon his own people—to exercise great self-control, and to exercise a considerable degree of patience; to restrain those that would be prompted to do rash and foolish acts."
Those words show how seriously the Bishop of Ossory regarded the state of affairs in that district. They also show how anxious the clergy are to prevent a recurrence of such acts. But they are unable to do so if the settlement of the land question in those particular districts is not proceeded with, and that cannot be done unless the money is forth coming with which to do it. That is a very simple answer to the whole problem.
The people who suffer most are not the landlords of Ireland. A great number of the landlords are able to look after themselves. Those who suffer are the poorer people—the farmers who have purchased and those who are about to purchase. I should like to make clear these points, that is—how the farmers and the general public suffer owing to the delay from land purchase. I will take three examples as explaining my meaning. First, the county and district of Wexford

783
where upwards of seven-eighths of the land has been sold to the farmers. Secondly, the district in Cork, in which between seven or eight parishes have been sold under the Land Purchase Acts. Thirdly, the district in Queen's County, where a large section of the land has been sold, but where there are a few unsold farms held by large grazing tenants. Now, in Wexford, where the land has been mainly sold to the people, there is no disturbance, no extra police, and therefore no strain on the resources of the people. Why is this? Simply because the land has been sold and the people are working at industries, social improvements, and other matters connected with their daily life. In the county of Cork the same state of affairs obtains, and one of the most eminent priests in that district informed me he had never known the country so peaceful, and, as ho put it, "everyone is busy looking after their own affairs and the social amelioration of the country." Why is that? Simply because, as I say, the land has been sold, and the people's minds are at rest on this subject. Take the third district I have quoted. There are those who might say: "Why is this district disturbed when so much has been sold?" The reason is a very simple one. A large portion within the district was in the shape of grazing ranches. The owner or the owners of these farms had agreed to sell to the Commissioners, but at the last moment it was found that no money was forthcoming, and the result was that the agreements could not be carried out. Since then there has been nothing but tumult and serious rioting, and even the bishop of the diocese hag been obliged to intervene and urge the people to be patient, and not to continue these demonstrations and riotous proceedings. A very heavy police tax has been incurred in that district, which will rest mainly on the shoulders of those farmers who had already bought their holdings. This, to my mind, is a most unjust and improper state of affairs. The districts in which these disturbances take place are flooded with police. Very high rates are placed on those districts in consequence, and the result is that the poorer classes are mulcted very heavily in respect of a state of things which is really no fault of theirs. Owing to the fact that the Purchase Act is not working as fast as it should—I do not say that that
784
is altogether the fault of the Government—this heavy taxation is unfairly and improperly placed on the people. Speaking on the subject of compensation in cases of cattle-driving, Lord Chief Justice O'Brien said—
"I would suggest to the Government that something should be done. A respectable farmer appealed to me that I should not levy compensation off his district. It is an anomaly that respectable farmers should be burdened because of the action of wrong-doers."
The remarks of Lord Chief Justice O'Brien apply to the whole of the country, and I am convinced that if the Government, or rather I should say the Treasury, would take the trouble to find out, without any loss to themselves, how the future of the Land Purchase Act could be financed, the turmoil which at present exists would speedily die out, and that if land purchase could go on as it ought to, smoothly and quietly, I believe the country would settle down rapidly to a normal condition.
The promises that were made in the Act of 1903 must be fulfilled, and I would appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of your Lordships' House to try and find some way—I am perfectly certain it can be done—in which the system of land purchase can be accelerated and the Act of 1903 made to work more quickly. I do not ask—and I think noble Lords opposite would be very unwise to ask—for very much larger sums of money to be expended. I think the Act should move gradually and slowly. It has been found in other countries far better that the instalments should be paid, not at one time from a whole section of the country, but that one district should pay the instalments at one period of the year and another district at another period. It is wiser to work on those lines. I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to find a way to accelerate the system of land purchase, and thereby assist us in Ireland to turn our attention to industrial and social questions.
*LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, as was mentioned by my noble friend on the front bench, I brought much the same matter before the House last year, and endeavoured to point out the exceedingly uncomfortable and serious position in

785
which both tenants and landlords were placed by the delay in administering the Land Purchase Act. I quite agree with my noble friend opposite, Lord Castletown, that this is a serious matter also for the tenants, for they are now paying a considerably higher percentage on the purchase money than their purchase instalments will be eventually. Therefore, it is very hard for them. It is also exceedingly hard for the landlords, who have to meet fixed Government charges, charges on mortgages, and various encumbrances, and to pay high interest while they are receiving only a small amount of interest on the purchase money; and they are unable to pay off those charges, as they naturally would do immediately were they in receipt of cash.
I and the other noble Lords who followed me on that occasion went into what we believed to be the causes of the delay. I do not think I need recapitulate them now. The noble Earl has mentioned most of them. Insufficiency of staff is one, and that Lord Donoughmore has put before your Lordships very clearly. With regard to want of organisation of the staff, of course, this is a matter of which no one can speak positively, except someone thoroughly familiar with the inner working of the office. We can only hope that if any want of organisation existed last year, it has been since remedied, but, whatever has been done, the pace at which the Act has been administered has not only not improved, but is now slower even than it was before, and materially slower than it was in the period immediately following the passing of the Act. We must attribute that, perhaps, to the causes I have mentioned, but the delay has been in some degree due to the instructions which have been issued to the inspectors.
My noble friend went so fully into that matter that I need mention only one point, but it is one which, I think, tends materially to protract negotiations. I mean the instructions given to the inspectors with reference to non-judicial holdings and grass lands. In the case of non-judicial holdings, they are, told to estimate what the fair rent is. If a man has been paying the same tent contentedly for twenty-seven years and
786
has never taken advantage of the Land Court to get a fair rent fixed, one may certainly assume that his rent, in his opinion, is not an excessive one, and his opinion ought to be worth a great deal more than that of an inspector who goes down and sees the farm for a day or two. The same with grass lands. In the case of a grass farm, more especially a non-residential grass farm, the tenant would not hold it and pay the rent he docs now unless he thought it worth the money, and that rent ought to be taken as a fair measure of the landlord's interest.
But the inspectors are not only told to estimate what a fair rent is. They are further hampered by the conditions that are imposed. They are to consider what possible changes, economic or otherwise, might take place within the next sixty-eight years to reduce the value of the land to the purchaser. It is impossible to conceive how anyone can do that, but it certainly would have the effect of making the inspector very cautious and inducing him to fix a low price for fear it might turn out in after years that he had made a mistake. Again, he has to take into account what the value of the land may be to the Estates Commissioners after the purchase has been completed, what they had better do with it, and whether there are a sufficient number of suitable individuals in the neighbourhood who will buy that land at the price he has fixed. The landlord naturally thinks that the net income which he receives capitalised represents his interest in the holding, and that that is what he ought to receive, irrespective of what might happen fifty years or so hence or what the Estates Commissioners may elect to do with the land. Their intention probably is to divide it among the people in the neighbourhood, in the hope that they will till it and treat it after the most approved methods of husbandry, but this has often turned out a vain hope. I have heard of cases where the purchaser has immediately proceeded thither to meadow the land, and sell the hay off it, or let it to a grazier. This has gone so far that I have heard it said that the result of the Act is that the grazier has ten landlords instead of one. The intention, no doubt, is that the inspector should value it according to what it would be

