Sitting of 1 June 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords]; Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords]; Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords]; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [Lords]; Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  1511
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Bay of Firth) Order Confirmation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Llanelly Gas Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Padiham Urban District Council Bill; South-West Suburban Water Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill [Lords]; Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Burton-upon-Trent," presented by Mr. Masterman; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
  Burnley Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Prosecution of Offences (Amendment) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment; Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the time for an appeal from the decision of a revising barrister; and matters consequential thereon." [Registration Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Barry Railway Company to construct new railways; and for
  1512
  other purposes." [Barry Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Barry Railway Bill [Lords].—Read[the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Upper Norwood, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dulwich; King's Norton; Liversedge; and West Dulwich; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1907. Part I., Genera! Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (DEATHS FROM PLAGUE, ETC.).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 23rd April 1907; Sir William Collins]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented, of Report on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year ended 31st December, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BELFAST HEALTH COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Local Government Board for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Tenure of Land in the East Africa Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Colonial Reports Nos. 557 (East Africa Protectorate,

  1513
  Report for 1906–7) and 558 (Uganda, Report for 1906–7) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SINKING FUNDS.
  Account presented, of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March, 1908, in respect of the Old and New Sinking Funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WESTMORLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Westmorland altering certain Polling Districts in the two Parliamentary Divisions of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Tithe Acts, Copyhold Act, 1894, Inclosure Acts, and other Acts for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Rules made under the Act by the Board of Trade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS (NEW ZEALAND AND GERMANY).
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum on the Old-Age Pensions Scheme in force in New Zealand and the Scheme of Insurance against Invalidity and Old Age in force in the German Empire."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Regulations for Postal Servants and Territorial Camps.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the new regulations which have been issued regarding camp allowance and wages of postal employees enlisting in the Territorial Army, whereby
  1514
  they receive their full wages during camp training, but have themselves to pay for the wages of a substitute, whereas formerly no wages were paid during the period of training, but the Post Office paid the substitute; whether he is aware that the wages demanded by the substitute are higher than the regular pay, thereby causing a loss to the postal employees; and, in view of these facts, whether he can see his way to alter the new regulations and revert to the former practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject of regulations which they have laid down in regard to granting leave to civil servants who are members of the Territorial Army to enable them to attend training in camp. I hope to receive the reply shortly.

  Rebate on Irish Tobacco.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum was paid out of the Exchequer to the growers of tobacco in Ireland by way of grant or rebate during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The amounts of rebate paid out of the Exchequer to the growers of tobacco in Ireland are as follows—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Year ended 31st March 1906

  367

  8

  4

  Year ended 31st March1907

  912

  11

  1

  Year ended 31st March1908

  3,395

  5

  3

  Irish Tobacco.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the quantity of tobacco grown in Ireland respectively in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907; and what was the amount of Excise paid upon it.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The quantities on which duty was paid are as follows:—

  lbs.

  Year ended 31st March 1906

  7,353

  Year ended 31st March 1907

  20,173

  Year ended 31st March1908

  68,612

  The gross duty paid in each year amounted to £1,103, £3,026 0s. 6d., and £10,291 16s. 3d., respectively, or (after

  1515
  deducting the rebates mentioned in the Answer to the preceding Question) to nett sums of £735 11s. 8d., £2, 113 9s. 5d., and £6,896 11s.

  Cunard Steamships—Government Conditions.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the two new steamers of the Cunard Steamship Company have now satisfied the conditions made by the Government under the agreement for their construction.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.

  Revenue from Tobacco.
  MR. H. C. LEA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the gross and net revenue from tobacco for the financial year ended 31st March, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) The gross revenue from tobacco in the financial year ended 31st March, 1908, was

  Old-age Pensions.

  Invalidity.

  Including Pensions for provisional invalidity.

  1st January, 1902

  179,450

  495,645

  8,700

  1st January, 1907

  125,603

  836,674

  22,099

  The number of pensions awarded in the course of the years in question was respectively—

  Old-age Pensions.

  Invalidity.

  Including Pensions for provisional invalidity.

  1901

  14,849

  138,142

  7,632

  1906

  10,666

  123,390

  12,421

  Indian Import Duties
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of articles subject to import duty in India
  £15,272,197, and the net revenue £13,739,378.

  Old-Age Pensions in Germany.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in Germany, provision for old age and infirmity is made under one insurance; that infirmity pensions are paid at the age when the infirmity begins, and old-aje pensions, eo nomine, are not paid till after seventy years of age; and that persons over seventy who can prove infirmity often draw an infirmity pension instead of an old age pension; and whether he can state how many old-age pensions were given in Germany five years ago and how many are now given, and how many infirmity pensions were then given and how many are now given.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. friend. The following is a statement of the number of pensions in course of payment in Germany on 1st January, 1902, and on 1st January, 1907, respectively—
  on which no duty was received during the last financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I regret that I am unable to give the information

  1517
  asked for. The Indian customs returns of import duties collected give groups of articles only, and do not show whether there are any individual articles which do not yield duty.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he can state the total number of articles subject to import duty in India; the total revenue raised in India from import duties during the last financial year; and the proportion of that total revenue yielded by the duties on the six articles of greatest yield.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) As I stated in reply to a similar Question on 21st May, the Indian tariff deals with groups of articles, and I am unable to give the total number of articles liable to duty. In 1907–8 the gross customs revenue from import duties was £4,020,500. Of this 73 per cent. was raised from six articles.

  Refusal to Sanction Labourers Cottage Scheme at Ballyfarnon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Ballyfarnon district of North Roscommon application was recently made under the Labourers Act for the erection of a number of cottages; whether he is aware that the necessary land was offered for the purpose, and that the inspector, notwithstanding the offer of the land, has refused to sanction the scheme; and will he say whether the inspector has given any reason for his decision,
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are unable to identify from the particulars given in the Question the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers. If, however, he refers to the inquiry into the scheme made by the Boyle No. 1 Rural District Council, the reasons assigned by the inspector for disallowing any of the cottages included in the scheme were communicated by him to the council on 4th April last.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Fat Kilroy.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1518
  of Ireland whether he is aware that Pat Kilroy, of Rathmagurry, near Curry, Tubbercurry, county of Sligo, was evicted from his farm situate on the Knox estate in that district, on 9th June, 1902; that the farm is now held by Constable Reid, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who refuses to give it up unless he is paid a compensation of £60; and whether, seeing that the Estates Commissioners have made an after of £40 to this police constable, who is stationed in Ballina, county Mayo, and that Kilroy and his family are on the roadside, some prompt steps will be taken to have this evicted family reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate in question is in the Land Judge's Court. Kilroy was evicted from his holding, and the tenant's interest in the holding was acquired by Arthur Reid, who subsequently assigned it to his son, Constable Reid, the present tenant. The Estates Commissioners are about to acquire the holding with the object of reselling it to Kilroy, and Constable Reid has agreed to accept from the Commissioners the sum of £50 for surrendering it. Kilroy is already in possession of the holding.

  Loss of Dublin Crown Jewels.
  MR. H. C. LEA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the fact that the Vice-Regal Inquiry was confined by the terms of the reference and the ruling of the Commissioners solely to the question of the negligence of Sir Arthur Vicars, and that the findings of the Commissioners have not satisfied public opinion or allayed the feelings of mistrust in the public mind in reference to the disappearance of the jewels, he would now grant a public and judicial inquiry into the whole circumstances of the loss of the jewels, the alleged negligence of Sir Arthur Vicars, and the charges against his character, with a view to ascertaining what person or persons were responsible for the loss.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no reason whatever to suppose that the findings of the Commission have not satisfied public opinion, but rather the contrary. As I have stated more than

  1519
  once, no charge has been made against Sir Arthur Vicars, by or on behalf of the Government, other than that of negligence in the custody of the jewels, and this charge was fully established by the findings of the Commissioners upon the evidence adduced before them. A public and judicial inquiry with the object of fixing criminal responsibility for the theft is out of the question. The discovery of the criminal is a matter for the police, who are still prosecuting their inquiries, and criminal proceedings will be taken if and when sufficient evidence is forthcoming.

  Rioting at Thurles.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information respecting the rioting at Thurles on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday last; what was the cause of the disturbances; and what steps have been taken to punish the ringleaders.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The disturbances in question arose out of an eviction at the instance of the Court of Bankruptcy. Large crowds collected at night, and broke the windows in several houses under cover of the darkness. Forty-one persons were summoned to Thurles petty sessions on 30th May for riotous and disorderly behaviour, and the cases have been adjourned until 13th June. Claims for compensation for malicious injury have also been lodged and while these prosecutions and claims are pending it would be undesirable to enter into the details of the matter.

  Teaching of Cookery and Laundry Work in Irish Schools.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the rules and regulations of the Commissioners of National Education for 1907–8, it is stated that cookery and laundry work should be taught as part of the ordinary school programme to girls enrolled in the fifth and higher standards where suitable provision for instruction in these subjects is available, and that a fee of 5s. may be earned in respect of each girl who is taught cookery or laundry work in a national school, pro-
  1520
  vided she has attended at least 50 per cent. of the meetings of the cookery or laundry class; and, if so, will he state whether it is proposed by the National Board in their rules for 1908–9 to abolish payment of this fee for the teaching of these subjects.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The Commissioners of National Education do not propose to abolish the fees for instruction in cookery and laundry work by their code for 1908–9.

  Use of Irish Materials in Erection of Irish Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken by the Local Government Board to secure that only Irish materials are used in the erection of cottages sanctioned under the Labourers Act; and, if not, whether a recommendation on the matter would be issued to all local authorities concerned in the erection of such cottages.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have reason to believe that district councils in Ireland are strongly in favour of using none but Irish materials for labourers' cottages whenever such materials may be procurable. The Board do not suppose that any recommendation from them would stimulate the councils further in the matter, which is one wholly within their discretion.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Samuel Rainey.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners intend to acquire any of the un-tenanted land on the Manchester Estate at Tandragee; and, if so, whether they will give a holding to Samuel Rainey equivalent in extent to the farm from which he was evicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings have been instituted for the sale to them of any untenanted land on the estate in question. As regards the

  1521
  particular case of Samuel Rainey the Commissioners have nothing to add to the Answer which was given to the hon. Member's Question of 17th July last.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Lynch.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners was drawn several months since to the case of a tenant named Lynch, evicted from a holding on the Holmpatrick Estate, county of Dublin, and again recently, and that the Estates Commissioners took no notice of the communications made to them in reference to this matter, although the writer was a person of position and consequence; and whether they intend to take any steps in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the application to which the Question refers. The only application for reinstatement made by a person named Lynch, in respect of a holding situate in county Dublin, is one signed by Annie Lynch, who appears to be resident in Philadelphia. This application was received in November, 1907, and the Commissioners will consider it in due course, regard being had to the applications which were lodged at earlier dates.

  Territorial Army—Colour-Sergeants Acting as Sergeant-Majors and Warrant Bank.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to grant the warrant rank of sergeant-major to colour-sergeant instructors who are acting sergeant-majors of the Territorial Force. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended to give warrant rank to these non-commissioned officers.

  Political Prisoners in Crown Colonies.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a Return of the number of political prisoners in the Crown Colonies for the last twenty years, stating the period
  1522
  during which they have been imprisoned; and whether the Government from time to time reconsider the cases of prisoners in Crown Colonies who have been committed for political offences with a view to the reduction of sentences, even if no intervention is made on their behalf.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Secretary of State will consider whether such a Return can be given. The reply to the second paragraph of my hon. and learned friend's Question is in the affirmative.

  Position of Settlers in the Orange River Colony.
  MR. COWAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the intention of the Government of the Orange River Colony to take over the settlers; and whether any suggestion has been made that the Imperial Government should bear any share of the financial loss consequent on such a transfer, having regard to the circumstances in which the settlers were induced to accept lands at prices in excess of their market value.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) No, Sir, I have no recent information on the subject; but the Governor shall be asked for a report on the present position of the settlers.

  Stoppage of Salary of Dinizulu.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any reply has been received to the telegram of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of 27th May, No. 8, in Parliamentary Paper on Natal Affairs, Cd. 4001, of Session 1908; and, if so, what is its nature.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Governor has telegraphed: "Attorney-General informs me that threatened proceedings take form of suit for recovery of salary alleged to-be overdue, but he cannot say when hearing will be. He has again called attention to invariable practice of Government of Natal to stop payment of salary on arrest, and quotes case in 1905 of magistrates arrested in

  1523
  April and tried in October. In formally approving on advice of my Ministers to suspend salary I recorded my opinion that salary paid to Dinizulu in accordance with condition of return from St. Helena should not be withheld from that chief, Secretary of State for the Colonies not having given authority for this." The Secretary of State has replied as follows: "I cannot but express my great regret that in view of all the circumstances that payment of Dinizulu's salary should have been stopped without the assent of the Secretary of State, seeing that this action cannot be regarded otherwise than as a breach of the spirit of the conditions upon which he was permitted to return to Zululand, and inflicts hardship on the prisoner, who is involved in much expense owing to the prolongation of the legal proceedings. It is not denied that these conditions were accepted as a binding engagement between the Natal Government and His Majesty's Government, in the person of the Secretary of State, and you, therefore, in January last rightly sought the approval of my predecessor when your Ministers desired to suspend Dinizulu's salary. As the conditions clearly provide for the approval of the Secretary of State he is entitled to ask for an honourable observance of their terms. I feel bound to express my disappointment that your Ministers have treated a matter of this importance in which grave political questions involving Native interests and the good faith of the Colony towards His Majesty's Government are concerned on purely technical grounds. Now that the legal construction to be placed upon the conditions as affecting Dinizulu has been referred to the Supreme Court, the decision of that tribunal must be awaited."

  Officers Accommodation at Tidworth and Bulford.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to provide quarters for married officers stationed at Tidworth and Bulford, he is prepared, with the concurrence of the War Office, to sanction the hiring of houses for a term of years up to the limit of the lodging allowance allowed to the various grades of officers.
  1524
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member has been already informed that the whole question of the provision of accommodation for married officers was being considered by the Army Council. No definite decision has as yet been reached.

  Mismanagement at Ruchill Fever Hospital, Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Commissioners of the Local Government Board who inquired into the charges of mismanagement at Ruchill, Glasgow, found that the resident medical officers were in no way to blame for what occurred; whether, notwithstanding this finding, these officers have been dismissed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to recommend their reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Commissioners did not find that the resident medical officers were responsible for the irregularities that formed the subject of inquiry; they were not dismissed on account of these irregularities, but on other grounds; and, as already stated in reply to a previous Question, I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the local authority in the matter of their dismissal.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the public inquiry by his Department into the charges of overcrowding and mismanagement in Ruchill Fever Hospital, Glasgow, whether it was the duty of the Commissioners appointed for this inquiry, in finding the charges well founded, to apportion the blame among the officials responsible; if so, whom did the Commissioners find responsible; and what has been done by the Local Government Board with regard to these officials to prevent a recurrence of the evil.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Local Government Board's remit to their Commissioners was to "inquire and report to them upon the complaints of overcrowding and under-staffing of Ruchill Fever Hospital and on the administration and management of the hospital." The conclusions of the Commissioners will be found in their Report, which has been

  1525
  issued as a Stationery Office Paper. The main responsibility was declared to rest on the medical superintendent, but, as regards overcrowding, it was shared to some extent by the medical officer of health, and, as regards under-staffing, by the matron. The Report was sent to the local authority, who have now dealt with the officials responsible.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on some days in December, 1907, there were over 800 patients in Ruchill Fever Hospital, Glasgow, although the authorised maximum allowed is only 440; whether his Department has traced who brought about this overcrowding; and what arrangement has it made to see that the statutory duty of the local authority to make provision for all cases of infectious diseases is carried out without giving rise to excessive overcrowding.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Local Government Board shows that on certain days there were over 800 patients in Ruchill Hospital. The majority of the patients were children, and the authorised number allowed is 440 adults. The responsibility for the overcrowding is dealt with in the preceding Question; it lies with the local authority to make provision for such cases and to exercise all reasonable provision in the matter.