787
worth when tilled. The land is often better suited for pasture than for tillage, and therefore the price fixed upon it is less than the value which, as prime pasture land, it holds in its present state. It may then be said that the landlord has only to refuse to sell the farm; but the Estates Commissioners can virtually exercise compulsion. They can refuse to consider the whole of his property an estate unless he throws in land of this description to them and at their price. Therefore it comes to this, that after a long struggle, either the whole thing falls through, or else the landlord is finally driven to part with his land at an inadequate price fixed at the mere caprice of an inspector, without hearing sworn evidence and without any appeal against his decision.
There are other points calculated materially to retard the carrying out of the provisions of the Act. When I brought this matter before your Lordships' House last year, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated that the Government were fully aware of the very serious difficulty, and would do their utmost to endeavour to meet it. We can only express the same hope that they will do so now. Various solutions have been put forward. My noble friend has mentioned one taken from the Report of the Departmental Committee. There is another known as Lord Kenmare's or Sir Alexander Henderson s scheme. I do not press the Government to give any opinion upon that scheme to-night. I mention it simply because it has been so very much before the public, and I wish to dispel the idea that it is advocated, as things stand at present, by any large number of landlords. It has never yet been brought before the Landowners' Convention, the only body which can speak for the landlords of Ireland, and, therefore, we cannot express an opinion on the subject. But, as Chairman of the Executive Committee of that Convention, I wish clearly to state—without expressing any opinion upon the scheme—that it cannot be held, as yet, to have the unqualified support of any great number of Irish landlords.
*LORD DENMAN: My Lords, before I plunge into the rather intricate subject
788
we are debating this afternoon I should like, first of all, to thank the noble Earl opposite and his colleagues for consenting to postpone the debate until this evening. We should not have asked him to postpone it without adequate reason, but we are much beholden to him for doing so. All the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have called attention to the delay in the working of the Laud Purchase Act of 1903, and all who have spoken on the question do so with no little authority and with very considerable knowledge of the subject. I think I am right in saying that they have all had long experience of these debates. I remember when the Land Act of 1903 was before this House, and when the noble Earl opposite. Lord Donoughmore, and his friends came over in great strength from Ireland and wrung important concessions, I think I am right in saying more than once, in the division lobby from the late Government, which was then led in this House by the late Duke of Devonshire; and for that achievement I must say I have respected him ever since.
In those days I never dreamed that I should be implicated in these debates, and I did not follow the subject with any very close attention. But I remember that in those days the prevailing spirit of the debate was one of optimism. To-day, I regret to have to say it, the tone of the debate has been one of pessimism. The noble Earl opposite will say, of course, that that is the fault of the Government. The noble Earl, if I may say so quite respectfully, is a good party man. It is his duty to criticise what the Government does, and I am bound to say that he performs his duty very thoroughly and well. But I am bound completely to differ from him on this particular point. The Government are not to blame for what has occurred in regard to the working of the Irish Land Act. The whole root of the matter is that the financial provisions of the Land Act of 1903 were unsound, and that has caused all our present difficulties. You may say it was impossible for Mr. Wyndham or for anybody else to foresee that Government stock and gilt-edged securities would have fallen as they have fallen in the past year. Mr. Wyndham estimated that the average price he would obtain

789
for the issue of his Land Stock was 95, but you cannot get over the fact that the very first issue which Mr. Wyndham or his Government made was at the price of 87; and from that day to this it must be perfectly obvious to anybody who studied carefully the financial provisions of the Act that sooner or later a deadlock must be arrived at.
It is not correct to say, although there is a general impression, I believe, in the country to that effect, that the Act so far has failed. That is not the case. Up till a short time ago when we went to the City for a new issue of stock, we had issued something over £28,000,000 in stock, realising £25,000,000 in cash; and when you tome to think that at the end of the present financial year we shall have paid off rather more than £40,000,000 of debt and have remitted taxation, and in something over four years have made these enormous cash payments of about £25,000,000 as well, I think that is no small financial achievement for this country to have performed.
The noble Earl has dealt in some detail with the administration of the Act, and I am bound to say that, somehow or other, he has contrived to get hold of rather extraordinary notions as to how the Act has been worked during the past twelve months. One of his questions, I think, was why are you going slower this year than you have done in previous years? The answer to that, roughly speaking, is that we are not going slower than we promised to go; we have maintained a steady rate of something like £5,000,000 a year. It has been going on for the past few years. The actual sum during the year ended 31st March, 1908, was £4,950,000. That is very little short of £5,000,000, the rate at which I stated last year advances would be made. I am afraid there is an impression in Ireland that the Estates Commissioners are rather neglecting the interests of the direct sales and are devoting more time and more money to the sales under Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Land Act.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There is that impression.
*LORD DENMAN: Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to give a few
790
figures on this point. In the year ended 31st March, 1906, the amount paid out with regard to direct sales was £3,888,000 odd. That really was a time for which the present Government although they were in office, were not responsible. It was for bargains that were filed in the Estates Commissioners' office during the previous autumn and summer. For practical purposes I will take that as the last year of the administration of the Act under the lute Government, when Mr. Walter Long was Chief Secretary. Now I come to the year ended 31st March, 1907. The sum in respect of direct sales paid out in that year was £4,300,000 approximately, and last year it was £3,988,000. Therefore it will be seen that we have kept up a steady rate of payment in direct sales, at a rather higher rate than in the last year for which the late Government were responsible. In the year up to the end of March, 1906, the percentage was 77·5 of direct sales; in the next year ended March, 1907, the percentage of direct sales was 83·9, and in the last year ended March, 1908, the percentage was 84·5 per cent, of direct sales. I hope the figures I have given your I Lordships will meet that point.
Then I think the noble Earl raised the question of inspectors. He seemed to be under the impression that there were not sufficient inspectors to deal with the cases of direct sales, but their number has been increased from ten in December, 1905, to fifteen in June, 1907; and with regard to the point that, I think, was made, that the Estates Commissioners hive been paying too much attention to the question of evicted tenants at the expense of other classes of sales, I can only say that a considerable number—I have not the actual figure here—of inspectors are being especially employed for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants Act, and are not allowed to interfere in any way with the working of the provisions of the Land Act of 1903. Also I am informed that the noble Earl is not correct when he says that under their instructions the inspectors have to inquire into demesnes not being sold, or into sporting rights not being sold, or that they have to fix fair rents where not already fixed.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I said they went through the process of fixing fair rents.
*LORD DENMAN: Then I will not press that point. On the other two I am told that the statement of the noble Earl is not correct.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Has there been an amendment of the instructions to the inspectors?
*LORD DENMAN: So far as I know, there has not. I should have thought that the mere fact that we had recently gone to the City to raise a loan of £5,000,000 for the purposes of the Act would have been evidence that the purchase provisions will certainly not be delayed. My noble friend behind me touched on the point of the raising of that loan, and that was also referred to on Monday in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. We have been criticised for issuing the loan at so low a figure. I can only say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the best expert financial advice it was possible for him to get, and that that advice, taken separately from different sources, was unanimously to the effect that the figure at which the loan was issued was the proper figure. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, with, I may say, a rather fine disregard of the advice of the expert financiers, said that he always was in the habit of issuing stock at a ½ per cent.——
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I said I considered that their advice was apt to be over cautious, and that I was in the habit of asking something more than they had recommended me to ask; but I did not say as much as ½ per cent.
*LORD DENMAN: Possibly when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the great experience that the noble Viscount has had in the matter of raising loans, he will be able to follow the noble Viscount's example in that matter. As it was, I submit that he could not do more than take the best financial advice the Government could obtain and act upon it. Then the noble Earl desired information as to the pace at which we were going
792
forward in finding advances for the purposes of the statute. In answer to that I may say that it will certainly be not less than the £5,000,000, unless some entirely untoward event should occur; and I may mention that the Treasury are now considering whether they can sanction some increase in the staff, which, of course, would entail a corresponding increase in the amount of advances made.
I will turn from the administration of the Act to the difficulties ahead. The noble Earl has alluded to the block of some £40,000,000—it is well over £40,000,000, I regret to say, at present—waiting in the office of the Estates Commissioners. That, of course, is a most undesirable state of things. The next difficulty is the question of excess stock. I dealt very fully with that point last year, and I do not wish to repeat what I then said. Of course, it is a very important point how long the Development Grant will last, and how long it will be before the Irish ratepayers are called upon to meet the charge on the excess stock. Then there is the question, which the noble Earl touched upon, of the revision of the bonus, and the point mentioned in the Report of the Departmental Committee, whether or not the bonus eventually may not have to be decreased. That is, of course, rather a question for the future. The immediate difficulty which concerns us is the question of excess stock, and that is a matter to which I think the noble Earl opposite did not pay much attention.
Schemes have been brought forward recently in various quarters for removing this difficulty, amongst others. For myself, I am rather glad to know that, because last year when I suggested that members of the party opposite might be good enough to make suggestions on the matter, I was met with a certain amount of good-humoured ridicule. I am glad to see that certain schemes have now been put forward, and naturally the Government welcome such schemes, because, at any rate, they show that people are alive to the difficulties with which we are faced, and are making an honest attempt to grapple with them. A scheme has been put forward, I understand, by the Nationalist Members of Parliament, but, perhaps, it would be