  Admiralty Employees and the Territorial Camps.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether their Lordships can see their way to offer encouragement to men in the employ of the Admiralty who may have joined or be desirous of joining the Territorial Forces by making some concessions to enable them to attend the annual camp; and, if so, will he state what those concessions will be.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As regards the Civil Service, regulations on the subject referred to have been laid down by the Treasury. They are generally to the effect that special leave may be granted for such period not exceeding
  1526
  fifteen days in any one year as may be required for attendance in camp. Any expense incurred in providing a substitute during the special absence of the official must be defrayed by him, while he will be allowed to draw full civil and military pay during the time the substitute is employed.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what concessions, if any, the Board of Admiralty propose to make to those in their employ who may be members of the Territorial Army to facilitate attendance at the annual camps.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As regards the Civil Service, regulations on the subject referred to have been laid down by the Treasury. They are generally to the effect that special leave may be granted for such period not exceeding fifteen days in any one year as may be required for attendance in camp. Any expense incurred in providing a substitute during the special absence of the official must be defrayed by him, while he will be allowed to draw full civil and military pay during the time the substitute is employed.

  Cost of Living at Achill Island Coastguard Station.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by men serving in the Achill Island coastguard station in obtaining fuel, light, groceries, wearing apparel, and other ordinary necessaries of life except at very enhanced prices, owing to in accessibility of the station; and whether in view of the fact that at many other less inaccessible stations extra allowances have been made to the men, he will authorise 1s. a day per man extra to those serving on Achill Island.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The question of the cost of living at the stations on Achill Island has already been considered, and has been met by the grant of an allowance to cover the cost of conveyance of provisions from Newport to those stations. It is not considered that any further assistance is necessary.

  Carriage Gates on the North Side of Hyde Park.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can see his way to have the gateway in the Bayswater Road, opposite Albion Street, now used by equestrians and foot passengers entering Hyde Park, so altered as to allow the passage of private carriages into the park, there being only two entrances available for carriages on the north side of the park, namely, Victoria Gate and the Marble Arch, as against four on the south side.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I fear that I cannot give the hon. Member any assurance that this gate will be opened to carriage traffic at present. It would involve the employment of two extra park-keepers, for which no provision has been made in the Estimates. I am quite prepared to consider the matter for next year's Estimates.

  Closing of Sub-Post Offices on Weekly Half-holidays.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he intends to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants permitting the closing of sub-post office for a weekly half-holiday in districts where such is the general practice in other establishments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The recommendation of the Committee that a weekly half-holiday should be allowed in those cases only where the private business of the sub-postmaster is also closed will be carried out as far as possible.

  Extension of Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state what site has been purchased for the extension of postal work in Belfast; and when will building operations commence.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The site purchased for the extension of the head Post Office at Belfast is bounded on three sides by Miller's Lane, Berry Street, and Smithfield, and on the fourth side by private property. I am unable at present to state when building opera-
  1528
  tions can be commenced; but I will see that matters are pressed forward as far as possible.

  Third Class Accommodation on the Evening Boat Train from Dover.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company make no provision for carrying to London the same evening third-class passengers who arrive at Dover from Belgium about 8 p.m., while provision is made for first and second-class passengers, he proposes to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am in communication with the managing committee of the railway on this subject, and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Promotion of Officers in the Indian Army.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Indian military authorities have considered the effect upon the position of gentlemen rankers in the Indian Army who received their commissions during the South African War of an Army Order recently issued at Home which provides that all Militia service in South Africa during the late war is to count not only for pension but also for promotion; whether a result of this Order will be that a number of officers in the Indian Army commissioned from the Militia will shortly be promoted to captaincies over the heads of gentlemen rankers who are their seniors by date of commission and who were in many cases specially promoted for distinguished services; and whether any steps are contemplated for remedying the incidental effect of this Order.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The promotion of officers of the Indian Army is not regulated by Army Orders issued at Home, but by rules and orders issued by the Secretary of State for India in Council. Their service for promotion is ordinarily counted from the date of first permanent commission in the Regular Army, but officers who served in the

  1529
  South African War have been specially allowed to count also their active service with a Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteer commission. Service in the ranks cannot be counted for this purpose, though it counts, under certain conditions, for Indian pension. The question of the grading of officers whose promotion to captain and higher ranks will be accelerated by the counting of service previous to the attainment of a regular commission has been referred to the Government of India.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Timothy Sheahan.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners will consider the case of Timothy Sheahan, of Rathkeale, evicted tenant on the estate of the Earl of Devon, with the view of giving him some untenanted land in the county, having regard to his fitness to work a holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have decided that the applicant is a suitable person to receive a. holding in the event of their being able to provide him with one.

  Claim of William Collopy, Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have inquired into the claim of William Collopy, of Cappagh, in the County of Limerick, evicted tenant, for some untenanted land in lieu of his evicted farm; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have placed the applicant's name on the list of persons suitable to receive holdings, and the ease will in due course be referred to an inspector with the object of providing him with a farm in County Limerick, if possible.

  Case of John Ryan, Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the
  1530
  Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of John Ryan, of Rathkeale, in the County of Limerick, evicted tenant; and, if so, what action do they propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case, and have decided to take no action upon it for the present. If, however, the estate upon which the evicted farm is situate should be sold through them they will further consider Ryan's application.

  Untenanted Land on the Massey Estate
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have received a resolution from the Ardagh branch of the United Irish League, calling on them not to sanction a sale of the Massey estate situate at Glenville and Ballylin, Ardagh, County of Limerick, unless the untenanted lands on the estate, comprising 600 acres, are purchased by them and utilised for the purpose of enlarging the numerous small and uneconomic holdings on the estate, and for making provision for the evicted tenants and the labourers in the locality; and will he say what action is being taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received a copy of the resolution in question. The Commissioners have in pursuance of the Lord Lieutenant's regulations addressed inquiries to the representatives of the owners in this case with the object of negotiating for the purchase of about 640 acres of untenanted land situate in the townlands named, but have not yet received any reply to their inquiries.

  Reinstatement of James Doody, of Ardagh.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have received a resolution from the Ardagh branch of the United Irish League, calling on them to take immediate steps to reinstate James Doody, of Ardagh, one of the evicted tenants on the Atkinson estate, in his former holding, or, if that cannot be done,

  1531
  to provide him with a farm on the un-tenanted land at Beaufort as an equivalent; and, if so, will he state what action do they propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have referred this case to their inspector with the object of providing the applicant with a holding if one can be found for him.

  Sligo Improvement Scheme.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Sligo Rural District Council on the 23rd instant, complaining of the delay of the Local Government Board for Ireland in issuing the Provisional Order for No. 4 improvement scheme promoted by the council under the Labourers Act; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to issue the Order without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Resolution in question has been received. The inspector has sent a draft of the order he proposes to make in respect of the scheme to the clerk of the rural district council with a view to the schedules thereto being carefully checked and compared with the maps deposited in his office. As soon as this has been done the inspector will at once sign the order, and copies of it will be transmitted to the council when printed. The scheme in this case was a very large one, embracing 495 plots.

  Suspension of the Town Surveyor of Naas.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sworn inquiry by the Local Government Board into the facts connected with the suspension of the town surveyor of Naas, County Kildare, by the Naas Urban Council, was recently held, with reference to the insubordination of the town surveyor in erecting certain lamps in the town of Naas without authority, and in refusing to remove the same on being ordered so to do by the town authority; whether he is aware that, on being requested to hold an inquiry, the Local Government Board
  1532
  instead of doing so entered into a correspondence with the then suspended town surveyor, with the result that they declined to hold the requested inquiry, and asked the said urban council to reinstate the town surveyor; will he say if it is usual for the Local Government Board to disregard the representations of local governing authorities and act upon the ex parte statements of suspended officials; whether he is aware that the Council refused to reinstate the town surveyor, and demanded an inquiry, which was ultimately granted, with the result of a finding that the town surveyor had been guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty, and was directed to remove the lamps in question; whether he is aware that the lamps had been already removed by the urban council, and was this fact in evidence before the inquiring inspector; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board has now ordered or requested peremptorily that the condemned town surveyor should be reinstated in his office and his salary for the five months during which he has been suspended be paid, he will say on what authority the Local Government Board have so ordered or requested, and on what ground they force an official upon a local authority who has been suspended by that authority for conduct that has been disapproved by the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This matter arose out of the surveyor's misinterpretation of an order of the council as to the erection of lamps. It is the fact that an inquiry was held into the conduct of the town surveyor. As regards the second part of the Question, the Local Government Board, in accordance with their usual practice, afforded the town surveyor an opportunity of replying to the charges which were preferred against him by the urban district council. The Board then informed the urban district council that, on consideration of the facts set forth in the documents submitted by the council and of the surveyor's explanation, there did not seem to be sufficient grounds to warrant his dismissal. The urban district council stated in reply that this letter appeared to be based upon a misapprehension due to misleading statements of the town surveyor, and they renewed their request

  1533
  to the Board to hold a sworn inquiry. In order, therefore, to clear up the matter, the Board decided to accede to the council's request, and an inquiry was held in due course. It is not correct to say that the Local Government Board found that the town surveyor had been guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty. The Board's finding was that the surveyor's mistake in his interpretation of the council's order was not altogether incomprehensible owing to the ambiguous wording of the order, and that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant them in confirming the suspension of that officer. In order, however, to put an end to the dispute, the Board stated that the surveyor must obey the orders of the council as to which particular lamp was to be removed, and that if he declined to carry out their directions the Board would sanction his dismissal for wilful disobedience. The council, apparently, did not wish any of the lamps then remaining to be removed, and as Mr. Hall had in the meantime expressed regret for his mistake and his desire to work harmoniously with the council in future, the Board stated in a further letter that under all the circumstances of the case they would not be warranted in sanctioning his dismissal. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, the Board's sanction to the removal of town surveyors is necessary under Section 7 of The Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, which is incorporated with The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854.

  Pollution of Rivers by Sheep Dipping.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that there is no provision in any Act of Parliament under which sanitary authorities can proceed against parties who cause pollution of rivers or other public waters when the same is caused by sheep dipping; and will he say whether, now that sheep dipping is compulsory and in view of the serious danger to the public and damage to all animal life, he will take steps to deal with the matter, if necessary, by legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Government cannot undertake to deal with this
  1534
  matter immediately, but the question will receive full consideration when any further public health legislation for Ireland is being undertaken.

  Purchase of the Atkins Estate Tullypunchion.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners have had the Atkins or Sinclair estate, Tullypunchion, Cootehill, County Cavan, inspected; if so, when did inspection take place; would he enumerate roughly the matters generally dealt with in these Reports and particularly in the Report referred to; have all the tenants signed purchase agreements; and, assuming the sale is otherwise in order, when will the tenants' holdings be vested in them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners had an inspection made of this estate in July, 1907, and in the following October they issued queries upon the subject of the security for advances and in reference to the cases of four tenants who had not signed purchase agreements. They have since been in communication with the vendor's solicitors and agent in reference to the matter. It is expected that the queries will be disposed of and the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants before the long vacation.

  Rent Reductions on the Clanricarde Estate.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he car-state the average amount of reductions in rent obtained by the Clanricarde tenants within the past fifteen years as a result of their application to the Land Commission to have fair rents fixed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that all applications to fix fair rents are heard in open court, and the decisions, besides being notified to each of the parties interested, are posted up at the local courthouses at which the cases are heard. In these circumstances the Commissioners do not think it desirable that they should give particulars of the results of judicial

  1535
  decisions under the Land Law Acts in the case of particular estates.

  Application for Holding by Stephen O'Grady, of Ballyla.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from Stephen O'Grady, of Ballyla, Rathkeale, in the county of Limerick, for a holding as an equivalent to the one from which his father was evicted; and, if so, what action do they propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received the application in question on 23rd July, 1907, but, having regard to the large number of applications received prior to 1st May, 1907, which must first be dealt with, they cannot say when they will be able to consider the case.

  Return of Appointment of Irish Magistrates.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced in obtaining copies of the latest Return with reference to the appointment of magistrates in Ireland; what is the reason for the delay in issuing the Return for sale; and whether he will lay a copy of the Return upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I laid the Return in question upon the Table of the House on 21st May, and an order to print was made on 22nd May. I am in no way responsible for the printing and distribution of such Returns, but I have ascertained from His Majesty's Stationery Office that the printing is in hand, and that copies will be made available as soon as possible. The Return is a voluminous one.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Case of Seaman Bath.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the only
    1536
    complaint against Ordinary Seaman Bath during his imprisonment has been that of quarrelling with other prisoners, not necessarily his fault; whether he is aware that Bath has now been in prison for three and a half years for quite unpremeditated crime committed in a sudden fit of passion; and whether he will now consider the advisability of releasing Bath.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The detailed report now received from the Prisons Commissioners, as to the offences committed by Eli Bath in Portland and Parkhurst Prisons, does not bear out the statements made in the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Bath is now wearing a good conduct badge on his prison dress? Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what crime he is now being kept in prison?
    MR. McKENNA: There are various offences charged against him; some connected with his quarrelling with his fellow prisoners and others are offences against discipline. I am glad to hear he is wearing a good conduct badge.
    MR. HUNT: Is not the crime of stealing secrets much more serious than the one of which Bath was guilty?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
    MR. H. C. LEA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived when this man might be discharged?
    MR. McKENNA: I have already answered that question.

    Gun Running in the Persian Gulf.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the nationality of the crews of the dhows which were discovered by H.M.S. "Proserpine" gun-running in the Persian Gulf; and whether the Government has any information as to the source whence the 1,500 rifles and 500,000 rounds of ammunition were obtained.
    MR. McKENNA: The dhow which was recently captured by H.M.S. "Proserpine "was Persian manned and had two Afghans on board. The dhow was on her way from Muscat, where presumably the arms were shipped. There is no information as to the source whence the rifles and ammunition were obtained.

    Naval Casualties.
    MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of men who have lost their lives or been injured, as well as the cost to the country of the ships sunk or disabled during 1907 and this year, which can be attributed solely to mimic night warfare without lights.
    MR. McKENNA: I will take this opportunity of giving also the information desired by the hon. Member for Faversham and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham, in their Supplementary Questions of May 6th. During 1907, four accidents are known at the Admiralty to have occurred to vessels not carrying lights, involving one injury. During 1908, two accidents have occurred involving the loss of thirty-six lives. The absence of lights cannot, however, be described as the sole cause of any of these accidents. It is not possible to assess the cash value of the loss to the Admiralty arising from these cases. Night manœuvres without lights took place on 146 occasions during 1907 and 1908, the total aggregate of the numbers of ships engaged being 2,299. There were also fourteen occasions on which I have not been able to obtain the names of the ships taking part.

    Rosyth.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what work is now being carried on at the new dockyard at Rosyth; and how many men are employed there.
    MR. McKENNA: No material change has taken place since my reply to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Stoke on the 5th May.
    MR. FELL: Is advantage being taken of the long days to push on this work?
    MR. McKENNA: Every advantage is taken of the length of the day.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE:: Has the contract been let; or what is the cause of the unforeseen delay?
    MR. McKENNA: I do not know if it has actually been let at the moment, but if not it will be before long.

    Dover Harbour Admiralty Works.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the works of the Admiralty Harbour at Dover will be completed; and how much it is estimated will be spent upon them during the present financial year.
    MR. McKENNA: It is hoped that the main contract for Dover Harbour works will be completed about the end of 1909. There will remain to complete certain buildings and dredging, the date of completion of which cannot be given. The expenditure during the current financial year is estimated at about £100,000, exclusive of the subsidiary works above referred to.

    Channel Fleet and Dover Harbour.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Channel Fleet had difficulty in maintaining its position at its moorings in Dover Harbour at the time of the arrival of the President of the French Republic; and if the Fleet had to seek a more secure anchorage in the Downs afterwards.
    MR. McKENNA: The vessels which proceeded inside the harbour had no difficulty in maintaining their position. Difficulty was experienced by the vessels moored outside the harbour, which afterwards moved to a better anchorage in the Downs.
    MR. FELL: Do I understand that the anchorage within the harbour is satisfactory?
    [No Answer was returned.]

  Collision between H.M.S. "Lively" and H.M.S. "Earnest."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to his official statement that the collision of H.M.S. "Lively" and H.M.S. "Earnest," omitted from the annual Return, was of a very minor character, whether the "Lively" was

  1539
  damaged in the stern and was docked for repairs on the 20th August, 1906; and whether he can explain upon what principle the Admiralty comply with the Order in the case of several ships where no repairs had to be executed and omit to comply with it in this case.
  MR. McKENNA: As already stated, the reason why the alleged collision was omitted from the Return was that there is no official report of this collision at the Admiralty.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is it the case that vessels of the British Navy may run into each other and be docked without being reported to the Admiralty so as to be included in the official Return?
  MR. McKENNA: SO far as I am aware the vessels did not run into each other.
  MR. REES: Can we have a Return of the collisions between the hon. Member for Lynn Regis and the Front Bench?

  Alleged Collision of a Submarine.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to the official statement that the Admiralty have no record of a collision of a submarine on 21st August, 1906, so that such collision could not be included in the official Return, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the alleged collision and subsequent beaching of this submarine.
  MR. McKENNA: There is no record of the alleged collision, and there is no need for inquiry to be made.
  MR. BELLATRS: Are we to understand that the reports which appeared in the newspapers were merely hoaxes?
  MR. McKENNA: I have not seen the reports in the newspapers.

  H.M.S. "Angler."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an official telegram was received by the Admiralty from the Rear-Admiral commanding, sent on 27th September, 1906, from Corfu, stating that the port intermediate crank-head of H.M.S. "Angler" had sheared and
  1540
  wrecked the engine and cylinder, and that three men had been seriously injured; and whether he can state why this casualty was omitted from the annual Return ordered by this House.
  MR. McKENNA: This accident was omitted from the annual Return for 1907 as, owing to the papers on the subject being required for a lengthy inquiry and subsequent action, they did not reach the Department for record until November, 1907. The casualty will, however, be included in the 1908 Return, with a note explanatory of the reason why it was not included in the previous year's list.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Seeing that exactly the same excuse was made in the case of H.M.S. "Terrible," are we to understand that the Admiralty, which takes six months to get out a Return ordered by this House, can always avail itself of the excuse that the records are away at the time a Return is being prepared?
  MR. McKENNA: The Admiralty are not availing themselves of any excuse. The cases will appear in a subsequent Return.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is any public advantage gained by a continuation of these Returns?
  MR. McKENNA: The Question of the right hon. Gentleman gives me very much to think over on this subject.

  Naval Mechanicians.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what new rules have been instituted since 1st January, 1908, regarding the qualifications for mechanicians; why has the standard of the preliminary examination been relaxed; what numbers of eligible candidates have refused the offer of training for mechanician; and what were the principal objections raised by them.
  MR. McKENNA: There are no rules, but for the present, until the stoker ratings trained under the revised regulations introduced in 1906 are eligible for the mechanician course, applicants to qualify for mechanician are subjected to

  1541
  a preliminary examination at sea to test their general suitability. In January last it appeared that a sufficient number of candidates were not coming forward for the next course, and directions were given that the standard of the preliminary test might be slightly reduced as a purely temporary measure. There are now more than a sufficient number of candidates. Of the eligible volunteers for the mechanician course since 1st January, 1908, only one has withdrawn on the ground that he did not wish to re-engage to complete time for pension. The principal reasons which deterred men who entered under the old regulations for volunteering for mechanician appear to be—(1) Doubt as to their ability to pass the educational part of the preliminary test and disinclination to begin school work again. (2) Disinclination of men with homes at Chat- ham and Portsmouth to remove to Devonport. (3) Unwillingness to reengage for ten years, with possibility of failing to qualify for mechanician. (4) Prospect of considerable period of time at sea. (5) New regulations not thoroughly understood. The number of men who did not volunteer for the above reasons cannot be stated.

  The Territorial Field Artillery.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proposal to create 182 batteries of Territorial field artillery has the unanimous support of his professional advisers; and on what grounds their approval of this scheme is based.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): If the hon. Member will refer to the debate of the 19th March on Army Estimates he will find ample information on the points he has raised. I have only to add that under the new organisation of the British Army the Government is advised on all such matters as this by the General Staff, which is now thoroughly constituted. The Territorial Artillery Organisation is the one worked out and recommended by the General Staff. To adopt what appears to be the hon. Member's suggestion, by following the advice of a miscellaneous medley of self constituted advisers to the Army, many of them of little authority, in place of taking that of the General Staff, would
  1542
  be to relapse into the old state of confusion.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are the opinions of Lord Roberts and Lord Grenfell of no weight?
  MR. HALDANE: I did not say so. What I said was that I was acting under the advice of the General Staff and the Army Council.
  MR. ASHLEY: Did not the same Army Council give diametrically opposite advice to the late Secretary for War?
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say what; happened at that time, and I have not inquired.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: Is it not the fact that very satisfactory reports have been received of the working of the artillery under this system?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes; notwithstanding what some critics have said.

  Northumberland Artillery Militia.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any guns will be provided for the Northumberland Artillery Militia during their training next July; and whether there is any available range for musketry practice.
  MR. HALDANE: The General Officer Commanding in Chief Northern Command has been requested to use his discretion in placing guns at the disposal of the Artillery Militia from the Training Brigade at Newcastle-on-Tyne, while not interfering with the practice of the Training Brigade. There is a musketry range half-a-mile distant, at Berwick-on-Tweed, for range and field practices 800 yards long, with two classification canvas targets.
  MR. ASHLEY: What public use is served by spending public money on the training of militia battalions which are going to be disbanded?
  MR. HALDANE: We undertook that the Militia should not be disbanded until after this year's training. They are to be trained in the most useful way for the

  1543
  Special Reserve. We are discarding the things that will be useless.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure to get all these men to enlist in the Special Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: Certainly.
  LORD BALCARRES: Is it decided that they shall have guns?
  MR. HALDANE: Most certainly they are going to get guns; they are to be converted into Field Artillery Militia, although they are being trained this summer on the old footing.

  Territorial Sergeants—Major and Sergeant-Instructors.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether rates of pay for sergeant-majors and sergeant-instructors of infantry battalions of the new Territorial Force, approved under War Office sanction for these battalions when belonging to the Volunteers subsequent to 1902, will hold good and be continued as payments authorised at a higher rate than the general scale under the memorandum on the finance of the Territorial Army issued to Associations.
  MR. HALDANE: In cases where Associations propose a scale of remuneration in excess of the normal and such scale is justified by the circumstances, it will be approved. As I have already explained, no guarantee can be given that rates allowed in the past will be continued under the new conditions.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate that answer to the County Associations?
  MR. HALDANE: They know all about it already.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: Having regard to the difference in cost of living in various parts of the country will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the regulations with respect to pay and allowances in these cases are sufficiently elastic to meet the variations?
  MR. HALDANE: That has been provided for. Of course non-com-
  1544
  missioned officers from the Regular Army must be treated as such, and we cannot differentiate in their case, but under the regulations special allowances can be made to meet exceptional circumstances and we are prepared to consider any representations from County Associations in regard to such cases.

  Army Council Bill.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, by Clause 1 of the Army Council Bill now before Parliament, it is intended to transfer to the Army Council the power now exerciseable by the Secretary of State alone of authorising the accounting officer of his Department in writing to charge against Army Votes payments which that officer believes to be unauthorised or improper.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that this is one of the statutory powers dealt with in the Army Council Bill. The particular power in question is exerciseable by the Secretary of State as supreme chief of his Department by virtue of a Treasury Minute, and this business the Secretary of State reserves to himself under the Order in Council.

  Warwickshire Royal Garrison Artillery.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that upon the arrival of the guns for the heavy battery of the Warwickshire Royal Garrison Artillery, South Midland Division, a procession was formed and the guns conveyed to their destination, the horses being led by men with bands round their hats with the names of four well-known brewery firms upon them; whether these drivers were soldiers or brewers' employees; and whether any payment was made, and, if so, what amount, by these brewery companies for this advertisement.
  MR. HALDANE: No information in regard to this matter has reached the War Office. I am, however, glad, in the interest of the Territorial Force, to learn that there was at least considerable enthusiasm over the advent of the guns. I have been informed that as horses could not be got elsewhere the enterprising commanding officer borrowed them

  1545
  from the brewers, and my sympathies on this occasion are wholly with the brewers.
  MR. W. THORNEDid the men know what was behind the guns?
  [No Answer was returned].

  The Military Tournament.
  SIR HENEY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an item in the Military Tournament, which consists of a burlesque of the Indian Native cavalry, in which the performers were got up to represent so wars; whether the authorities responsible have considered whether such an item is one which is worthy of the British Army; and whether he will take steps to prevent the appearance in the Royal Military Tournament of a caricature of the most loyal troops in India, whose skill in these exercises is unrivalled.
  MR. HALDANE: I am informed by the Tournament authorities that this item in the Tournament is in no way a burlesque on the Indian Native cavalry. The best riders and tent peggers available have been picked out for this performance, which is intended to be a reproduction of the very excellent display given by the Native Indian cavalry at the Tournament a few years ago. I may add that similar displays have been given for several years past.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was so commented on in the London Press and so accepted by the representatives of the Native Indian cavalry?
  MR. HALDANE: If I attended to everything in the London Press I should have a great deal to do.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Was it so accepted by the representatives of the Native Indian cavalry in England?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is likely that such a performance—
  MR. SPEAKER: That will be a matter of opinion.

  General Baden-Powell's Sunderland Speech.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that General Baden-Powell is reported to have delivered, on or about the 22nd May, an address to members of the Territorial Army and their friends at Sunderland, at which members of the Press were requested by the chairman to take no notes; and whether he will give instructions that at such unreported, but virtually public, meetings officers of the Army shall not indulge in language calculated to set up unfriendly relations between this country and foreign Powers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the precedent made by the late Mr. Edward Stanhope, when Secretary for War, in respect of a political speech delivered by Lord Wolseley, which he said he could not justify, and informed Lord Wolseley so?
  MR. HALDANE: There was no dispute about the speech made by Lord Wolseley, which dealt with a matter as to which there was considerable controversy in those days, namely, Home Rule, and Mr. Stanhope very properly said it was not the business of any officer to express opinions on that subject on a public occasion. But this case is quite different. Here there is a question as to what really happened. My attention has not been drawn to the incident mentioned in the Question. No instructions of the nature suggested in the Question are considered necessary.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were not the reporters ordered not to take notes?
  MR. HALDANE: I believe not.

  War Office Balloon Factory Secrets.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether during a visit of Continental and British aeronauts to the War Office balloon factory at Farnborough on Thursday, the secrets of the new military airship and war balloons were revealed

  1547
  and the visitors were pledged to secrecy; and, if so, whether the disclosure of secrets was made by his authority.
  MR. HALDANE: NO, Sir. Instructions were specially given to ensure that nothing of an important or confidential character should be shown.
  MR. LONSDALEasked whether the visitors on this occasion were not given some information as to the construction of the airship.
  MR. HALDANEsaid a great many people had seen aeroplanes and dirigible balloons—they were a favourite spectacle on the Continent and here, when they could be seen—but as to secrets being disclosed, that was a very different business.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say were secrets disclosed?
  MR. HALDANE: No, they were not disclosed.

  Officers' Bungalows in South Africa.
  MR. VEENEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the rents charged to officers living in bungalows in some parts of South Africa; whether he is aware that such rents were fixed in order to bring in a return on prices charged for building these bungalows at a time when prices for materials and labour were very largely in excess of what they now are; whether, in spite of the fall in prices generally and of the depreciation of the bungalows, these rents have been maintained, thereby inflicting a heavy charge on the income of the officers who live in these bungalows; and whether, seeing that it is practically impossible for officers quartered in many places in South Africa to live anywhere else except in the bungalows so provided for them, the Government will take into consideration the desirability of a large and immediate reduction in the rents so charged.
  MR. HALDANE: This question is now under consideration.

  New Forest Manœuvres.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his
  1548
  legal advisers have as yet approved of the draft agreement prepared on behalf of the Court of Verderers for the joint regulation by them and by the War Office of the proposed military manœuvres in the New Forest; and, if so, what is the position under that agreement of the Court of Verderers with reference to any claim for damages made by a commoner.
  MR. HALDANE: The agreement has now been signed by both parties. It provides that the Verderers shall so far as possible and without prejudice to the right of any commoner to prosecute his own claim be entitled to represent the commoners in all questions which may arise between the military authorities and the commoners, and the Verderers will use their best endeavours to promote the settlement of such claims.
  SIR ROBERT HOBARTasked if it was not the fact that the Court of Verderers had expressed satisfaction with the agreement and were doing their best to aid the military authorities in making arrangements for the forthcoming manœuvres.
  MR. HALDANE: I believe that is so, and I hope the military will find it possible to obtain large quantities of butter, eggs, and milk locally.

  Land Ranges for the Territorial Field Artillery.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many County Associations in England and Wales have reported to the general officers commanding-in-chief that there is a possibility of obtaining sufficient land within their jurisdiction to provide land ranges for the proposed Territorial Field Artillery: and how many Territorial batteries it is estimated could fire a summer course on the present land ranges of the United Kingdom after the needs of the Regular batteries have been provided for.
  MR. HALDANE: Reports from the general officers commanding-in-chief show that arrangements for the practice of 116 batteries of Territorial Artillery for the present year have already been made. Further arrangements are in progress. The ranges are not in all eases wholly land ranges. As regards the last part

  1549
  of the Question, it would hardly be practicable to attempt to give any estimate.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that in future the Territorial Artillery are to fire almost exclusively on sea ranges?
  MR. HALDANE: I said nothing of the sort. Some already have land ranges, and I hope we will get such ranges for all. But the first thing is to teach the men how to handle the guns.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is it possible to give the men training on technical lines over sea ranges?
  MR. HALDANE: No, but I have said we hope to substitute land ranges for sea ranges; but we cannot do it all at once.