793
rather outside my province to deal with that. Then there is the scheme put forward by a Member of this House, to which Lord Clonbrock alluded, and which is known as Lord Kenmare's scheme. The noble Lord was good enough to give me a rough draft of the scheme, but it was only a rather short memorandum. The Treasury are not able to give any definite answer——
*LORD CLONBROCK: I did not ask for one.
LORD DENMAN: Nor can I make any definite pronouncement on that point. I may, perhaps, say, however that though it is possible it might afford a solution, I am told that if there were say, depreciation of securities all round in time of war or in time of panic, or untoward events of that sort, a considerable loss would be involved under this scheme, and that then the Irish ratepayer or the British taxpayer would have to suffer. I do not know if any Member of the House is conversant with the details of that scheme. If so, we should be very glad to hear any observations on that point.
Then the noble Earl asks what we are going to do in the future. That is, of course, a very grave and serious matter. It is at the present time being discussed by the Treasury and by the Government of Ireland, but no definite conclusion has yet been arrived at. I would ask the House to bear in mind the fact that while the Land Act of 1903 was really a bargain, there were four parties to it—the landlord, the tenant, the British taxpayer, and the Irish ratepayer. All these parties have so far kept to their bargain, and it is obvious that if one party to the bargain disclaims his share, then a very serious situation must arise. I was interested to hear from my noble friend behind me that, in his opinion, he thought the Irish ratepayer was prepared to meet a charge for excess stock——
*LORD CASTLETOWN: If continuity of land purchase and sale were kept up.
*LORD DENMAN: I believe that the Government have carefully considered the question of whether or not it would be
794
practicable to come upon the ratepayer of Ireland to meet this charge of excess stock, and I understand, that they do not think it would be possible that any considerable sum should be taken out of the Irish rates. Therefore, in a large degree that eliminates from the bargain the Irish ratepayer. Then I come to the British taxpayer. The British taxpayer provides a bonus up to £12,000,000; he pays about £130,000 a year to provide the working expenses of the Act, and he is likely to have to pay that for a very long time to come. This charge is almost certain to increase rather than to diminish. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl contend that the British taxpayer had not kept to his part of the bargain. I understood that to be the contention of the noble Earl.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not think I put it quite so high as that. My point was that the British taxpayer will not carry out his bargain unless he produces this money.
*LORD DENMAN: But the British taxpayer is continuing to provide this money. I speak as a British taxpayer.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to speak as an Irish taxpayer, and to say—[The noble Earl was greeted with cries of "Order," and resumed his seat.]
*LORD DENMAN: I must say it does seem to me, when the British taxpayer goes on year after year cheerfully paying this money, that to imply that he is not keeping his part of the bargain savours rather of ingratitude on the part of noble Lords from Ireland. With regard to the taxpayer, the question the Government have to consider is this, whether they are prepared to ask the British taxpayer for a further contribution, and the answer to that, I understand, is that they are not prepared to do so. Then if you eliminate the ratepayer and the taxpayer, there are the landlord and the tenant left, and it is perfectly evident there will have to be a readjustment of the existing terms of the contract so far as these two parties to the bargain are concerned; and I think it is equally evident that what arrangement is come

795
to must be come to by agreement. It is obvious that if either the landlords or the tenants refuse to take advantage of the provisions of the Act, the efficiency of the Act must be very seriously impaired. It had been in my mind to revert to a suggestion made in the Report of the Departmental Committee, that in certain circumstances landlords should be induced, if it were possible, to take stock in lieu of cash; but any observations on that suggestion were rather ruled out beforehand by what was said by the noble Earl opposite, that he could not conceive any man in his senses accepting it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I said stock with a limit of ninety-two.
*LORD DENMAN: I will not dwell further on that point. I may be told that what I have said in this debate is not satisfactory to the landlord party, and equally the Government may be told that it is not regarded with much satisfaction in other quarters; but I ask the House to remember that this is not the only sum that we are likely to be asked for, on behalf of Ireland, and that within a short time. The Irish Universities Bill will entail a considerable amount of expenditure, and if, as is possible, the Government adopt any of the suggestions of the Commission presided over by Lord Dudley, to inquire into the question of congested districts and so forth, that again must cost another large sum. Therefore, speaking on behalf of the British taxpayer, I have to say emphatically and decidedly that the Government are of opinion that he cannot be expected to undertake any further burden than that which the Act already imposes upon him.
It is very easy to say that this is merely a question of money. It is easy to say: Are you going to risk the success of the Irish Land Act for a mere question of money; and, as has been said, I think, outside the House: Are you going to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar? I have noticed that people generally, speaking on this question of the Land Act, treat large sums of money in a light and airy way. The sums are so enormous that one comes to speak of millions and half millions as things
796
of no account at all. People say, Surely you do not mean to imperil the working of this Act for a beggarly quarter of a million a year? or something of that kind. The Government have to consider where this is to end. If we go on finding further sums, how do we know that we shall not be asked for still further sums, or that we may not be involving our successors, it may be generations ahead, in similar financial difficulties to these which we are discussing to-day?
It is easy to say that this is merely a question of staff and of money, but nearly everything in this world, when you come to look at it, is a question of money. Almost every problem in the political arena to-day is a question of money. Take education, licensing, small holdings, any question you like to mention—if you had unlimited money, you could probably find an easy solution to any of them. But what we want to know is how we are to surmount the difficulty which confronts us at present with the means at our disposal. That is all I have to say. In conclusion I would only add that, although, perhaps, I have dealt, very inadequately with many of the points raised in this debate, I hope I have said enough to show that the Government are keenly alive to the magnitude and the importance of this question, and that they will give their earnest attention to any scheme, preferably within the limitations I have outlined, for a solution of this very grave and serious problem.
*THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, into the question of the actual working of the Estates Commissioners' Office I do not propose to go. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore has already spoken sufficiently about that. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that there is a great and unnecessary waste, both of time and money in that office, through examining into many matters of detail in connection with which examination is not necessary. To quote my personal experience, I sold my demesne and obtained an advance upon it, but a great delay took place in getting the advance because the security was too good. They objected to make the advance until they had surveyed and mapped off sufficient of the land as was

797
Considered adequate security for the money advanced. I do not blame the Estates Commissioners for that I think they were obliged to do it in accordance with some legal requirement. But this transaction caused a delay of some two or three months.
I think it is admitted that the root of the problem is the want of money. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore told your Lordships an anecdote to the effect that an official in the office of the Estates Commissioners was challenged to point out a case where the estate was ready for the money and the money was not forth coming. I dare say that might be so, but it strikes me very forcibly that it may also be the case that the estate is never allowed to be ready until the money is there to be paid, which is quite another thing. It does not appear to me that there ought to be an insuperable difficulty in obtaining the funds necessary to finance the Act, at any rate better than it has been financed.
The issue of £5,000,000 of stock made a few days ago has been mentioned. It obviously was issued at too low a price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed it, no doubt, at the price he was advised to fix it at, but as a matter of fact, it was issued too cheaply. If the financial papers may be relied upon, you were offered, not the £5,000,000 you required, but the sum of £175,000,000, which is enough to buy the whole of Ireland and a great many English counties as well. The amount that was deposited amounted to £8,000,000, £3,000,000, more than you required. It is obvious that there would not have been the slightest difficulty in raisin." £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 on terms much less favourable to the Stock Exchange. It is mentioned in the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission that the Commissioners could use £10,000,000 a year, arid Mr. Commissioner Finucane placed the figure at £15,000,000 a year. I should like to see instructions issued to the Estates Commissioners that they could have £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 this year and another £10,000,000 in the following year, and that they were to proceed as quickly as they could. I am sure that would result in a great acceleration of business. I believe that if the Estate Commissioners were properly
798
staffed and knew they could have the money when it was wanted, the business would go through much faster.
What really is the situation? A little while ago £40,000,000 were required to satisfy pending agreements. I suppose it is more now. That is to say, the State is in arrears to the amount of £40,000,000. We are all pretty well accustomed to arrears in Ireland, and I think that question has been dealt with in almost every Land Rill. I am all in favour of Governments and Government Departments identifying themselves as much as they can with Irish manners and customs; but I do protest against their following them so far as to incur this largo amount of arrears, reaching to over £40,000,000.
It is, I think, agreed by everybody that the pending agreements must be satisfied on the terms on which the agreements were made. That is one part of the question. Besides that, there will be another £60,000,000 or so required for the future. I do not myself at all agree to the last estimate of the total amount required—£170,000,000. We will assume that £40,000,000 are required to satisfy existing agreements, and that another £60,000,000 will be required in the future. We have nothing to go upon except the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been alluded to—a Report which is absolutely inadequate, and which, of necessity, had to be inadequate considering that the terms of the reference were that no further demand was to be made on the Exchequer. It was, therefore, impossible for the Departmental Committee to make any suggestions of a practical value. The one important thing in that Report was that the Committee assumed—and it must be remembered that it was presided over by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—that the National Debt Commissioners would be able to find cash at the rate of £4,000,000 a year. That is a very important admission, because upon that fact a great deal may possibly be founded.
A great many suggestions have been made by the Committee of the Irish Parliamentary Party, by the Landlords Convention, and by various private individuals, myself among them; put

799
into those matters I do not propose to go. No doubt His Majesty's Government will consider all those suggestions and proposals. My noble friend opposite, Lord Denman, has said that the financial provisions of the Act of 1903 are faulty. That, I suppose, means that they will have to be amended, and that some day or other an amending Bill will be brought in to deal with those matters. If that is so, I hope it will be brought in without any possible delay. I think there is a good deal that requires amendment in that Act. I would like to point out one or two matters which I hope will not be included in the amending Bill, and one or two which I hope will be included. In the first place I disagree with my noble friend Lord Castletown, and sincerely hope that losses on flotation will not be put as a charge against the rates in Ireland. Your Lordships will remember that in the Act which created county councils those authorities were restricted in the rate they could levy. They cannot levy a rate more than, I think it is 10 percent. above the average rate of the five years preceding the Act creating them. If you are going to put these losses upon them, what are they to do? You are going to compel them to raise an illegal rate. I should be very sorry to be the chairman or a member of the finance committee of a county council which did anything of that kind, because they would all be liable to surcharge. I do not think that point need be laboured. I think it is almost universally agreed that it would be absolutely absurd to place these losses of flotation on the rates. You would be simply making bankrupts of the county councils, and ruining the very men who had purchased under the Act and on whom you depend for the punctual payment of the annuities.
There is another thing that should not be done. There cannot by any possibility, I hope, be any suggestion for making any change in the annuity rate. The purchasing tenants pay interest at 2¾ per cent, and ½ per cent, sinking fund—3¼ in all. To my mind it would be absolutely fatal to bring in any legislation that would compel a change in the rate of annuity. I should be very sorry also to see any change made in the period for the liquidation of the loan, but I admit that an extension of the
800
period would not be such an important and formidable matter as a change in the annuity rate. In the course of a few years you would have one set of men paying 3¼ and another set paying 3⅝ per cent., and nothing would possibly satisfy them that they were being fairly treated.
Again, there ought to be no possible suspension of the Act. These forty millions of arrears have to be dealt with first, of course; but if legislation is brought in for amending the financial provisions of the Act I sincerely hope it will be brought in without any great delay in order that the whole process and sale and purchase may go on continuously. It would be a fatal thing if there was an absolute break, and if the Act was suspended for a certain time. I trust that the main principles that were agreed to at the Land Conference will be maintained. One of the most important of those was that cash should be made the basis, and I sincerely hope that cash may continue to be the basis. It is quite possible that some further high-class desirable securities such as Government promissory notes, redeemable at short periods, stand so high that they would never vary; but any stock that is liable to fluctuation would, to my mind, be absolutely fatal. It would load to a continual wrangle between landlord and tenant as to the price. As it is, a sort of general price has been fixed and is recognised. If you give stock which varies at all considerably, it is obvious that the landlord would ask more years purchase when the stock was low, and would be justified in doing so; and if it was high the tenant would want fewer years purchase, and would be justified in his demand also.
I find it exceedingly difficult to understand the great reluctance that there is to call this Guaranteed Land Stock what it really is—Consols. The only real difference between Guaranteed Land Stock and Consols is that these Irish grants in aid of local taxation as security stand before the Consolidated Fund, but I think all parties are agreed that the losses on flotation ought not to fall upon the rates; that security ought to be taken out, and if it is taken out there is no difference at all. Consols are

801
National Debt and Guaranteed Land Stock is not called National Debt; but the security in both cases is the same. The difference is merely nominal, the sort of difference that would exist if one of your Lordships put his name at the bottom of a bill or at the back of it. The liability is the same. It is a distinction without a difference. But there is this enormous difference to Ireland, that owing to its being called Guaranteed Land Stock it always has been, and I suppose always will be, at least eight or nine points below its true value. If Consols stand at 100, this stock ought to be 110. To put the matter at the very worst, supposing money cannot be obtained on any better terms than it has been obtained in the past, it is calculated that the loss on flotation would be £700,000 a year.
I quite agree with Lord Denman that it is all very fine talking in an airy way about millions. The sum of £700,000 is a good deal. On the other side, it has to be remembered that Ireland did not get a proper equivalent grant under the Education Act of 1902. She is owed £400,000 a year, and that has been running for several years. That is a matter that surely ought to be considered. And it must not be forgotten that, whenever this transfer of land is completed, you will save the Land Commission and the Land Judges Court—about another £400,000 a year. Then the Council Bill did not go through, and the Treasury was saved £650,000 a year. That makes, altogether, about £1,500,000, against the £700,000 a year which would be the most that would have to be found if the whole cost of the losses on flotation were satisfied by the taxpayer.
Moreover, we have been paying off the National Debt at a marvellous rate—a very good thing to do. We have paid off £40,000,000 in the last three years. I am not quite certain myself that this is the soundest kind of finance if at the same time we are not satisfying our current commitments. I know what it would be in the case of a private individual. If I were to lay by money to pay my grandfather's debts it would be wise; but if, at the same time, I refused on that ground to pay my
802
tradesmen's current bills, I have no doubt the Courts would say my methods of finance were faulty. I do not think it is sound to pay off the National Debt in that way and not to find the money winch I submit Parliament is in equity bound to find to finance the Act of 1903. It would be almost insulting to Parliament, and to the whole system of constitutional government, not to admit that, in passing a great Act like that of 1903, Parliament practically bound itself to make that Act operative. It was a very unusual Act and was based upon unusual circumstances. First came the Land Conference of 1901, in which the two parties came to an agreement as to fair means and methods whereby the odious system of dual ownership should be done away with. That treaty was ratified by every public body in Ireland, practically by the whole Irish people. Upon that treaty the Act of 1903 was founded, and that Act passed through both Houses of Parliament with the acclamation of all parties. It is unusual that such an agreement as that should be the foundation of an Act of Parliament, and I do not think it can be argued that in passing an Act of that kind for the definite purpose of putting an end to dual ownership in Ireland and giving peace to the country, Parliament did not bind itself to see that it should be carried out.
I maintain that the landlords and the tenants have fulfilled their part of the contract, and, unless sufficient money is found to finance the Act, the State will not be fulfilling its part of the contract. What I ant afraid of is that the Government have not realised the gravity of the situation and do not understand how serious would be the disaster were the Act to become a failure. The success of the Act depends upon the punctual payment of annuities. Annuities have been paid with marvellous punctuality. Are you setting the people a good example? They must pay their annuities in good times and bad times, under any circumstances. That is their part of the bargain, and they fulfil it. It is not wise of the State to say "we will not fulfil our part of the contract, not because it is impossible—that is absurd; but simply because it is inconvenient." Hopes have been raised among the Irish people that it