  Age Limits for Army Service.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his decision that men over thirty-six years of age are not suitable for active service abroad, orders have been given that the 10,000 non-commissioned officers and men over that age on the regimental strength of the several arms at home, in the Colonies, and in India, shall be discharged from the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.
  MR. ASHLEYasked why the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow men over thirty-six to go into the Special Reserve when 10,000 over that age are to continue to serve in the Army?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was understood to be to the effect that while it might not be desirable to have men over that age liable to active service abroad it would be a very different thing to say that the whole Army should be under thirty-six.

  Transvaal Gold Law.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received a reply to their communication to the Governor of the Transvaal on the subject of the draft Gold Law of that Colony, especially in respect of Sections 127 and 128 thereof, under
  1550
  which special disabilities are to be imposed upon coloured persons, including British-Indians.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: The Answer has not yet been received from the Governor.

  Transvaal Local Government Bill.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the draft Local Government Bill of the Transvaal; whether the Bill restores town regulations which were in vogue under the Kruger régime, forbidding any coloured person, irrespective of race, to use the footpaths, and excluding natives and Asiatics from, the tram-cars; and, if so, will he say if he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir; the draft has not yet reached the Colonial Office.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I will repeat the Question this day fortnight.

  Transvaal Civil Service.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return showing the names, post, salaries, and pension, gratuity, or compensation awarded, if any, in the cases of those civil servants who have been retrenched or may be discharged or are under notice of discharge from the Transvaal Civil Service from the date of the granting self-government to the Transvaal up to 30th April, 1908.
  COLONEL SEELY: This information is not in the possession of the Colonial Office, but the Transvaal Government shall be asked if they will furnish it—comprising particulars for the whole period since a policy of retrenchment was found necessary.

  British Indians in the Transvaal
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the agreement arrived at between the Transvaal Government and the British-Indians in January last suspended the Registration law in favour

  1551
  of voluntary re-registration; whether British-Indians then absent from the Transvaal, but entitled to return, were included; and whether he will inform this House as to the reported decision of the Transvaal Government to exclude some 5,000 of such absent British-Indians unless they comply with the Registration Law.
  COLONEL SEELY: The terms of the settlement are printed in the Blue-book Cd. 3892, and the latest official information received showed that registration was proceeding satisfactorily. I have no information with regard to the 5,000 Indians referred to in the Question, but I cannot suppose that the Transvaal Government at any time contemplated such an addition to the resident Indian population. Inquiry shall be made on the subject.

  Stoppage of Dinizulu's Salary.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that in 1897 Dinizulu was appointed by the Imperial Government as an induna in Zululand with a stipend of £500 a year, under a pledge that his position and stipend should not be withdrawn without the approval of the Secretary of State, and that he has been imprisoned for nearly six months for no definite offence and his stipend has been stopped against the wish of the Secretary of State, he is in a position to state what steps it is proposed to take to give effect to the promise made to Dinizulu in 1897.
  COLONEL SEELY; The Secretary of State has been in communication with the Natal Government on the subject, and I fear that I cannot add anything to the full information which has been given to the House.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that in 1897 Dinizulu was appointed an induna in Zululand with an annual stipend of £500, upon a joint understanding come to between the Imperial Government, the Natal Government, and Dinizulu, that the latter should not be deprived of his post or his stipend without the approval of the Secretary of
  1552
  State; and whether he is in a position to state upon what ground the Natal Government justify their having now imprisoned Dinizulu for nearly six months and deprived him of his stipend without having obtained the approval of the Secretary of State.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am well aware of the conditions defining the position which Dinizulu was to hold on his return. They are reprinted on page 7 of the Blue-book Cd. 3,998 which has been recently laid. This book, and the subsequent book Cd. 4,001, contain the correspondence with the Natal Government, and I cannot at present add anything to the information there given.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the stoppage of Dinizulu's salary.
  COLONEL SEELY: I fear I have nothing to add to my previous Answers on the general question, but I will give some details in answer to the following Question.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say up to what date Dinizulu's salary was paid; and on what date the first intimation was given to Dinizuhi by the Natal Government that it would be stopped.
  COLONEL SEELY: Dinizulu's salary has not been paid since 30th November. I am not aware when Dinizulu was first informed of the decision, which I have just learned was formally taken on 23rd January, but not embodied in an Order in Council until 26th May. As the salary is payable monthly in the ordinary course, it must be presumed that Dinizulu became aware of the intention of the Natal Government not to continue payment immediately after 31st December.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a reply from the Natal Government concerning the stoppage of the stipend of the

  1553
  chief Dinizulu; and whether, in view of this prejudging of his case and the prejudice against his getting a fair trial, the Colonial Office will acquiesce in this treatment of a native chieftain.
  COLONEL SEELY: I will read the Secretary of State's telegram, despatched to the Governor on Saturday: "I cannot but express my great regret that, in view of all the circumstances, the payment of Dinizulu's salary should have been stopped without the assent of the Secretary of State, seeing that this action cannot be regarded otherwise than as a breach of the spirit of the conditions upon which he was permitted to return to Zululand, and inflicts hardship on the prisoner, who is involved in much expense owing to the prolongation of the legal proceedings. It is not denied that these conditions were accepted as a binding engagement between the Natal Government and His Majesty's Government in the person of the Secretary of State, and you therefore in January last, rightly sought the approval of my predecessor when your Ministers desired to suspend Dinizulu's salary. As the conditions clearly provide for the approval of the Secretary of State, he is entitled to ask for an honourable observance of their terms. I feel bound to express my disappointment that your Ministers have treated a matter of this importance, in which grave political questions, involving native interests and the good faith of the Colony towards His Majesty's Government, are concerned, on purely technical grounds. Now that the legal construction to be placed upon the conditions as affecting Dinizulu has been referred to the Supreme Court, the decision of that tribunal must be awaited.—CREWE."
  MR. MACKARNESSasked the hon. Gentleman, in view of the admission that there had been a breach of a binding engagement between the Natal Government and the Imperial Government, when he would be in a position to state what steps the Imperial Government proposed to take.
  COLONEL SEELY: Plainly I cannot make any statement now.
  MR. FLYNNasked the hon. Gentleman whether he could give an undertaking that, at least, from whatever source it might be found, this £500 would be continued.
  COLONEL SEELY: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of this matter, as, I think my hon. friend will see from the telegram of the Secretary of State, but it would be inconvenient, and probably unwise, to make a definite statement.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state on what grounds permission has been refused to Miss Colenso by the Natal Court to act as interpreter between Dinizulu and his legal advisers; and what provision has been made to provide a suitable interpreter in her place.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have as yet no official information on this matter.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he has now ascertained that Dinizulu's boxes were broken open and the contents scattered when Colonel Mackenzie ransacked the chief's house at Usutu, and that the intelligence officers helped themselves to what they wanted, but are persistently refusing the defence even to inspect the papers found.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have no information on the subject beyond that contained in the Governor's telegrams of 27th March, and 28th April, printed at pages 109 and 179 of Cd. 3998.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  COLONEL SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the telegrams to which I have referred, he will see the Question is fully answered.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether by the law of Natal a prisoner is presumed to be innocent until his offence is proved; and, if so, why Dinizulu, although neither charged with

  1555
  nor found guilty of any specific offence, has been deprived of his salary as a Government induna.
  COLONEL SEELY: I understand that the view taken by the Natal Government is that a Government induna having been arrested with a view to criminal proceedings, his arrest and detention carry with it his suspension from the service of the Government and consequent suspension of salary.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Does that apply when no definite charge is made against him?
  COLONEL SEELY: I can only say what is the view of the Natal Government. I do not know whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. MACKARNESS: IS there any case on record in which an induna has been suspended in this way with no definite charge made against him?
  COLONEL SEELY: I could not give an answer to that Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question down on the Paper.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the prolonged and indefinite character of the criminal proceedings brought against Dinizulu, and to the action of the Natal Government in stopping his salary during these proceedings, and to the pledge of the Imperial Government that his salary shall not be withdrawn without the approval of the Secretary of State, His Majesty's Government will take steps to secure that Dinizulu has adequate means to provide for his defence.
  COLONEL SEELY: The consideration which the hon. Member enumerates are being duly borne in mind by His Majesty's Government, but they are not at present in a position to state what action they will feel it their duty to take in the matter.

  The New Hebrides.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to appoint British
  1556
  officials authorised to interpret and enforce the New Hebrides Convention.
  COLONEL SEELY: All the important British officials required for administrative purposes under the New Hebrides-Convention have already been appointed and are discharging their duties. None of the Judges of the joint Court have yet been appointed; for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrews Burghs on 5th May, the Court cannot begin its functions-for some little time.

  Colonial Governors and Martial Law.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House whether any instructions have been issued to Colonial Governors in respect of martial law since the circular despatch of Lord Carnarvon presented to Parliament in 1867; and whether there exist Colonial statutes investing the executive with power of suspending the ordinary law, such as that of which the repeal was directed by Lord Carnarvon in a despatch to the Governor of Antigua set forth in his circular despatch.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to the first part of my right hon. friend's Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, may I ask him to put it down for Wednesday next, by which day I hope the necessary particulars may have been obtained.

  Sino-Burmese Frontier.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government have yet accepted the demarcation of that part of the Sino-Burmese frontier known as Scott's Line; and, if not, whether negotiations are still in progress with a view to a settlement acceptable to both parties being arrived at, and how long such negotiations have already been in progress.
  MR. J. A. PEASE; for Sir E. GREY): The Chinese Government have not yet accepted the Line which His Majesty's Government notified to them in 1906 as, in their

  1557
  opinion, constituting the boundary. | Since then negotiations have taken place at intervals, but no settlement has been arrived at yet.

  The Case of Mr. Nicholas Luxenburg.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have yet furnished their reasons for arresting Mr. Nicholas Luxenburg, a naturalised British subject, whilst he was travelling under the protection of a British passport; whether the Government have accepted those reasons as adequate; and, if not, whether he will ask the Russian Government to make compensation for the injury inflicted on Mr. Luxenburg's health and business.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, and the communication of the Russian Government is now under consideration. With regard to a claim for compensation, as soon as a decision has been arrived at my right hon. friend will be ready to make it known.

  Russia and Persia.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that recently the Russian commander on the Persian frontier, on the pretext that one of his horses had strayed, entered Persian territory, accompanied by armed men, without informing the Persian authorities; that after killing the servant of a Persian family the Russian party retired; that immediately thereafter a Russian force entered Persian territory, sacked and burnt the villages of Beliasuvar and Zargar and another village, and killed over 100 persons; whether this proceeding is in accordance with the stipulation of the recently concluded Anglo-Russian Convention; whether there is any guarantee that, on a like pretext, similar violation of territory and similar outrages may not be perpetrated on the Russo-Afghan frontier; and what action His Majesty's Government, as the other high contracting party
  1558
  to the Convention, has taken or intends to take in the matter.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: My right hon. friend has no official information which corroborates the account of this incident given by the hon. Member. All that he knows of the affair is contained in the reply returned on 25th May to the Question asked by the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire.
  MR. LYNCH: May I ask whether, seeing that the Anglo-Russian Convention guaranteed the integrity of Persia, it is not the business of His Majesty's Government to inquire into frontier incidents of this nature
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I must ask for notice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why is-not the Secretary for Foreign Affairs here to answer Questions?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: When the Foreign Secretary was appointed, the Prime Minister at that time explained that on two days a week he would be substituted.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And is he to be substituted in going to Russia?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Police Court Fines.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State-for the Home Department whether he can state the objects upon which the moneys accruing from fines levied in police Courts and by benches of magistrates are expended.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Except in the cases where fines imposed by magistrates at Petty Sessions are otherwise allocated by statute, they are paid into county or borough funds, and go to pay for the maintenance of the Courts and the other purposes for which county and borough, rates are raised.

  The Winchester Riots.
  MR FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has been in communication with the Mayor of Winchester in reference to the recent riotous proceedings in that city, during which a mob took possession of the streets, and on two successive nights not only wrecked but robbed shops and houses, the military being called out three times and 300 special constables sworn in; whether his attention has been called to the action of the local authorities in surrendering prisoners under threats of violence by a large crowd; and whether steps will be taken to protect the property of peaceable and law-abiding citizens in this city.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Mayor of Winchester has brought this matter to my notice. There was some disorder in the town on the two nights in question, and lamps and windows were broken, but the reports of what occurred appear to be exaggerated. I am not aware that any shops and houses were wrecked or robbed, or that any prisoners were surrendered under threats of violence. I am satisfied that the local authorities are fully alive to their responsibility in respect of the maintenance of order, and that there is no reason to apprehend further disturbances of the kind.
  MR. FLYNN: What would have occurred had this happened in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not responsible for the Government of Ireland.

  The Mile-End Riot.
  MR. B. S. STRAUSasked the Home Secretary whether he was aware of the riot that took place yesterday at the junction of the Whitechapel and Mile End roads owing to a child being killed by a motor-omnibus; whether he would see that the motor traffic was under better and safer control than at present; and whether he would also see that the police were instructed to prevent any such, awful scene occurring again.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he had no information beyond what he had seen in the papers, but would make inquiries.

  New Zealand and Danish Tariffs.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a speech by the Premier of New Zealand expressing the opinion that the Colonies were within their rights in asking for preference, and that they should not be called upon to compete against Denmark and other countries which had built up high protective walls; and whether the duties levied by Denmark upon British produce are higher or lower than the duties levied by New Zealand.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have seen a report in the newspapers to the effect stated in my hon. friend's Question. A comparison of the relative incidence of the Danish and New Zealand tariffs on the principal articles exported from this country on the lines explained in the Fiscal Blue-book (Cd. 2337) indicates that the Danish import duties on those articles are considerably heavier than those of New Zealand.

  Railway Brakes
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by deputations to his Department in connection with recent railway accidents, suggesting that brakes are in use on some of the railways which are faulty in design or construction: and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The attention of the Board of Trade was drawn to certain suggestions of this character by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in January last, and also by deputations since that date. The Board have for some time been in communication with the principal railway companies thereon, with a view to a thorough investigation of various types of brake. This suggestion has been favourably received, and it is understood that the necessary steps are now being

  1561
  taken for an examination which will be carefully followed by the expert officials of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WARDLEwas understood to ask if it was intended that the inquiry should apply to the continuous brakes used by all railways.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice, and added that the railway companies were doing their best to help the inquiry.

  Marine Department Surveyors' Clerks.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what, if any, departmental regulation keeps the clerks in surveyor's offices of the | Marine Department as a separate class, and, as such, prevents their being promoted under Clause 15 of the Order in Council, dated 28th November, 1898; and whether he will now take such action as will lead to the selection of eligible men from amongst those clerks to fill any vacancies for Second Division clerks occurring in his Department.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no regulation to prevent these clerks being promoted under the terms of the Order in Council and their claims will be considered with those of others when suitable opportunities occur.

  Royal Commission on the Poor Laws.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that no Reports of the Evidence and Memoranda which have been submitted to the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws have yet been issued, though it is understood that many of these volumes are now in print; whether he can arrange for the issue of these. Reports to Members as soon as possible after they are set up in type; and whether he can arrange especially for the issue of those volumes which contain Evidence and Memoranda on unemployment, aged poverty, and infirmity.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question, and to refer to the reply which I gave to a similar
  1562
  Question put to me by the hon. Member for the Govan division on 20th May. As I then indicated, the Royal Commission at the outset of their proceedings, and on subsequent occasions, decided that it would not be advisable to publish the Evidence and Memoranda submitted to them before their Report is issued.
  MR. GOULDING: In view of the fact that the sittings may extend over two years, is it intended to keep back all the evidence until it reports, and then dump it down, volume after volume?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Commission.

  Northumberland County Council School,
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Northumberland County Council has recently purchased from the Duke of Northumberland a site for a school between Westerhope and North Walbottle at a price of £927 13s. 4d. per acre; whether he is aware that the rental value of the site is about £1 per acre, and that the cost of erecting the school is between £5,000 and £6,000; whether, seeing that the school, being about a mile distant from each of the places named, is inconvenient for both, he has made any inquiries whether two convenient schools could have been erected at the same building cost and at a much lower cost per site; and, if not, whether he proposes to cause an official inquiry to be made into such expenditure.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that the county council have purchased this site, the cost of which was £749, including legal expenses. I do not know the amount of the rental value. The estimated cost of the buildings and furniture was £4,386. The question of the convenience of the site for educational purposes was one for the Board of Education, and they informed me in March, 1906, that they had approved of it so far as educational requirements were concerned. A loan for the purchase of the site and the erection of the school was sanctioned in 1907, and the building has since been

  1563
  erected. The matter cannot be re-opened, and I could not undertake to direct an inquiry on the subject.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is any redress open to the inhabitants in the case of the wrongful expenditure of public funds like this?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I think the local authority might have made earlier representation as to the unsuitability of the site.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: But in the case of the local authority having offended, have the inhabitants no redress?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Council Buildings and Trade Union Meetings.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the St. Helens Town Council in refusing to let a room in the council buildings for trade union purposes on a Sunday, and to the action of the Welshpool Town Council in refusing to let a room in the council buildings to the Welshpool branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants except at a prohibitive rate; and whether he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to take such action in the matter as will prevent the possibility of local authorities taking up this position in the future.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiry as regards the cases mentioned by my hon. friend. I do not understand that the town council of St. Helens have refused the request made to them. A committee of the council have been in communication with the local branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants on this subject with a view of ascertaining whether the meetings could not be held on a week-day. The secretary of the branch has now replied on this point, and the matter will be brought before the town council. As regards the Welshpool case, I am informed that the town council offered the society the use of a room on Sundays, at a charge of 3s. for each meeting not
  1564
  exceeding two hours, this charge to include firing, lighting, cleaning, etc. I do not think I could propose legislation on this subject, but I am glad to know that many local authorities are willing to grant facilities for meetings of trade unions, friendly societies, and other similar bodies.
  MR. JOHN WARD: How many local authorities returned favourable answers to the Circular sent out by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The circular was issued two months ago. I have received forty-two replies, thirty-two of which stated either that accommodation for working men's associations had already been provided or expressed their willingness to provide it.

  Prince's Square, St. George's-in-the-East.
  MR. DICKINSONI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an announcement that the central portion of Prince's Square, St. George's-in-the-East, is to be sold by auction for commercial purposes; whether he can take any action which will prevent this land from passing into the hands of private speculators before the local authorities shall have had an opportunity of purchasing it for or on behalf of the public; and whether, in view of the importance of preserving intact the squares and other similar air-spaces in London, he will consider the advisability of including in the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill provisions which will in future render illegal the erection of buildings upon land at present so used.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the proposed sale. The matter is not one with respect to which I am empowered to take any action of the kind suggested, but I am informed that it is improbable that the land will pass into the hands of private speculators, regard being had to the condition of the property market and the particular circumstances of the present case. I doubt whether a provision of the kind referred to in the last part of the Question could properly

  1565
  be included in the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill.

  Cash-on-Delivery System.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can give any assurance that it is not intended to extend the cash-on-delivery system to the United Kingdom without giving retail traders in the country full opportunity to state their objections.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The cash-on-delivery system just instituted is confined to certain Colonies and Dependencies. I hope it may result in materially extending mutual trade in small articles. I have no present intention of dealing with the question of introducing the system of cash-on-delivery into the United Kingdom—a proposal involving quite different considerations.

  The Apostles' Creed.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the teaching of the creed called the Apostles' Creed, and, of what, if any, other creeds or formularies distinctive of any denominations or groups of denominations, is permitted under the Cowper-Temple clause in provided schools.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Since the repeal of Section 16 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the Board of Education have possessed no power to determine authoritatively the legality or otherwise of the teaching of any specified formulary in council schools.
  LORD R. CECIL: Had the Board the power before the repeal of the section?
  MR. RUNCIMANasked for notice.

  Registration of Teachers.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is
  1566
  aware that there is now general agreement among the educational bodies concerned as to the constitution of the council for the registration of teachers; and whether he can now state what further steps have been taken with a view to the continuance of the register.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Representatives of certain sections of the teaching profession, but by no means of all branches of the profession, have agreed, as I understand, to certain propositions as to the best lines on which a new Registration Council should be framed; and these have been discussed by those representatives with the Board. The representatives have decided to consider further various points of difficulty which are involved in the proposals and the Board are awaiting a communication from them, with a view to publishing for general consideration the proposals referred to with such mollifications as the representatives may have decided upon.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to ask if a conclusion will be arrived at by the earliest possible day.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There will be no delay on the part of the Board of Education.

  Meals for School Children.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will call the attention of local education authorities to the fact that, under the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, the machinery necessary for the provision of food to the children may be paid for out of the ordinary education rate, and that the whole of the halfpenny rate authorised by the Act may be devoted to the supply of food alone.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I think the Circular issued by the Board shortly after the passing of the Act makes it clear that the limitation of expenditure to the produce of a halfpenny rate applies only to the expenditure on the provision of food.

  Ruchill Fever Hospital, Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the resident medical officers at Ruchill Fever Hospital, Glasgow, have been dismissed because they drew the attention of the Local Government Board to evils which have been fully substantiated on public inquiry; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The resident medical officers at Ruchill Hospital were not dismissed because they drew the attention of the Local Government Board to the evils referred to. The dismissals were agreed upon by the sub-committee on hospitals on the grounds stated in their Minute of 13th January. I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the local authority.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether nurses have been dismissed and threatened with dismissal from Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow, on account of their having given evidence before the Local Government Commissioners; and, if so, will he, in view of the public necessity that those with knowledge of the facts be not in future intimidated from giving evidence in such cases, call the attention of those under his Department to the unwisdom of such action.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not aware that nurses have been dismissed and threatened with dismissal from Ruchill Hospital on account of their having given evidence before the Commissioners, but I am making inquiries.

  Insanitation at Newcastle.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for the County of Roxburgh has reported that the drains in the village of Newcastleton are defective and half full of sludge, and that the water drawn from the wells is dangerous to drink; and whether, in the event of the proprietor taking no measures to remedy this state of things, and in view of the risk of typhus and diphtheria, any
  1568
  public action will be taken by way of precaution.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The facts, as stated by my hon. friend, have been duly reported and the Local Government Board are in communication with the local authority as to the remedies that should be applied.

  Rural Population of Roxburgh.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the average population per square mile in the rural districts of the County of Roxburgh, and also the percentage of increase or decrease in the last two> decades.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The average population per square mile in the rural portion of the County of Roxburgh, i.e., the portion of the county outside the Burghs of Hawick, Jedburgh, Kelso and Melrose, at the time of the 1901 Census was 33·5. Owing to the fact that Melrose was a burgh at the time of that Census, but not at the time of the 1891 Census, a corresponding figure regarding the extra-burghal portion of the county at the time of the 1891 Census is not available. The average population per square mile of the portion of the county outside the three burghs of Hawick, Jedburgh, and Kelso, at the time of the 1901 Census, was 36·8, the figure corresponding to that at the time of the 1891 Census was 40·7, the comparison showing that the population per square mile of the county, as thus tested, decreased by 9·6 per cent. in the intercensal period.

  Agriculture in Roxburgh County.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has any return of the number of the population in the County of Roxburgh employed in agriculture; and whether the number so employed is on the increase or decrease.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The number of persons employed in agriculture in the County of Roxburgh, at the time of the last Census, 1901, was 5,372, which is 436 less than the corresponding number at the time of the 1891 Census, and 538 less than the corresponding number at the time of the 1881 Census.

  Solway Firth Fishery Laws.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in accordance with the expectations held out at the Annan fishing inquiry in February, 1906, he can see his way to introduce, at an early date, a Bill for the reform of the fishery law dealing with the Solway Firth, and especially to make it clear that whammeling is legal.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Government will consider this subject with a view to the legislation which my hon. friend suggests. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed that whammeling has never been declared illegal.

  Scottish Endowed Schools and the Education Bill.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he would prepare and circulate for the use of Members, in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill, a Memorandum giving a list of endowed schools in Scotland falling within the provisions of the Bill, with particulars of the purposes and amounts of endowments available for education in respect of each school or endowment.
  MR. SINCLAIR: To my regret I find that, if I understand its terms correctly, the labour and time involved in the preparation of the Memorandum asked for by my hon. friend would be so great as to make its production impracticable until too late for the present discussion; but if he will be good enough to confer with me I will place at his disposal such information as is before me.

  Armagh Post Office Wage Scale.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the classification of the head post office at Armagh under the new scheme of remuneration and conditions of service in the Postal Department.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The position of Armagh in the new classification has not yet been settled.

  Land Valuation Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state on what date the Land Valuation Bill for England and Wales will be introduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I cannot as yet fix the date, but I hope very shortly after. Whitsuntide.

  Royal Visit to Russia.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to appoint Lord Justices or guardians for the administration of the Government during the absence of the Sovereign from the realm, inasmuch as His Majesty is not to be accompanied on his visit to Russia by a responsible Minister of the Crown, and cannot accordingly perform any royal act required of him with as much validity and effect as if it were done in his own dominions.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Campbell in 1845 said that the absence of the Sovereign from the realm without a responsible adviser was an abeyance of all his functions, and whether on the same occasion Lord Lyndhurst said the Sovereign would be accompanied by a Minister of the Crown?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not carry that in my memory. Perhaps my hon. friend will give me notice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman all about it on Thursday if I have a chance.

  The King and the Ministry.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will say how the Government keep themselves posted as to what occurs at interviews between the Sovereign and any foreign potentate at which the Foreign Secretary, or other Member of the Cabinet responsible to the House of Commons, is not present. The hon. Member complained that the form of

  1571
  the question had been altered by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: It was I who cut the Question down, and I call on the hon. Member to put it as it appears on the Paper.
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. friend may be assured that the Government are kept informed, and preserve their responsibility for the conduct of all State affairs. The assumption contained in the Question that when a foreign Sovereign stays with the King, or the King with a foreign Sovereign, they should never meet though staying in the same house, or, if they do meet, should only converse in the presence of a Cabinet Minister, is not reasonable.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not a proper assumption and has it not been held again and again that the Sovereign cannot enter into any communication with a foreign Minister or a foreign potentate except in the presence of a Cabinet Minister? I can give the Prime Minister dozens of instances.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of them.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question as to how the Government keep themselves posted as to what transpires?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, I do not propose to answer that Question. It is sufficient to say that the Government do keep themselves posted.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Russian Prime Minister and the Russian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will accompany the Tsar, whereas the King will be unaccompanied by any Minister?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know what the arrangements of the Russian Government are. I only know of our own arrangements.
  MR. H. C. LEA: May I press for an answer to my Question, in view of the
  1572
  fact that Ministers are responsible to this House for what transpires?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his Answer. Anything more seems to be in the nature of argument.

  The Creation of Peerages.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it has been the custom when changes in the constitution or powers of any body are impending, and legislation for that purpose is adumbrated by the responsible Government of the day, to refrain from making additions to the body thus circumstanced which are not rendered mandatory by statute while such changes are pending; and on what ground, having regard to the legislation in reference to modifications in the constitution of the House of Lords foreshadowed in the King's Speech at the opening of the session of 1907, and the Resolutions of the House of Commons in June, 1907, moved by the late Prime Minister on the same subjects, have additions been made by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in the creation of peerages to the number of the Members of the House of Lords.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware that there is any historical foundation for the custom alleged in the first part of the Question. There does not appear to be anything in the proposals referred to in the second part of the Question to interfere in point, either of logic or of policy, with the regular exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in the bestowal of honours.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Resolutions against the Irish Church, and when those Resolutions were carried, he immediately obtained an Address from the Crown—a notification that its prerogatives would be in abeyance pending legislation? The right hon. Gentleman has got his Resolution about the House of Lords; will he—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member's Question is in the nature of a speech.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, Sir, only a commentary.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that this Government, since it came into office in December, 1905, has created a number of peers, he will now give this House an assurance that it will, during its tenure of office, make no further recommendations to the Crown for the creation of any additions to that Chamber.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirableness of suspending the creation of further peerages until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had an opportunity of considering my suggestion for the taxation of titles?
  [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the course of business. Referring to the Prime Minister's interpretation that the debate commencing that day could be concluded by dinnertime on Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman recalled the fact that in 1902, 1903, and 1904, three days were devoted to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and in 1905, when the Budget was admittedly uncontroversial, two full days. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind. He also asked when it was proposed to discuss the Royal visit to Russia, and if that were taken on Wednesday, what Supply would be set down for Thursday?
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had expressly stated in answer to a Question a few days ago what the views of the Government were with regard to the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. He was still of opinion that, in view of the discussion that had already taken place and of the automatic suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, adequate opportunity would be given for discussion by concluding the debate at dinner-time tomorrow. With regard to precedents, what distinguished this year from any in
1574
recent experience was that they had actually got two Bills before them. They were obliged to put their old-age pensions scheme into a separate Bill, and the result was that both Bills gave the opportunity for discussion which as a rule was only afforded upon the Finance Bill. That seemed to make his suggestion for concluding the debate by eight o'clock to-morrow reasonable. The remaining time to-morrow would be occupied with two or three small but important Bills, in order that they might be got to a Standing Committee. With regard to the raising of the question of the King's visit to Russia, he gathered that the intention was to raise the matter in Supply. In that case, it would not be a topic of discussion on the Motion for adjournment, and the Foreign Office Vote would be put down for Thursday.
MR. A. J. BALFOURfurther asked the Prime Minister whether he had noticed the large number of Amendments on the Paper with regard to local taxation, and whether he had observed that that subject formed part of the Amendment which might be regarded as the official Opposition Amendment. The question of old-age pensions, therefore, did not come in quite so much as the Prime Minister supposed. With regard to Thursday, he asked whether any other topics would be discussed beyond the Russian visit or raised at some other time in Supply.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that with regard to the debate on the Russian visit, it might be convenient to ask the House to meet earlier on Thursday, at twelve o'clock as on Fridays, and to discuss the Foreign Office Vote then. He would give a definite answer to-morrow.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked if it was not the case that on the Old-age Pensions Bill they would be confined to a discussion of the principle of that Bill and that on the Finance Bill alone could they discuss the ways and means to pay for pensions.
MR. ASQUITH: My experience is that so far both topics have been discussed.
MR. CHAPLINasked when the Old-age Pensions Bill would be circulated?
MR. ASQUITHsaid that the Old-age Pensions Bill was in the hands of the printers. It would be circulated either to-morrow or the next day at the latest.
MR. HAROLD COXasked the Prime Minister whether, as the Opposition Amendment to the Finance Bill indicated a change in the fiscal policy, he would not have the Opposition full opportunity of explaining what that policy was.
[No Answer was returned.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Standing Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Clancy; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Irish Universities Bill): Mr. Kavanagh.
Report to lie upon the Table.