803
would be cruel and unwise to disappoint. There are many lamentable. incidents in the history of Ireland, but it would not be easy to find any incident more lamentable than this great and beneficient Act of appeasement and content should be allowed, for the sake of a little money, to become an element of discord instead of an element of peace.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure I shall not be contradicted when I say that the noble Earl behind me had every right to bring before Parliament the present congested state of affairs with regard to the purchase provisions of the Act of 1903. With my noble friend Lord Dunraven, I would urge His Majesty's Government to make a serious attempt to realise how important the situation in Ireland is, as well as the great inconvenience and discomfort which prevail among all the classes who are in any way associated with the administration of the Act, owing to the present block in the Land Commission Court.
Lord Denman informed us that the Government were fully aware of this, and were giving the matter their best attention. But, as a matter of fact, this congested state of the land purchase business is not new. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock called attention to it last year, though the position now is much worse than it was then. Noble Lords opposite assured us at that time that they would give the matter their best consideration, but the accumulations have increased from £33,000,000 last year to £41,500,000 at the present time, while £40,000,000 have been applied for during the year, and only £5,000,000 have been distributed. There is, therefore, a material increase in the block, and unless something is done we may anticipate a still greater increase as years go on.
It is well that we should consider what is the reason of this very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think it may be said, with perfect truth, that the great Act of 1903 has exceeded the expectations of the most sanguine; but if it is to be eventually and thoroughly successful, it can only be through the policy being cordially taken up by the people and through its satisfactory administration.
804
What is the reason of the congestion? I understand that no fault can be found with the Treasury. The Treasury have, it is said, advanced money whenever application has been made. To a certain extent, the block is due to the delay caused by the proving of titles, though I am informed that even where the title has been cleared the money has not been forthcoming, because the inspection of the land has not been carried out.
I would press His Majesty's Government to say why the cost of proving title has been increased by the regulations of the Commissioners. If His Majesty's Government will look at the Act of 1903, Section 24, subsection (9) they will find that it explicitly enacts that the Land Commission should cause their officers to make such investigations and to perform such other duties as may be requisite and proper for the purpose of ascertaining titles and distributing the purchase money; and it is also provided that such ascertainment and distribution shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, be made without charge to the person entitled to the money. Yet, notwithstanding that, a serious change has been made by the Estates Commissioners in their new statutory rules, and they have directed that prima facie evidence of the vendor's right to sell shall be given by the lodgment of a certificate signed by counsel. Vendors will, therefore, have these very heavy costs to pay which the Act intended should be borne by the Land Commission. I ask His Majesty's Government to explain why this additional burden has been imposed on landlords, and if it is due to the Treasury having refused to give the sanction mentioned, can the Government state the ground of their refusal, and will they do anything to get the Treasury to give the necessary sanction?
I have heard that the block has also been caused in some respects by the delay in the inspection of estates. This is borne out by a statement of the Chief Secretary, who said, on May 21st, that the delay did not occur in the Examiners' office, or in the distribution of the money, but in the inspection of the estates and in the preliminary survey which was carried out with an insufficient staff. Why is the staff insufficient? I understood from

805
Lord Denman that the Government have some idea of increasing the staff. I hope that is the case. Otherwise we should like to ask why the staff, as acknowledged by the Chief Secretary, is insufficient. My own opinion is that the attention of the staff is engaged on minor and subsidiary branches of land purchase. Their time has been occupied in the reinstatement of evicted tenants, in the enlargement of holdings, and in providing parcels of land fur what are called landless men; but their primary duty, I maintain, is to administer the Act and endeavour to promote the transfer of land under it.
I remember Mr. Wyndham making a great point when he said—
"In using the powers of this Bill for settling the Irish land question, they ought not to single out one class for preferential treatment to the detriment of others."
I think that in dealing with these subsidiary matters the Commissioners are treating unjustly those who were to benefit under that Act. The block might be largely got rid of by creating a temporary Commissioner to undertake these subsidiary duties, leaving the Commissioners free to carry out the original duties they were intended to perform. I have noticed in the debates that have taken place in the other House that the Nationalist Party have laid greater stress on the reinstatement of the evicted tenants than on the transfer of the land under the provisions of the Act. They seem to complain that the evicted tenants have not been restored with that rapidity which they had hoped for. The Nationalist Party have made no request for the acceleration of land purchase. Their desire has been, as Mr. Dillon put it, that Mr. Birrell would, as much as possible, speed up the Commissioners on this particular question of the evicted tenants. Consequently, we see that the desire of the Nationalist Party is not to promote purchase, and Mr. Birrell, in his reply, attempted to diminish the complaint by confining his reference as regards the cause of the delay to the restoration of evicted tenants. Therefore we are justified in believing that the Estates Commissioners have considered that it was the desire of their Chief that they should devote themselves to a very great extent to these subsidiary
806
duties instead of to the main duties which the Bill entrusted to them.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that this delay causes great inconvenience and in many cases discomfort to many who had hoped to benefit by the Act. The landlord naturally receives less rent when his agreements have been sgined than he would had his tenants been paying him the usual rents; and, in the case of estates that are mortgaged, the difference between 3½ and 4 per cent. has a serious effect upon his annual income. That is the hard case of the landlord. The tenant has also cause for complaint. He is paying his landlord 3½ per cent. instead of what he would be paying, in all probability 3¼ per cent., besides having the time postponed when he may hope to become the owner of his holding. I think the Imperial taxpayer also has cause to complain of this delay, for if once the block in the administration of the Land Act were removed and the measure carried into effect as was intended, there would be £160,000 or £170,000 year saved which is now paid in salaries and expenses. In these circumstances I think we are justified in asking His Majesty's Government seriously to consider the situation and to carry out the intentions of the Act of 1903. I believe that if the transfer of land could be effected on the terms intended by that Act, Ireland would be far more contented, and the people far more ready to devote themselves to the industrious development of the country.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, on having introduced this discussion. I remember very well the part he took in the debates on the Bill of 1903, although, unluckily, I was not present during those proceedings owing to an accident. The noble Earl won his spurs in those debates, and it is fitting that he should deal with this matter on the present occasion. I can recall the passing of the Bill in the House of Commons, and I shall not easily forget the shout of "Aye" from every part of the House which decided its Second Reading; and when I remember that, I cannot understand the statement made by Lord Denman that the financial provisions of the Bill were totally unsound.

807
If they were unsound at that time, why did not the then Opposition object to them? I left the House of Commons on that night feeling that a new era had begun for Ireland, and that we had seen the last of the terrible Act of 1881, an Act passed to meet a state of affairs which, happily, does not exist now, but one which was calculated to ruin any country which has agriculture for its chief industry.
The House of Commons that passed the Act of 1903 has been swept away and almost annihilated, but I have no reason to suppose that the present House of Commons, nor indeed the present Cabinet, are not anxious to carry on the work of administering the latest Irish Land Act. However, there are ways devious and otherwise of administering an Act, especially an Irish Land Act. Before proceeding further I should like to say a word with regard to the observations of Lord Dunraven. The noble Earl, who was chairman of the Land Conference, has dealt very fully with the financial question, and I shall not presume to follow him in regard to that. But I must make one remark with regard to Irish finance. Two men have made Ireland feel their influence on its finances—Mr. Gladstone, who imposed the income tax on that country, and Mr. George Wyndham, who brought in and passed the Act of 1903. The first swelled the Treasury bag; the second pledged British credit to a large amount, and gave twelve millions as a bonus to sweeten the land market between landlord and tenant in Ireland. If I wore taken to task and heckled as to this bonus—we are often told that it was a present to the landlords—I would simply reply that it is a fractional part of the interest due to Ireland, and a fast diminishing one at that, on the imposition of an income-tax which it was never thought was going to be continued. Lord Denman referred to the British taxpayer, and I interrupted him with a reference to the Irish taxpayer. With regard to that question, it must be remembered that the individual Irishman pays exactly the same as the individual Englishman in the matter of taxes. There me very few exceptions.
The Notice which the noble Earl placed on the Paper speaks of the delays in connection with the provision and dis-
808
tribution of the funds. Let me deal for a moment with the Estates Commissioners. I have been through the Estates Commissioners' mill, and know what has to be done. It grinds somewhat slowly. I have sold my estate in County Kildare; the agreements in regard to my Meath estate are in the pigeon holes in the office of the Estates Commissioners; and I have reinstated an evicted tenant who was not an evicted tenant. I can quite understand your Lordships smiling at that expression. He was the son of an evicted tenant, and went to America; he returned, and is now back again on the farm, and wish him every luck in his undertaking.
It is not my intention to find fault with the Estates Commissioners or to comment on their work. They are Irishmen like myself, and are put there to do a very difficult job. They are badly housed and have not sufficient staff, and they might well be given more money with which to carry on their work. As to the inadequacy of their accommodation, I would read to your Lordships a quotation from the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners, in which they say—
"The work of the Estates Commissioners was commenced in No. 12, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin, on Monday, 2nd November, 1903. The office accommodation provided there was found to be insufficient, and other accommodation was provided.… Both the staff and the accommodation have already become insufficient for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners to deal rapidly and methodically with the applications for advances that live come before them."
I say frankly that, if clerks were to be housed in this great City as badly as the clerks in the office of the Estates Commissioners are housed in Dublin, I should not be in the least surprised if they were to strike, and rightly so, because it is impossible to do the work, crowded together in the way these officials are. It is admitted that two-thirds of Irish land are mortgaged. The examining and clearing of title require the services of well instructed men, but you cannot expect young Irish barristers to go into the office and deal with this matter unless they are well paid and properly accommodated. Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to get a proper staff.
As to the question of evicted tenants, there is no doubt that political exigencies