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. LAURENCE HARDY, in moving the following Amendment—"That in view of the growing liabilities of the nation for naval and military defence, old-age pensions, and education, and of the necessity for giving additional relief to ratepayers from the increasing charge for national services now thrown upon the rates, this House regrets that no attempt is made to increase the resources of the Exchequer by broadening the basis of taxation," said they ought to have had a clearer statement as to the manner in which the finances of the country were to be conducted during the coming year, and he thought it was rather remarkable that they should have embarked upon the discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill without
1576
having had an opportunity of seeing the Old-Age Pensions Bill, although the central point of the whole Budget was the question of old-age pensions. They had endeavoured to obtain some information with regard to this amazing Budget, but they had so far failed. They had had no explanation whatever of the extraordinary change of front which the Prime Minister had shown as compared with his attitude when Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year he gave them certain cardinal features by which the finances of the country were to be conducted, and no one could put them more plainly than the right hon. Gentleman, but apparently at this moment, if they took the statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, those theories had been utterly upset. The last time they had a discussion on that point the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said how impossible it was for anybody to budget except for the year, but that was the very thing the Prime Minister said they ought to do. He said last year—
"It is an utter mistake to take the annual Budget as if it stood by itself, as it is, and ought to be, an integral part and a necessary link, in a coherent chain of policy. We cannot drift along the stream and treat each year as if were itself-contained.
At that time the Prime Minister also said they had to observe two great axioms. They had, first and foremost, the obligation to reinstate the national credit, and he appealed for a large sum for the reduction of the National Debt. Had they reinstated the national credit already? Was the Government entirely satisfied with the position of the national funds and of first-class securities? Was this the moment when, after saying that their first object was to reinstate the national credit, the right hon. Gentleman should recommend a raid on the Sinking Fund? This was not the moment when such a thing should have been tolerated. Further, if it seemed good to the Members of this House to reduce the charge set apart for the reduction of the National Debt, he thought all would agree that any saving upon that head should go to the reduction of the income-tax, their second line of reserve in case of emergency, and ought not to be used for the purposes of

1577
social reform. Therefore, so far as any further reduction of this charge might be contemplated, he did not think it was wise for them to consider that it would be safe for them to carry out an extensive system of social reform by money taken out of the charge now applied to the National Debt, for the reinstatement of the credit of the nation. There were many contingencies which might not happen again. Last year, £1,500,000 was kept as a nest-egg for old-age pensions. Then there was the China Indemnity contribution, and surpluses had helped considerably. They had not yet heard from the right hon. Gentleman why he had taken the standard of twenty years ago instead of ten years ago as the amount for the reduction of Debt. Many supporters of the Government had expressed their dissatisfaction at the adoption of this course and in almost every speech the suggestion of a raid on the Sinking Fund had been received with considerable disapproval, especially by those hon. Members opposite who had some right to speak upon financial matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other day in a somewhat light tone that he knew he had to find another £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 next year. This was almost the first Budget which left a little deficit of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 to be supplied out of practically no funds whatsoever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken lightly of the prospects of further economies in our defensive forces. Was there anybody prepared to say that the Territorial scheme was likely to cost less than was suggested? It could only cost less if it was a failure, and that was what they heartily hoped it would not be. As far as the standing Army was concerned nobody thought that this was a moment when we could reduce our garrisons abroad. We had been obliged to strengthen the garrison in Egypt and the situation in India was such that we could not withdraw any of our military forces from that country. He did not see how there was going to be any great economy on the Army. As for the Navy all sides admitted that it was necessary to keep up the standard that had been set up, and that would involve expenditure not only on new ships, but
1578
also on stores, and new docks in order that they might have somewhere to dock these great ships which were now being built. With regard to the Civil Service Estimates the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that their programme involved an increased expenditure of about £5,000,000 since the present Government took office. A glance at the Order Book would show how interwoven with expenditure was every suggestion of legislation. If they turned to education they would find a Bill which proposed £1,000,000 as a sop for its acceptance. There was another Bill estimated to cost £1,400,000, but after the statement made the other day announcing further terms to buy up certain interests the expenditure would not stop at the amount named. The Irish Universities would require more money, and the measure dealing with Scottish land would entail further expenditure. When all these schemes came to fruition what would be the consequences when the expenditure upon them had to be faced? There was still a much larger question which required considerable attention at their hands. What interested him most was the question of the relation between local and Imperial finance, which the Prime Minister put in the forefront of his Budget statement last year. He said on that occasion that he was going to sweep away all these old subventions, and effect a settlement on generous lines between Imperial and local finance. They expected some statement upon that subject in the present Budget, but they had been disappointed; there was nothing in the Finance Bill which encouraged them to believe that they were going to receive any further relief from the Government in connection with this matter. In fact there seemed some doubt as to whether they were going to receive quite as much relief under this heading as in the past. They had placed this matter before the Prime Minister, who had expressed some sympathy with them; but they could not rely upon sympathy alone, because if once they got involved in expenditure of this kind there would not be much money left to deal with the relations between local and Imperial finance. Last year the House passed a Bill dealing with the medical inspection of children, involving an expenditure of

1579
about £1,000,000. They had hoped that other matters might have engaged the attention of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed great sympathy in regard to the question of lunatic asylums, and the subject of the roads. Could there be a case which it was more necessary that the Government should acknowledge as a national service than the lunatic asylums? Practically the whole of the cost of management of lunatic asylums came, not from local but Imperial sources, and the county authorities were asked to finance matters over which they had very little control. Turning to the roads, this was a matter which caused him some anxiety. He would like an explanation of the position the Government had taken up in connection with the collection of licence and other duties. As far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman, like the fisherman, had spread his net wide and gathered everything in, but when he looked at his catch he only took those which were worth having, and threw back to the local authorities the small fry of very little value. The game, the dog, and the carriage licences, which were not likely to be an increasing revenue, he had given back to the local authorities, and he had taken from them the sources of revenue from which they were most likely to gain, namely, the motor licences and the liquor licences. It was especially in connection with the use of motors that the great expense in connection with the repair of the roads had arisen, and any extra advantage from an increase or alteration in the charges for motor licences ought to be dedicated to the local authorities for the use of the road, or else they should be allowed an equivalent grant. It was incumbent upon the Government to do something in this direction, because the matter was very pressing and it was important that they should show their sympathy with this object in a substantial way. Then there was another burden of an even more formidable character, and that was in connection with old-age pensions. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that in this respect the Government intended to make a stupendous effort to redeem their promises. That was rather remarkable, because the Prime Minister himself
1580
had said they had made no promise in this direction. They were told that in this Budget they were providing a sum of £1,500,000 with which to start old-age pensions. Last year they earmarked a sum amounting to £1,500,000, but this year they were providing only £1,200,000 or £300,000 less than last year. Was that the colossal effort the Government were making to redeem their pledges? That could not be deemed a satisfactory manner of carrying out what the Prime Minister said was his second axiom in connection with national finance. He said—
"Having regard to the objection of taking away half the sugar duty and the practical conclusion to which I have come that I must not permanently impair my means of revenue in view of the future I do not propose to make any change in this duty."
The right hon. Gentleman went on in even stronger words to say that, so far as he was concerned, he was not going to part with any substantial methods of taxation, until he had financed the new scheme which he indicated in last year's Budget, and which he had restated this year. The House must remember that though the words of the right hon. Gentleman did not pledge him to a contributory scheme of old-age pensions, he pledged himself to a scheme which would be contributed to through taxation by those who were going to enjoy it, but, so far as the scheme was concerned, it had been started on a non-contributory basis, and was not contributed to by those who were going to enjoy it. It had limitations which everybody knew could not be maintained. Some of them would disappear later on, and one or two in regard to married couples would vanish in the course of this session. It was a scheme which could not possibly be kept within the limits suggested by the Prime Minister, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it was a complete scheme. Yet they had this scheme before them without any provision whatsoever—
MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing about old-age pensions in the Finance Bill.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he had no desire to discuss the old-age pensions

1581
scheme in any sense, but he thought that in discussing the Finance Bill they were always allowed to refer to any matter contained in the Budget statement. Reference was made in the Budget statement to £6,000,000 for old-age pensions. They could not deal with the Budget as a whole, nor with the Finance Bill, without alluding to some extent to the money to be found for old-age pensions.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman would be entitled to refer from the financial side to the question of old-age pensions, but not to go into a detailed examination of it. There will be another opportunity on another Bill for discussion, and I do not think it would be at all convenient or proper to discuss the question now.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he did not desire to dwell on it. He only alluded to it to show how extremely wide it was in its nature, and the manner in which it was to be carried out So far as his present argument was concerned, he only desired to direct attention to the fact that, in addition to the great liabilities to which he had previously alluded, this liability for old-age pensions was brought before them by the Government in the Budget, and yet the Finance Bill did not provide for the future financing of the scheme The consequence was that enormous weight would be thrown on the financial future of the country. Undoubtedly the question of expenditure did come very closely in contact with that of old-age pensions, and especially that part of the scheme which referred to limitations, because as soon as the limitations went more money would be required, and it was impossible for the Government to put forward as an excuse for these limitations the fact that they had removed a certain amount of taxation. If the Government insisted upon reducing the taxation upon sugar, the limits they had put on the old-age pension scheme were not limits which they ought to have made in the circumstances of the case, for in order to make the scheme perfect they might have used the money which they were going to remit, and thereby removed the objections which would naturally be taken
1582
to the scheme. The Government had £1,500,000 in last year's surplus. They had taken off part of the sugar duty and now they had only £1,200,000 for old-age pensions. When they found the revenue mortgaged up to the hilt, an enormous increase of liabilities, to some extent a falling off in revenue—at all events last year's figures were not likely to be repeated—and practically no balance at all, and when they found that the Government had failed to indicate any new source of taxation, then he thought the Opposition were justified in bringing forward their objections to the financial position placed before the House, and asking the House whether, considering the position as a whole, it was a convenient precedent to be followed in the future. It was the reckless dive of the gambler. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but they did not laugh at certain bye-elections. It was a gamble to meet a certain exigency and to afford a fruitful source of oratory on the platform when the other side of the question could not be brought forward. It was a political attempt rather than a financial one, and it was on that ground that he preferred rather to turn to the more sober statements of the Prime Minister as Chancellor of the Exchequer last year than to what was said when the right hon. Gentleman was rather exhilarated by the effects of recent bye-elections. If in the coming year we had to face all these great liabilities, then he thought it was necessary to indicate to some extent how the financial position was to be met. The Opposition had again and again asked the Government what was their inherent proposal of finance which was to carry them through these liabilities, and they had had no answer. The Government said that they had not come to the last word in connection with free trade finance. Well, it might not be the last word, but it was getting very near the last word. The next words, he thought, would come from the hon. Members below the gangway, and they would not be in any way likely to benefit the trade of the country. The proposals from below the gangway affecting capital and employment were hardly likely to lead to that commercial prosperity which hon. Members on both sides of the House had at heart. That prosperity was not to be found by

1583
falling into the vortex of finance suggested by the Labour Party. That was where the Government were being surely led, for they had thrown out no suggestions as to how they were going to meet those great future liabilities without taking from the programme of the hon. Gentlemen to whom he had alluded. He was glad to say that the Opposition had not come to the last word on the question either; they had only so far got to the very first word in connection with tariff reform. Though their proposals might be received grudgingly in the House, they were every day received with greater approbation in the country, and it was because they believed that any party in this House would eventually be driven to widen the basis of taxation instead of constantly narrowing it as the Government had been doing that he moved this Amendment. He and his friends believed that they might in this case take lessons from others who had been enabled to gain great advantage from widening the basis of taxation, and at the same time that they might not have that frightening and dwindling of capital which had resulted from the policy of the present Government. If they could encourage capital they knew that they could deal also with the much more difficult question of unemployment, which was a cause of serious concern. It was not for the Opposition at the present moment, and still less for a private Member, to suggest the taxes which should be imposed in order to widen the basis of taxation. Sufficient was it for him to say that those who sat around him joined him in believing that they had an alternative policy which was constantly gaining strength, and it was only by widening the basis of taxation, instead of constantly narrowing it as they had done by repealing the coal-tax and in other ways, that they could look to those great resources necessary for our Imperial and local finance. Believing in this, and believing that they had a most serious task before them in the great liabilities the Government had thrown upon the nation, it was greatly to be deplored that in giving this account of the national finance the Government had found no means of showing how they might find the funds which would be required. In his opinion the only
1584
way in which it could be done was by widening the basis of taxation. He-begged to move.
CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELLhaving claimed the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time, said he was in very hearty agreement with every word which had fallen from his hon. friend in moving the Amendment. They were starting a, very dangerous precedent—a precedent which, he thought, it was no exaggeration to say was very likely eventually, if they continued to act in the same manner, to be the means of breaking up the Empire. He considered that the whole scheme of finance, as outlined by the Prime Minister in his Budget Speech, was a mad gamble for votes. When the Budget was introduced they were told that the old-age pensions scheme was going to cost about £6,000,000, and very shortly afterwards there was a reshuffle, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the amount at £7,000,000. But he had very good reason to think that the sum would eventually be much more like £11,000,000. After the great increase which he thought every Member of the House would admit would be certainly necessary in the expenditure on the Navy, there was the new Education Bill, which, if it ever became law, would, with other expenses, still further increase the expenditure by about £8,000,000. It struck him that that was sufficiently formidable when they remembered that we were now in a year of falling trade Returns. All this was apart from the ultimate cost of the old-age pensions scheme, which at present only dealt with the fringe of the question. They had every right, and in fact it was a duty they owed to their constituents, to point out the foolhardy, if he might say so, endeavour to finance this great country in such Budgets as they had seen put before the House lately. But he wished more particularly to associate himself with that part of the Amendment which dealt with the increased charges for national services on the rates. He thought it would be generally admitted that the enormous increase in the rise of the rates, in spite of the fact that the rateable value had increased to a great extent, was becoming a very serious and pressing danger. It

1585
seemed to be often lost sight of that it was no use adding item after item to the charges on the rates, and then asking the ratepayers to be contented with small amounts from the Imperial Exchequer. When they saw that from 1889–90 to 1904–5 the charges on the local rates had risen 70 per cent. for poor relief, 50 per cent. for police, no less than 206 per cent. for education, and no less than 134 per cent. for main roads and bridges, it was high time that they asked the Government to do something to lessen the burden which the agricultural constituencies were feeling so heavily at the present moment. Yet, in spite of all these charges on the rates, Members on the Government benches brought in and voted for measures, and when they found that they were unable to squeeze the money required out of the Treasury, the extra charges created by the Bills were thrown in many instances on to the rates. Recent examples of that were the medical inspection of school children, the feeding of school children, and the expenses of the Small Holdings Act. He considered these increased burdens on the rates a very serious matter. In Devonshire the rise in the rates during the last seven years had been very marked, amounting to 124 per cent., although he admitted that that was greatly owing to the Education Act. The rise, however, had been very great indeed in the county and police rate, so that it could not be all put down to education. He believed it was a great deal more in Gloucestershire and in many other counties. These charges were bound to increase in the future, and he did not think that the Government realised the seriousness of the case or were dealing with it so as to benefit those who suffered. It had always been understood that the burden should fall on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, but that seemed to have been conveniently lost sight of in regard to rates, though it had not been ignored in regard to taxes. The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, published in 1901, pointed out the seriousness of the increasing charges on the rates, but here they were in 1908 and nothing had been done to relieve the burden. He confessed that the Unionist
1586
Party was not altogether free from blame. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] Yes, but two blacks did not make a white; and they who represented agricultural constituencies were anxious to press on the House the fact that these burdens were increasing and were bound to increase enormously. He would give the instance of the rate for main roads and bridges. Very often those who paid that rate hardly used the main roads; they were used by people who came from the towns and had nothing to do with the payment of the rates. If the Government would only tackle that question he felt sure that they would have the gratitude, especially of the agricultural constituencies, more than they were likely to have by passing the Small Holdings Act or even by doing away with home-fed beef for His Majesty's troops. It was a very curious thing that whenever a Bill was brought in by the Government there was almost invariably a clause which created some other authority than the local authority with power to see that the provisions of that particular Bill were carried out. To employ an expression used by one of the Members of the present Government, why was it necessary that all the local councils required this amount of "gingering"? He knew that hon. Members opposite were very fond of saying that it was the fault of the wicked landlords who terrorised the local councils and brought their influence to bear upon them to prevent them from doing their duty. But these reasons came from Members who were interested in towns rather than in country districts. Might he suggest that the real reason and the more self-respecting reason—if he might say so—for the town councils, rural district councils, and parish councils taking that course was the fact that they were perfectly aware that the burden on the rates was already so excessive that they felt very reluctant indeed to add to it, and in many instances they would not move until forced to do so by some central authority which had no interest in the local conditions of that part of the country. It was for that reason and not because they did not wish to do their duty that many local councils were reluctant to apply their powers. He was very much afraid that they were