809
have forced the evicted tenants question to the front. The Estate Commissioners have had an increase of staff to deal with this question, but no matter what increase in staff is given the matter has to go before the Estate Commissioners, and therefore it must, so to speak, put sand in the wheel of the purchase machinery. It is impossible to do two things at once. We agree, of course, with the principle of the Evicted Tenants Act, but object to its being worked in front of the Act of 1903.
My noble friend Lord Donoughmore next asks the Government whether they propose to take any steps to secure the effective carrying out of the purchase provisions of that Act. Before dealing with this, I should like to refer to, though I will not quote, the words of Lord Morley in praise of the Bill when it was in the House of Commons. Nothing could be stronger or more statesmanlike than his statement on the Amendment moved by Mr. Coghill to read the Bill a second time that day six months.
There was one point in the speech of Lord Castletown to which I think I ought to refer. I agree with Lord Dun-raven that it is preposterous that the ratepayers of Ireland should be called upon to pay any deficiency thrown upon the Development Grant. I cannot imagine such a suggestion. It is quite unthinkable. I know it is in the Act, but it must be remembered it was said that economies were likely to be made—economies with regard to the police, for example, which, under the present Government, have not been realised. Therefore I cannot admit that the ratepayers should have this burden put upon them in any way. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government seemed to welcome the statement of Lord Castletown on that matter. I deny that Lord Castletown has any right to speak for the ratepayers of Ireland generally, and I am sure that any speech made in a market place in Ireland against payment would be a most popular speech.
Lord Denman referred to the Runciman Report. That document constitutes the only opportunity we have had of seeing what is in the mind of the Treasury at the present moment. I should like to quote to your Lordships the concluding words of a leading article
810
in The Times on this Report. The Times states—
"It must be borne in mind however, that they are the recommendations of a Departmental Committee only, which was bound to approach this wide and complex subject from the standpoint of mere finance."
I think that is an excellent statement. It was only from the standpoint of finance, of course, that the Departmental Committee could possibly have approached it. The whole basis of the Act was a gold basis, and that is the reason why it has been such a success. The publication of the Treasury Report has cast a dark shadow over the whole of those interested in the working of this Act. The British Treasury are not likely to lose any money whatever over the transaction, for the tenant has paid his interest most punctually. Mr. Cherry, the Attorney-General, stated in the House of Commons, in answer to Mr. William O'Brien, that the instalments under the 1903 Act were oven better paid than those under former Acts. Therefore I cannot coo what complaint there can be on that score.
In the first of the series of recommendations the Committee say—
"We consider that the finance of land purchase should be put on a workable basis as soon as possible, and that it is essential to restrict the operations of the law, as it stands at present, at the earliest possible moment. This object could best be attained by the announcement that after the briefest possible interval all fresh agreements should be subject to arrangements hereafter to be determined by Parliament."
If that were to be enforced, the Act of 1903 would come to an end altogether. The answer to the Runciman Report is the issue of land stock to the amount of £5,000,000; and, therefore, I do not consider that what I may call the wicked and evil recommendations of that Report are likely to be put into force. That is satisfactory. No doubt the noble Lord will take credit for that issue of stock. I am not very much impressed with it. I do not consider that Erin, like Dame, has been embraced by the Treasury Jove in a shower of gold. I look upon it not as a shower, but as a little mist, such as I have often noticed on the Welsh coast, when crossing over to Ireland. Since the Runciman Report £4,000,000 worth of estates have come into the Estates Commissioners' hands,

811
and this shows that the publication of this Report has made people very anxious to get in their agreements as soon as possible.
We are all agreed upon one point, and that is that the Act must go on. Not only are the landlords and the Unionists of Ireland agreed, but the Nationalist Party as well, for in the Report of a Committee of the Irish Party on Land Purchase Finance, the Committee summarises its conclusion as follows:—
"(1) The progress of land purchase should be accelerated; money should be provided much more rapidly than is proposed in the Treasury Memorandum; and the stall at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners should be proportionately increased. (2) Losses on flotation of stock issued to provide the cash for advances should not be allowed to fall on the Irish ratepayers, but should be met by an Imperial charge."
That Report was signed by eight Nationalists, headed by Mr. Redmond, the Leader of the Nationalist Party. I may be twitted as to the other conclusions arrived at by the Irish Party. Let me say at once that they are debatable points, and I have no doubt it would be quite possible to exchange opinions on the subject and come to a definite conclusion, and most likely to agreement. We came to a definite conclusion and agreement in the Land Conference, and I have not the least fear that we could do so again. We had a very disagreeable winter last year, and I do not look forward to next winter in Ireland with complacency, unless the working of the land purchase provisions is accelerated.
I do not propose to enter into the question of cattle - driving, but there is a feeling of sulkiness and distrust growing up amongst all classes in Ireland. This great Act was a measure of appeasement, and we are quite prepared to join together and do our best to see it carried out. It is bringing about a great change. Peasant proprietary is an established fact in Ireland. Land is passing from the present landlords to the people, and where that system is set up you have, as Lord Castletown said, peace and quiet, and agitation ceases to be a profitable or an interesting business. The State rent is paid punctually. England stands to lose nothing by the full administration of the 1903 Act. The Irish people—and I speak with some knowledge of my countrymen—
812
believe fully that England will keep her promises, and what the noble Lord has said to-night leads me to believe she will. There is, however, always a "but" in Irish affairs. It is this, that although you may provide sufficient money year by year, it is also necessary to provide sufficient staff for the Estates Commissioners if you place upon them duties such as those dealing with evicted tenants. As I have said, I believe that England will keep her promises, and it is with that feeling in my heart that I have ventured to address your Lordships this evening.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the subject which the House has been discussing this evening is one in which I have taken a close interest for so many years that I am impelled, even at this late hour, to say two or three words with regard to it. I shall not take up the time of the House for many moments, and I shall avoid altogether certain branches of the case. I do not, for example, wish to make reproaches or to answer the reproaches which have been made as to the manner in which the present Government or the late Government have dealt with the Irish agrarian question. It is tempting, perhaps, for one side to tell the other that all this trouble has arisen from the too optimistic financial arrangements which accompanied the Act of 1903, and it is not less tempting to us to do what has been done by one or two noble Lords who have spoken this evening and to impute the blame to the principles upon which the Party opposite have dealt with Irish land legislation.
I desire to avoid all these things, and to consider for one moment only what seems to me really the most important point before us—the gravity of the situation with which we are threatened in Ireland owing to the apparently impending breakdown of Irish land purchase. That breakdown is one which I feel sure noble Lords opposite would contemplate with as much regret as we contemplate it on this side. We are, after all, threatened with the failure of the one successful experiment which we have made in dealing with the Irish problem. The evidence that that breakdown is near at hand seems to me overwhelming. I will not go over the ground again. It has been pointed

813
out to us that the office of the Estates Commissioners is blocked by a huge accumulation of business, and that that accumulation tends to increase and will reach a point which will altogether interrupt the realisation of the high hopes which were formed in 1903. My noble friend beside me told the House that, according to his calculations, if things went on as they are going now landlords and tenants who entered into these purchase agreements might be kept waiting for no less than sixteen years before the transactions would actually be completed.
Just consider what that means. To the tenant the misfortune is not only a financial misfortune; not only has he to pay, as interest, a larger sum than he would pay as purchase annuity, but you prevent him taking the first steps along that road which will eventually lead him to the absolute ownership of his farm. As we all know, the Irish peasant is a sentimental person, and I believe that that sentiment of inchoate ownership is one which has a most extraordinary effect on the mind of these people, and if you tell them that they will have to wait, I do not care if it is six, eight, or sixteen years, before they begin to pay the first instalment of the purchase money, it will lead to a feeling of vexation and disappointment which it is almost impossible to exaggerate.
Of the hardship to the landlord I need not speak at length. He has to be content with a sum less than the interest which he might obtain from the investment of the purchase money; he lies out of his bonus; and in the meanwhile, if his estate is an encumbered one, he is liable for heavy charges upon encumbrances and on account of tithe rent charge, quit rent charge, and other charges of the same kind to which Irish land is liable. There is another class which has not been mentioned this evening, and which suffers acutely under this system. I mean the whole class of agents and solicitors who have this vast amount of heavy business thrown on their hands, and who have, as a rule, to wait for their remuneration until the money is paid. It comes, then, to this, that there is absolute unanimity in Ireland amongst all sections of the community that the breakdown of these arrangements would be a great national misfortune. That is stated with great
814
moderation, but with great erect, in the Report of the Treasury Committee which has been so often quoted this evening.
Two causes have been mentioned as those to which this breakdown has been due. The first is the inadequacy of the staff and the other the inadequacy of the funds at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners. As to the staff, I have not yet what across anyone who really knew what was going on in Ireland with regard to land purchase transactions who was not absolutely convinced that the insufficiency of the staff was one of the most potent causes which has tended to bring about these vexatious delays. I believe that both branches of the Estates Commission stand in need of reinforcement—the department which has to deal with the inspection of estates, and the department of the Judicial Commissioner, which has to do with the examination of title and so forth; and we have the most unequivocal evidence of the Estate Commissioners themselves that this is their opinion.
I wish to express my agreement with what my noble, friend Lord Mayo said a moment ago when he told the House that ho for one did not desire to make any complaint whatever of the Estate Commissioners and their staff. They have a gigantic work imposed upon them, and they have to get through it with a. staff which has been to a large extent improvised. It is not like an old department with long traditions mid long habits of transacting business of a special kind; it is new work thrown on a new department, and from time to time—here again I make no reproach—new work of a particularly troublesome character has been thrown upon the department of the Estates Commissioners. I do not desire to discuss the policy of our legislation with regard to evicted tenants, but it cannot do otherwise than involve the minute investigation of very trivial cases, amid these minute investigations must interrupt the larger and more important work of the Estates Commissioners. It is also perfectly true, I believe, that owing to the manner in which these departments are housed in Dublin, their business is transacted at a very great disadvantage. I have a very lively recollection of the trouble which was given to the old War Office when its departments were scattered all about the

815
West End of London—I think in eighteen different buildings; and I have no doubt that the Estates Commissioners have suffered greatly from that cause.
One word only with regard to another point which has been pressed by two or three of my noble friends. I mean the additional impediment thrown on the work of the Commissioners by the regulations issued in the year 1906. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that no regulations were necessary. I think it is quite likely that the experience of the Commissioners may have shown that there were points at which it was desirable to strengthen the hands of the Commission, and I make no complaint that that should have been done. But, again, I have never found anybody who was not convinced that the regulations issued in 1906 were of a needlessly meticu ous and minute character. Two or three instances have been mentioned. Why is it necessary to tell your inspectors that they are to project their minds into the future, and form an opinion as to the probable course of agricultural development during the years which lie ahead I Surely, as my noble friend Lord Clonbrock said, if you have a tenant who has paid his rent regularly and contentedly for twenty-seven years, and has not thought it worth while to go into Court, it is prima facie evidence that his rent is a reasonable one. I often think that sufficient regard is not paid to the fact that the Government has for its security not only the interest of the landlord, but the additional interest of the tenant, which, as we know, is saleable, often for very large sums indeed, in the open market, and which is certainly an additional protection to those who acquire the fee simple of the land.
The insufficiency of the staff is one difficulty, and I was glad to hear from Lord Denman that His Majesty's Government are disposed to take the matter into consideration, and that they will probably recommend some increase of the present staff. Then I come to the money difficulty; and feeling that I am here skating on extremely thin ice, I shall be careful to avoid committing myself to any definite suggestion as to the manner in which it might best be overcome. But I was very glad to gather from Lord Denman that His Majesty's Government are ready to con-
816
sider—shall I say in a friendly spirit?—the concrete proposals which I understand have been elaborated by some gentlemen interested in this question, to whom, I think, we owe a debt of gratitude for the part they have taken in endeavouring to find a solution of the difficulty. Of course, we shall find that all the parties concerned are equally unwilling to assume any additional liability; the landlord will not be ready to accept a smaller price for his land. I think my noble friend was right in saying that most of them had put the price down as low as they could, having regard to their own protection. The tenant naturally dislikes having his purchase annuity increased. The Irish ratepayer is apparently averse to incurring new obligations; and then, when we come to the Treasury, the noble Lord who represents that Department, and who is imbued with the Treasury spirit has told us that we are not to look for any assistance whatever from that quarter.
The noble Lord gave us, I thought, some most admirable advice on that point. He protested against noble Lords on this side dealing lightly with vast sums of money; he spoke of the fear His Majesty's Government had of doing anything that might involve their successors; and he suggested that it was desirable that we should adapt our obligations to our financial resources. I think it is not unlikely that when a Bill which is now before this House and the Second Reading of which we shall take on Monday next comes up for discussion we may hear something about the light treatment of vast sums, the danger of involving our successors, and the need of adapting our obligations to our visible resources. But I do not desire to pursue that further.
All I will say upon the money question is this. I trust that His Majesty's Government will not regard this demonstration on the part of my noble friends from Ireland as a more Irish raid on the British Exchequer. The matter is much more serious than that. I trust it will be approached in the spirit in which a distinguished colleague of the noble Earl opposite to whom my noble friend referred a moment ago, Mr. John Morley as he then was, dealt with it at the time when the Land Purchase

817
Bill was before the House of Commons. He said—
"The Bill must be regarded not as conferring a boon on one class or another in Ireland, but as a great act of state and national policy."
And Sir Edward Grey, in the course of the same debate, added that—
"The Bill is the essential price you will have to pay for bringing about a voluntary arrangement of the Irish land question."
That is the spirit in which, I hope, this question will be dealt with by the Government which is now in power. At any rate, my Lords, I trust that they will look in the face the very serious combination of circumstances which is developing itself in Ireland. Those who know that country best are deeply impressed with the gravity of the present situation. Two or three years ago the country was in a comparatively peaceful condition, and the minds of the agricultural population were turned almost entirely to the question—the most absorbing of all in their eyes—of acquiring the ownership of their farms. At this moment we cannot say that the condition of Ireland is orderly and peaceful. Read the reports which appear week after week of the language used by learned Judges in different parts of Ireland, and you will see that certain portions of the country are at this moment honeycombed with disorder. If on the top of that, at a moment when this agrarian movement is assuming dangerous proportions, you superimpose a breakdown of Irish land purchase, you will create a situation with which the strongest Government will find it difficult to deal. My Lords, His Majesty's Government have shown themselves not wanting in resource and in audacity in dealing with other great public questions. I trust they will display some of those qualities in dealing with the grave problem which my noble friend has brought before your Lordships this evening.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I unfortunately was not in the House when the noble Earl who introduced this matter uttered the first few sentences of his speech, and, therefore, I do not know exactly in what capacity he approached this subject, whether it was as an Irish landlord or as a Member of the front bench opposite, The caution given by
818
the noble Marquess who has just sat down was by no means an unnecessary one when he urged us not to regard this as a great demand of Irish landlords upon the resources of the Treasury. This debate has been treated throughout as if it were simply an Irish one. For one or two moments noble Lords who are not Irish landlords have appeared on the front Opposition Bench, but they have never stayed, and none of them have taken any part in the debate. I am bound to say I think that is not entirely to the credit of your Lordships House. This matter has been treated in speech after speech as simply a question for Irish landlords and Irish tenants, and the great scope of it has in fact been lost sight of altogether.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down said he did not wish to engage in a game of argumentative battledore and shuttlecock as to who might be considered responsible for the unfortunate state of things with regard to the working of this Act. It is perfectly true, no doubt, that the Act of 1903 was in a very large measure passed by consent. A certain danger attaches to measures that are passed in any degree by consent. People are so enthusiastic over the consent that they do not always look so closely as they might into the measure; and I think it cannot be denied that my noble friend behind me was well within the mark when he stated that the financial provisions of that Act had proved to be unsound. Although the measure received general consent, I think if noble Lords opposite will look at the discussion in 1903 they will see that it was pointed out that from our point of view it would have been very much better to have paid landlords from the start in stock and not in cash, in which case this particular kind of difficulty would never have arisen at all.
This debate has, of course, divided itself into two entirely separate subjects, one the official working of the Act in Ireland, and the other the great financial question connected with it. I propose only to say a very few words on the first point. As regards the staff, it is, of course, perfectly true—I do not see how it can possibly be denied—that if you multiply the staff indefinitely you will do the work more quickly; but the staff as it has gone on is the staff as it was