1587
not going to get much satisfaction from the Government on the question of local taxation; they had so many schemes to carry through, and to please so many other people who took no interest in the agricultural communities. If the Government were going to find the money they were asking for to finance the scheme of old-age pensions they would not be able to find the money urgently needed for relieving the burdens of local ratepayers unless they broadened the basis of taxation.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in view of the growing liabilities of the nation for naval and military defence, old-age pensions, and education, and of the necessity for giving additional relief to ratepayers from the increasing charge for national services now thrown upon the rates, this House regrets that no attempt is made to increase the resources of the Exchequer by broadening the basis of taxation."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have listened to the two speeches which have been delivered upon this Amendment and the thought that occurs to me most with regard to them is that they dealt with only one portion of the Amendment, namely, local taxation. The question of local taxation interests the minds of hon. Members very greatly. With regard to that I should like to say that although the Government have not been in a position to deal with this question as a whole broadly, they have made considerable advances in the direction hon. Members desire, namely, in the shape of the reform of the licensing duties and the diminution of local taxation. Last year my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer disentangled and simplified the national accounts by having the whole national statement in one Budget—which was certainly an advantage, so far as the national finances are concerned. The hon. Member opposite said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that
1588
occasion took all the great fishes and left the small ones, but I do not think that was quite accurate, because last year my right hon. friend said that although he simplified the national taxes he did not interfere with local taxation at all.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: What I said was that in taking back this tax he rendered it impossible for local authorities in the future to bargain for further alterations. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman promised us all that came down.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not see that there is any question of bargaining. Where it is a question of local interests and national interests the latter always go to the wall. I think that everyone admits that before you can deal with general local taxation in England, you must effect some reform as to assessments, and the Government have pledged themselves to bring in a Bill this session which will mark a considerable step in that direction. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation made practically three suggestions. They said that a certain portion of the burden of Poor Law relief ought to be borne by national resources; that some relief ought to be given in the matter of police, and that some alteration ought to be made in the proportions of the coat of education borne locally and by the State. The Government have already made a beginning with regard to two of these matters. The old-age pension scheme will to a certain extent relieve the Poor Law administration and certainly give some relief to the rates. We have also in a small way relieved the rates of the burden of the Unemployment Act and thrown that on the Exchequer, and if hon. Members of this House and the Members of another place will allow the Education Bill to go through that will be of great and immediate assistance to the relief of local rates. I was somewhat amused at the speeches just made and the anxiety of the hon. Members for these reforms. I would ask them if they were now so anxious to have these reforms carried out, why it was they

1589
did not urge their own friends during the ten years that they were carrying on the Government of the country to carry out something in this direction. During those ten years hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite carried only two measures of relief by way of doles, and they were so badly arranged that they reached the undeserving quite as much as the deserving. At the same time they raided the Sinking Fund and largely increased the expenditure both on the Army and on the Navy. I do not think, therefore, it is we who ought to be called upon to deal at an early stage with this difficult and complicated subject when hon. Members so long neglected it themselves. As I listened, and I listened attentively, to what the hon. Gentleman said of the Budget as a whole, I was unable to find out what he objected to. Does he object to old-age pensions? I believe with regard to that that we shall receive the general support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it is as subject largely outside party politics. Does he object to the reduction of the sugar tax or the large reduction, which is promised this year, of the Debt? Those are the three points the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided for. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the last biscuit, and said there was nothing in the locker, and that the time had arrived for fresh taxation. That position has not yet arisen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made provision for all the burden that will fall upon him in reference to the scheme for old-age pensions. It is no part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has £3,500,000 in hand, over and above his liabilities, to keep that money in his pocket and not to deal with taxation. It is his duty to allow that money, to use an old fiscal phrase, to fructify in the pockets of the people. It is much better that people should have taxation reduced if even it is only a temporary matter, which I do not think it will be. But in this matter hon. Members ought to look at the financial position as a whole during the three years in which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members the other night told us that in those three years we had done nothing except to add to expenditure and taxation, but
1590
in those three years the Government remitted a net amount of something like £8,000,000 of taxation, and they have also reduced the Debt by over £40,000,000, which in itself represents a saving of £1,500,000 in interest alone. Under these circumstances they do what the hon. Gentleman wants to do in another way, and if they then find that in order to carry out a great social reform they have to make some further call on the Sinking Fund, I think they will be fully justified in so acting. The hon. Member said—
"If you are going to raid the Sinking Fund, give the benefit to the income-taxpayers."
That was what Mr. Goschen did, but if we are going to reduce the Sinking Fund I prefer to put the large surplus aside and earmark it for a large social reform like old-age pensions. The hon. Member then went on to what I hoped was going to be the really practical and interesting part of his speech, but just as I began to listen with great hope to the part when he commenced to speak of how hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to broaden the basis of taxation he, like the mover of the Amendment, promptly sat down. I certainly hope before this debate ends we shall have some light and leading on that point from the Front Opposition Bench. Both hon. Members talked of broadening the basis of taxation, a phrase which, like "fiscal reform," begs the whole question. To broaden the basis of taxation you must impose additional taxation, and we are fully entitled in a matter of this sort to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what are the proposals they have in their minds by which the basis of taxation can be broadened. It is not enough for them to say "You must wait until we are called upon." The whole of their policy depends not upon a great principle but upon details. Before taking this leap in the dark we are entitled to ask them the specific question how they propose to broaden the basis of taxation and what taxes they propose to impose. In the debate last year we were in the dark, and I defy anyone reading that debate to find out what the proposals of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were last year any more than it is possible to find out what their present proposals are. I am quite prepared to discuss the

1591
merits of any particular proposal for increasing the extent of taxation. Everybody admits that taxation is an evil—I am speaking now from the financial point of view—except those who propose a high tax on licences. But the real question to consider in taxation is whether a particular tax is likely to be more burdensome than the one you are going to supersede, or the one you are going to reduce. The Government have been brought up in that school which believes that under a system of simplifying taxation you can actually put on more taxation with a lesser burden to the country because the taxes are less irritating and more economically raised. Hon. Members opposite are propounding a policy which if it means anything at all means this, that they propose to impose a much larger number of taxes, to tax a much larger number of articles, and a much larger number of people. That must be less economical and more irritating than the policy we profess. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has given us his view, on more than one occasion, as to the question of broadening the basis of taxation, though I do not know that we have always been able to discover what is his meaning. But he has made three or four statements of a fairly clear description which I should like to read to the House, because I think that in discussing this subject we want to know more or less what is the official view in regard to it. The first proposition which the right hon. Gentleman laid down last year was that revenue should be derived from duties small in amount, but on articles of which there is large consumption, and which will, therefore, yield a large revenue without any serious dislocation of trade. That is exactly the policy which was carried out by Sir Robert Peel and by Mr. Gladstone for many years; therefore, I am glad to that extent that we have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman. Then again the right hon. Gentleman said last May that he objected to any system which had for its object the diverting of the trade and commerce of the nation from its natural channels by artificial legislative means. That is the general proposition which he has laid down. I think that any proposals
1592
made by the right hon. Gentleman must be judged by those standards. Now we have before us, as far as we have been able to judge from the various speeches made both inside and outside of this House, practically three propositions for broadening the basis of taxation. The first is retaliation, the second is preference, and the third is so-called fiscal reform. As regards retaliation, it is quite obvious that it has no value whatever in reference to the broadening of taxation, because if it be successful—and the right hon. Gentleman says it will be successful—it cannot, in any case, produce revenue. And that brings us to a much more important question, that of Colonial preference. There again we are all agreed that raw material for manufacture shall be excluded from taxation. The Prime Minister has more than once stated that in his opinion the exemption of raw material made a system of preference almost impossible as between the various Colonies and the Mother Country, because the only articles which some of them send to us are almost wholly articles of raw material, to which it is not proposed that any preference should be given. If it be true that the only way, or the best way, of keeping the Empire together is to give preference, then I do not see how you are to give a substantial preference to all the various Colonies; I cannot see how that is possible. As regards preference itself, I take it that the proposal is to broaden taxation by putting taxes on a considerable number of articles which are at present free from them, and that it will substitute one tax for another. I confess I have never been able to see quite what advantage it would be to this country. I suppose that nobody would desire that for the liquor and tobacco taxes you should substitute taxes on corn, meat, and other articles of import. I do not believe that from the national point of view, or from the point of view of the consumers, it would do anything except make the consumer lose if he had to pay on corn and meat rather than on tea and sugar. We have reduced the sugar duty to the basis suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. We have taken a farthing off, and left it at a farthing per pound; but if, as I

1593
imagine, hon. Gentlemen on the other side do not desire any further reduction of the duty on sugar, then in regard to the broadening of taxation they must put that aside. That leaves us, of course, with the income-tax. I take it from various speeches we have heard, and from one we have heard just now, that the idea of producing this revenue is largely in order to diminish the income-tax. I do not think that this country intends to diminish the income-tax at the expense of the consumers of food. But the question is whether preference is going to produce revenue. It is one of the matters mentioned in the Amendment of last year as likely to assist the broadening of taxation. In the first place, the whole amount of the revenue could not be great, and will not be great; and I would also point out that the more successful preference is, the less will be the revenue. If this scheme is to be successful, foreign corn will have to be superseded by Colonial corn, so that it is obvious that if this is going to be a successful policy there will be no revenue left to broaden the basis of taxation. The only way in which you would be able to obtain any revenue to broaden the basis of taxation would be if your system of Colonial preference failed and did not divert the foreign corn from continued import. As to broadening the basis of taxation—we are not to call it "protection" but only "fiscal reform"—I would point out that it is really not a policy, which, if successful, would do much to broaden the basis of taxation, because the object of that policy, as we understand it, is largely to divert trade and enable employers to manufacture goods here rather than in foreign countries. But to divert trade from one industry to another, and from one country to another, will not broaden the basis of taxation, and even if you were successful in your object of reviving the trade in pearl buttons, jewellery and other articles, there would be precious little revenue left to broaden the basis of taxation. I would seriously ask hon. Gentlemen who propose to arrange this system of taxation what articles they intend to put duties upon, and how far they will be really successful in producing revenue and broadening the
1594
basis of taxation. That is, I think, a most material point. The Board of Trade Return which has been presented to us in regard to these matters is interesting reading. If you adopt the proposal that the raw material of manufacture is not to be taxed it really amounts to putting the tax on purely manufactured goods which come to this country, and the taxation would be of almost uniform amount. According to the Board of Trade Return there is not much more than £50,000,000 worth of wholly manufactured goods coming into this country, and a 10 per cent. duty would not produce more than £5,000,000, and that amount, if the system were successful, would gradually diminish. I am anxious that the Leader of the Opposition should show clearly whether he is in favour of a policy such as that. We have always been told that particular trades have gone away, or are going away, and that in order to keep them we must impose these duties on the products of foreign rivals. Therefore it is obvious that the chief advantage which it is thought will accrue from those duties is not the revenue that they will produce, but the fact that they will keep certain articles of manufacture in the country, and enable our own manufacturers to make them. If you have this preference, or what I call protection, you will really not have much left on which taxation can be imposed, nor will you have any great revenue for the purposes which hon. Members have at heart. As far as we are concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in this year all that can be expected. He has relieved taxation; he has paid off a large amount of Debt; he is covering his liabilities; he is meeting the claims upon him; and he hopes to end the year with a surplus. That is a position of which I think any Chancellor of the Exchequer may be proud. If it is found that the expenditure increases, and that fresh taxation is necessary, then I do not think it will be found that within free trade limits the resources of civilisation are entirely exhausted. But that is a question which has not yet arisen, though we are prepared, if necessary, to reimpose old taxation, or new taxation on the old lines. What I think we

1595
are entitled to ask hon. Gentlemen is this, not that they should make perorations on the broadening of taxation and then sit down, but that they should tell us exactly, in so many words, where they are going to broaden taxation, what articles they are going to tax, and how they are going to tax them. I say that without that knowledge it is impossible for us to know whether the proposal they make to us is a right and proper one for this country to adopt.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure the House has listened with interest to the speech of the Postmaster-General, but hon. Members cannot help feeling that he has not contributed much to the elucidation of the Budget which he rose to defend. In an illuminating passage of his speech he said that what he desired to know upon the questions with which he was dealing was the official view of the case. That is what we desire. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that he has crossed the floor of the House, and that it is for him and his colleagues to state the official view. What is the situation we have put before the House? Some of my hon. friends endeavoured to put it the other day on the income-tax Resolution, and we put it in more general terms immediately the Chancellor of the Exchequer finished his Budget speech, and what we said then has been reinforced by my two hon. friends who have spoken to-day. We say that if you survey, as the right hon. Gentleman asked us to do, the whole field of finance, not merely for one year but for two or three years, you can see that the situation with which we are faced is one of a great and rapidly growing expenditure. You see that in spite of the most definite pledges and the most lavish assurances that hon. Gentlemen opposite when they came into power would reduce expenditure, circumstances have been too strong for them, and instead of reducing it they have increased it. And let me say in passing that when the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for his Government for having remitted taxation, they are collecting more from the pockets of the people than they have ever collected before. They have only been able to remit taxation because of the very remarkable prosperity which the
1596
country has enjoyed and which even our present fiscal system has not prevented this country from sharing with the rest of the world, though in a less degree than our most conspicuous competitors. How the right hon. Gentleman makes out remission to be £8,000,000 passes my comprehension. He did not do the sum, and if he will add up the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer has remitted, he will find that it does not amount to £8,000,000.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I was, of course, including this year.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A million on tea, less than £3,500,000 on sugar, £2,000,000 on coal—which was not paid by any citizen of this country—and still you have not got your £8,000,000. [Several HON. MEMBERS: The income-tax.] Then, say hon. Gentlemen, the income-tax. Yes; but when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer remitted a portion of the income-tax to a portion of the income-tax payers he demanded compensation which he took in death duties. There was no net reduction, and the Postmaster-General was talking only of net reduction.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There are other small taxes.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The net reduction is not £8,000,000. That is certain. And let me just say, as I had to allude to the increase of the death duties in this connection, that in fact the late Chancellor of the Exchequer got an extra £1,500,000 by what I may call a happy mistake. He estimated that, owing to the concessions he made to earned income-tax payers under certain conditions, he would lose £1,500,000, and he took £1,500,000 from the big estates in death duties. As a matter of fact he lost nothing by his concessions, because, as he boasted this year, he actually got more from the income-tax than he had ever received before. Instead of making a remission to the direct taxpayer, he has added to his burden to the tune of £1,500,000 a year. I say that the remissions which have been made have only been possible because of the exceptional prosperity which we have