819
devised for the work of that particular Act, and with a view to the operations taking place at a particular rate. Of course, it is open to noble Lords to argue that the staff ought to be increased, but it is only fair to mention that so far as any question of bargain is concerned on this side of the subject, that bargain has been carried out by the maintenance of the staff at the level which I have no doubt Mr. Wyndham contemplated when he was responsible for the passing of the Act. I do not wish to dwell on the question of delay. I can hardly believe it possible that the duties of the Estates Commissioners in connection with the Evicted Tenants Act have had any substantial effect in delaying the work of the Commission. The transactions under that Act have, of course, not been numerous, and, as I say, I find it difficult to believe that whatever effect they may have had in that respect can have been otherwise than something trifling.
It is only fair to mention, on the other side, that a certain degree of delay has taken place in regard to questions of title, and in some cases that delay has extended to a period of a year. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, asked how it was that prima facie evidence on the authority of counsel was now asked for in questions of title. I understand that that was declared by Mr. Justice Wyley to be strictly demanded by the terms of the Act, and although I do not know this—I am only speaking now from conjecture—I should imagine that before the rule was enforced there must have been a certain number of cases of time wasted by people coining to Court, and its being found after a time that they had no title in respect of the particular land or other matter which they desired to sell. There have been delays, I know, some of a year's duration on minor matters. I hope—and I believe—it will be found possible, as my noble friend behind me suggested, to make seine small increase in the staff with a view to accelerating the working of the Act.
Now I pass to the much larger side of the question—the financial side; and it is necessary, I think, to deal with what has been said as to the terms of the bargain entered into in the year 1903. Both the noble Earl who introduced this matter and Lord Dunraven spoke of this
820
bargain as though it were a bargain to see the working of the Act through with British taxpayers' money, whatever the cost might be. I defy anybody to find a word in any speech made by a responsible person at that time which would lead to that conclusion. The bargain was a perfectly definite one stated in terms of cash. So much money was required, it was said, for the purpose of purchasing Irish land. So many millions of money were to be found by the taxpayer for the purpose of the bonus, and I can hardly imagine that noble Lords opposite are prepared to argue that if, for instance, the bonus should be found inadequate to give the 12 per cent. to every landlord, however many landlords may sell in the course of these transactions, it is an absolute obligation of honour on us to find so many more millions—nobody knows how many—in order to secure that amount of bonus to every landlord. No bargain of that kind was ever made. The terms of the bargain are absolutely explicit. They are to be found in the four corners of the Act, and I do not admit that qua bargain, whatever may be said as to the policy of doing this, that, or the other, any further obligation than that expressed in the Act rests on the Government of this country.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Hear, hear.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl agrees.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think it would be a great pity if you did not maintain it at 12 per cent., but I made no claim for its maintenance at 12 per cent.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I understood the noble Earl to say that we were bound to finance this on the same scale all through.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do maintain that, but not the point above the bonus.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Then as regards what the Treasury may do in the future. I have to repeat, what my noble friend said, that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to find any more of the taxpayers' money for the

821
working of this Act. I have also to say, with equal explicitness, that equally they are not prepared to add this charge to the National Debt. That was a point that was dealt with with much ingenuity by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven. He argued that there was no difference in practice whether a particular stock was called Consuls or Irish Land Stock. I think anyone who knows anything of the City would be inclined to dispute that proposition. Consols have a special sanctity of their own which is possessed by no other stock in this country, and, indeed, we are proud to think, by no other stock in the world; and to add at a stroke 150 millions to the National Debt is a proposal which it is better to say frankly we are totally unable to consider.
In passing, I should like to allude to another observation of the noble Earl as to the price at which the last loan was issued. The noble Earl argued that because that loan had been subscribed over so many times over, that was a proof that it might quite reasonably have been issued at a higher price. There, again, I think the noble Earl was uttering a fallacy. I believe it to be the fact, though I do not pretend to be an expert in such matters, that it is quite possible for a loan to be subscribed a hundred times over, so delicate are the operations of the money market, at a given price, and at a very slightly higher price not to be fully subscribed at all. People know in the City exactly what the value of the stock at a particular price is to them, and they want to get as much as they can, and, therefore, a man sends in for 1,000,000 of the stock well knowing that others will do the same, and that he might have some chance of getting the amount he actually wants. But if he does not like the price, neither he nor the other would send in at all. Therefore, I think it would be very unsafe to build an argument on that particular point.
I have made these two categorical statements, and, therefore, noble Lords opposite may fairly ask, if that is so, whether we see any way out of this difficulty. I am very sorry that the noble Earl who opened the debate, dismissed quite so abruptly as he did the possibility of a considerable number of landlords being willing to take stock instead of cash; but, on the other hand, I was somewhat reassured by knowing
822
that it was in respect of the price of 92 that he dismissed the matter so curtly. As regards that, I have to say that we are not in any way hound by what appears in the Report which has been quoted as to that price of 92. The actual price would, no doubt, have to be a matter for consideration, and I admit also for negotiation, because, more particularly in respect of agreements already entered into, it is perfectly clear that a price must be found which will be satisfactory to the landlords. I hope there may be some way out through that road. The landlord will have to consider whether he would rather take his payment in stock, or supposing he and all landlords insisted on cash, they then must take the chance of having a delay of what might ma undoubtedly be a considerable number of years, though not quite so many as the number the noble Marquess opposite mentioned. The noble Marquess was taking as a basis for that calculation the amount of £2,500,000, whereas my noble friend showed that we have boon proceeding at a rate of close upon £5,000,000 a year. As I say, I hope it may be possible to find sonic way out on that road. I do not think the noble Earl was quite fair in saying that a stock at 92 is only worth 84⅓.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It averaged that last year.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: It was then at a very much lower price than it has been since. The noble Earl might just as well have said, because Consuls were at one time 113 and very likely averaged 108, that in the year afterwards, when they went down to 96, they were worth 108. You must take the figure of the moment, though it is quite fair, no doubt, to consider possible fluctuations in the future. That is really all I am able to say on the matter. We recognise the gravity of the position; and I can assure noble Lords opposite that we are by no means insensible to it. But we are not prepared, in the somewhat airy way which has been suggested by some noble Lords opposite, to take over all these liabilities and mortgage the future, or to adopt any of those schemes which are really a gamble on the Government stocks remaining at a certain figure a certain number of years hence. I cannot

823
help thinking that if noble Lords opposite were not speaking as Irish landlords, but happened to he on this side of the House, their tone would necessarily have to be a different one so far as that point is concerned; and I fully recognise that the noble Marquess opposite, speaking not as an Irish landlord but as a reasonable person, adopted a somewhat different tone. I hope this discussion will prove to have been of a useful character, and if it should prove to be in any way of a fruitful character none of us will regret that it has been held.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not intend to put your Lordships to the trouble of going to a division, and I hope, in taking that course, I can lay some claim to be considered a reasonable person. I only desire to make two points clear. Lord Denman stated that I was incorrect in saying that the inspectors troubled themselves with demesnes and sporting rights. I may say that they are distinctly requested to report upon these matters in the instructions issued by the Commissioners in accordance with the Lord-Lieutenant's Regulations. In paragraph 2 the inspector is asked to prepare and send in a report on the form prescribed showing—
"the character of any untenanted land or demesne and how it is used."
The inspector is also requested to describe any timber that may be growing on the estate, and to report on sporting rights and advise how they should be dealt with. There is no mention that these observations are to be confined to estates where the Commissioners are purchasing the demesne or entering into transactions with regard to the demesne. I have since learned from one of the officials from Ireland that, although these are the regulations, the inspectors do not, as a matter of fact, bother about demesnes or sporting rights unless transactions are taking place concerning them. I am glad to hear that is so. The noble Earl has made it quite clear that it is in the mind of the Government that a solution might be found in asking some of us to take stock. I only desire to repeat that I sincerely hope, from the point of view of good faith, that, if stock is offered, those people who hold out and
824
insist on having cash will not be placed in a position of inferiority or disadvantage in consequence. I think it would be a most unfair thing if that were done.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CROFTING PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (MARKETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.