1597
enjoyed in the last two or three years. But what about the future? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said across the Table the other night that there would be no further remission of taxation while he held office. Admittedly he will have to find fresh revenue from somewhere. Our present resources are not equal to the liabilities that have been incurred. I know that there are a great number of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I am not certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to be counted among them—who are prepared to make reductions in the Army and Navy Estimates coute que coute, no matter what happens. There are Gentlemen inside this House, and, I suppose, outside it, so foolish as that. But that is not the attitude of the Government, and, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer warmly commended the speech of the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division the other day, and particularly regretted that so few of his colleagues had listened to it, as it was spoken to them quite as much as to the House at large, the Prime Minister has pledged himself to maintain the naval supremacy of this country, whatever the cost and whatever the efforts of rival nations to overtake us. At the same time nearly every social measure brought in throws a fresh charge on the State. A great many of them throw a charge on the local rates, but also some charge on the Imperial taxes. The particular measure associated with the introduction of the Budget, involves a new liability of at least £6,000,000, and probably, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, nearly £7,000,000, without any alteration in the Government scheme of our finances in the near future. In reviewing these liabilities the other day I said that they amounted at a moderate estimate to over £10,000,000 of fresh expenditure to be faced next year. I believe that to be a very moderate estimate, if any fair interpretation is to be attached to the Prime Minister's language in regard to the Navy. What we are entitled to ask the Government is that, when they invite us to undertake these vast new liabilities which overshadow our deliberations this year and will overweigh the Budget next year, they should tell us by what means they intend to raise
1598
the money to meet the expenditure they now ask us to sanction. The Prime Minister scoffs at that as a thoroughly unreasonable proposition, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is not going to say what his next year's Budget is to be. But the Postmaster-General said, not to the Government who are now voting expenditure, but to an Opposition who, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, are not going to be in power for a long time, that he was fully entitled to ask what taxes the Opposition were going to put on. But if it is reasonable for a Government to ask that of an Opposition, surely it is much more reasonable for an Opposition to ask the Government as to its intentions.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: After all, we are dealing with the Amendment, and the whole point of the Amendment is that this House regrets that no attempt is made to increase the resources of the Exchequer by broadening the basis of taxation. So far as the Government are concerned, they have dealt with the finances for three years, and their position is a clear one. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to broaden the basis of taxation. We want to know how he is going to do it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to know, but what is so exquisitely funny is that he does not see the humour of the situation. He, a responsible Minister, says that it is absurd for us to call on him for a disclosure of his plans, and in the next breath he turns round to ask the Opposition, who have no responsibility whatever, to disclose theirs. What is the right hon. Gentleman's excuse? It is that we are dealing with the Amendment. Well, Sir, I am dealing with the Budget, and really it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman could have said a few words in defence of the Budget. I would not have asked much, but a few words would have been of interest. The right hon. Gentleman asks not merely what taxes in general we are going to put on, but for the details. I am more modest than he. Even in addressing a question to the Government I do not ask for the details of next year's Budget, but what are the

1599
general principles on which you are proceeding, and. the general intentions in your minds and the general lines along which you intend to proceed? What do I mean by general lines? I will illustrate it by two references to the speeches of the Prime Minister, and I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how the Government intend to carry out the policy the Prime Minister announced or why they have abandoned it. The Prime Minister last year, in contemplation of having to introduce an old-age pensions scheme, said—
"The practical conclusion to which I have come is that I must not permanently impair my sources of revenue in view of the future."
And so much importance did he attach to that statement that he repeated the words twice over. Now we are a year closer to the liabilities that old-age pensions bring about. Then the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to reserve a nest-egg of what he estimated at £2,500,000 to start the scheme. Now he starts the scheme with the admitted liability of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, and at the same moment he does impair, I suppose he must permanently impair, and diminish the revenue he actually enjoys by the remission of half the sugar duty and balances his Budget with an estimated surplus of only £200,000. What common principle underlies the action of the Prime Minister last year and that of this year when he introduces a Budget framed on totally different lines, and why has he forsaken the safe and proper course he took last year in maintaining all the resources he had available when he had such heavy liabilities coming on him in the future? The Postmaster-General gave in advance one answer to that question. He said that the right hon. Gentleman, having a surplus, would not have done his duty if he had not remitted taxation. But then he did not do his duty last year. Really, the Postmaster-General is not a very skilful defender of the Government when he does undertake to defend it. His defence for the action of this year is a condemnation of the action of last year, because if it is not right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he has a surplus to retain it to meet a known liability it cannot have been
1600
right for him to retain his surplus last year for the same purpose. That was the reason the Prime Minister gave. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not afford to impair his revenue by these new liabilities, and if they wanted all these reforms they could not expect remissions of taxation. He has chosen a remission of ¼d. per pound off the sugar tax after stating that it would be no earthly good to the consumer, although he made a frank admission of his change of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has a singular facility for adapting his economic views to the objects which he desires to pursue at the moment. When he wants to take 1d. off tea that reduction goes straight to the consumer. When he does not want to take 1d. off tea the reduction does not go to the consumer. When he does not want to take anything off sugar he solemnly declares that the remission can be of no benefit to the consumer; and then, again, this year, when he wants to remit ¼d., he finds that the consumer will reap the whole benefit. We should like a little explanation of this changed attitude. I come to a later date, a speech of the Prime Minister's at Lancaster at the beginning of this year, in which he said that, so far as the money for a scheme of old-age pensions was drawn from taxation, it must be a scheme to which all classes of the community, including the working classes, make a just and adequate contribution. I think that those are proper lines on which such a scheme should be framed, but who can pretend that this Budget follows these lines? You impose for the benefit of the poorest classes an additional burden upon the Exchequer, and, therefore, upon the taxpayer, of at least £6,000,00 a year, and you choose that very moment to remit rather more than half of one of the few taxes that the poorest among us need pay. How can you say that, in bringing in this boon of old-age pensions and at the same time remitting part of the tax which is paid by the working classes, you are exacting a contribution from the working classes to the new expenditure? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day a question intended to give us some guidance as to what was the contribution of members of the working classes to the national expenditure at the

1601
present time. I asked him what is the amount of indirect taxation which it is estimated will be collected per head of the population in the coming year. He says the amount is £1 6s. 11d. per head on the only taxes to which those who are not payers of income-tax contribute at all. Then I asked him to go a step further and say how much of this was due to a cohol and tobacco. The amount due to alcohol is 16s. 1d., and, therefore, any one who refrains from alcohol, as a great many do, from either choice or necessity, has his contribution at once reduced to 10s. 10d. And, if he be not a smoker—and I think not a few total abstainers from alcohol very likely are also abstainers from tobacco—his total contribution, estimated in this way, would be 4s. 7d. in the course of the year. That is the position to which the Prime Minister's Budget reduces the contribution of the working classes. Does the Prime Minister think that it would be a sound system of finance to confine the whole contribution of working men below the income-tax limit to taxes on alcohol and tobacco which many of them do not pay at all? The total amount to a man who does not drink alcohol or smoke tobacco is 4s. 7d. That you may take as the compulsory charge. Alcohol and tobacco form a voluntary charge which a man in some sort assesses upon himself. Instead of calling upon the working classes for a contribution to the new expenditure imposed by this Budget, as the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that he would do at Lancaster, he has reversed his policy and contributes the boon free, and in addition remits a part of the contribution. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] And for my part, whether it is popular doctrine or not—and I see from the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they think it is not unpopular—I would go to my own constituents or to any other body of electors and justify my position that those who share all the rights of citizenship, those for whom a very large portion of this expenditure is incurred, those who have a controlling voice in our electoral system, ought to pay a substantial contribution according to their means towards the national expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: They are doing.] To take up any other line
1602
is to reduce our politics to the lowest level of corruption, to issue an invitation to those prepared to embark in such a reckless scheme to out-bid one another, offering more and more, and to teach the people of this country, as none of the previous Liberal Ministers of Finance has cared to do, that they may call the tune while they leave others to pay the piper. We are entitled to press the Government, especially after the attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General, for an explanation of their attitude and intentions.
I am not going on behalf of the Opposition into an elaborate scheme of duties for a future Budget. I am not at all reluctant to discuss the merit of preference, or of a complete reform of our fiscal system. I have discussed it several times in this House, and hope to discuss it again. I was, however, glad to note that the Postmaster-General recognised what had always been denied by the Prime Minister, that by such a system we should get fresh contributories and not merely fresh taxes, not merely that we should tax more articles, but more people. It was an interesting admission from the Postmaster-General of the soundness of the argument that, if we charge a moderate toll for the advantage of using our markets, we shall be able to secure a reasonable contribution from the foreigners who come here to trade.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Not from the foreigner.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said we might get more people to pay taxes. At the present time every person in this country pays taxes. We have, therefore, to get some body from outside. I do not suppose the Postmaster-General saw the meaning of his remark, but it is an interesting admission that I wish to take note of.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It was no admission at all. I was saying that by a simple system of taxation you tax a few articles and the consumer pays upon a few things, but that if you broaden that, it would lead to great discomfort to the consumer. In so saying, I was not thinking of broadening the basis in order to include the foreigner.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of, but I do know the words he used, and he will find in the official report these words—
"You will touch a much larger number of taxes and a much larger number of taxpayers."
Well, everybody in this country contributes to the taxes now by consumption—at any rate everybody except paupers. Then the right hon. Gentleman thought that he had disposed of our solution of the question by saying that if we had such a tariff as was foreshadowed by my right hon. friend at Birmingham and on many other occasions, we might divert trade and correct the character of our trade to the advantage of our people, but that we could not at the same time raise revenue. If by a reformed tariff you secure increased employment here and the investment of fresh capital; if, in short, you regard the trade of the country as a whole, and do for it what it is the glory of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to have done for a small part of it, you would find that these people, finding employment and earning good wages, would spend their money on some taxable articles which contribute to your indirect taxation, and the manufacturers of them would have to pay their share in income-tax. If you got nothing but what would produce those results the revenue would still be advantaged. But is it not sufficient to answer the Postmaster-General by inviting him to devote a couple of hours study to the course of the foreign trade of Germany and the United States, since they each adopted a very effective system of industrial protection? They have not reduced their exports, but they have not reduced their imports either; on the contrary, as their prosperity at home has increased, so their imports have increased, and they are enabled to demand those larger supplies from foreign countries because of their increased wealth and of the increased prosperity which industrial protection has brought. I say, therefore, that the establishment of such a system as my right hon. friend has suggested would bring a direct increase of revenue through the Customs duties and an indirect increase of revenue from the prosperity which would be brought to the industrial community at large. While we have
1604
indicated the way in which the increased revenue, which is admittedly required, can best be produced, the Government have given us no indication, and before this debate closes we ought to have some.
I must say a word before I sit down with special reference to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman let his imagination stray more at large when he described what the Government had done to give relief to local taxation, and what the late Government had not done. He said the late Government had done nothing and, being met with a murmur of surprise, he said we had only succeeded in giving doles to the wrong people. Yes, we used to hear a great deal about that in the late Parliament. But even in the late Parliament Liberal Members for county constituencies with an agricultural vote were very shy of giving effective expression to it. The Government have been three years in power, and if we gave the doles to the wrong people they have had the opportunity of altering the system; without finding any money they might have given the doles to the right people. The fact of the matter is that that Act stands on a much more solid foundation than they would readily admit. While they pretty well pledged themselves to its repeal when in Opposition, they now attempt to carry it on from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, lest a worse fate should befall them. I think agricultural Members would have been very interested on behalf of their constituents to hear the considerable steps that the Postmaster-General says have been taken in relief of local taxation. Last year he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer simplified the national accounts. Pretty poor relief to a farmer who is paying rates! Then he says the Government have pledged themselves to introduce a Bill for the reform of assessment and valuation. Well, they have pledged themselves to introduce so many, and whether they will pass them or not is still in the lap of the gods. Then the third thing the Postmaster-General said the Government had done was to introduce a scheme of old-age pensions, and that would bring some relief. I venture to think that that is a mistaken idea. I am in favour of an old-age pensions scheme, but I have always

1605
held that we should save very little in poor relief from the adoption of any such proposal. Because, after all, the great expense of the Poor Law is, as regards the aged, for the infirm, who will have to continue to be treated in infirmaries because they cannot get suitable treatment in their own houses, and in the maintenance of the great buildings and establishments, the cost of which cannot be largely affected by any reduction that we are likely to see in the number of the inmates. The right hon. Gentleman's final step was that they were awaiting the Report of the Poor Law Commission and hoped to carry a Poor Law reform. That is a pretty poor record of anything accomplished in the course of the three years that they had been in office, and it postpones to an indefinite period any relief in the future. Meanwhile this problem is growing more urgent, and year by year this House puts additional burdens on the local authorities by the legislation which it carries, and inventions, improvements, and the changes of our civilisation themselves entail heavier cost upon them. It is an urgent question. It is another of those great liabilities which, every one admitting, the Government make no provision for; and it is because they are treating it as théy are treating the question of defence, old-age pensions, and the whole range of politics—postponing as long as possible all action, and when they take action postponing their liabilities as far as they can to future years—that I shall heartily support the Amendment of my hon. friend as the expression of an opinion that the basis of the Budget is unsound, and that its finance is not of the character that a wealthy nation of this kind ought to pursue; and that it is urgently necessary, in order that we may adequately meet the great demands that are falling upon us, that the taxation of the country should be reformed upon the lines that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had given the words of the official Amendment the correct interpretation, he would have no hesitation in voting for it, if he would be
1606
good enough to adopt the words of the Amendment of which he himself had given notice in favour of the broadening of the basis of taxation within the limits of the present fiscal policy of the country. He wished to preface his remarks by saying that while he might be suspected of carping and ungenerous criticism, no one appreciated more than he did the difficulties under which this year's Budget had been produced. No one appreciated more than he did the strain and stress under which the right hon. Gentleman must have worked in the peculiar circumstances in which he had been placed That being so, he would modify to a considerable extent much of the criticism which otherwise he would have ventured to offer. He could not help thinking that the very fact that the Budget had been produced under strain and stress explained one or two features of it which otherwise would have been startling. On the occasion of last year's Budget they were certainly led to believe that this year at least the Government would have indicated new sources of revenue in the from of a considerably graduated income-tax. He had by his side the references in Hansard to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, but he would not quote them unless challenged to do so by the right hon. Gentleman. What they were told then was that it was impossible contemporaneously with differentiation to undertake so great a strain as would be involved on the Departments in carrying out a scheme of graduation. The right hon. Gentleman said he would reserve his opinion as to the practicability of the scheme, and he ended up by saying that for that year at least they must be content with differentiation. Without going into the details of graduation, it was self-evident that a scientific, just, and equitable system of graduation of income-tax would inflict hardship on nobody, and by taxing people with enormous incomes under such a scheme he believed there would be an additional yield of the income-tax of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 a year. There was another Budget statement last year, in respect to which they were certainly led to anticipate legislation. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to

1607
what he termed the luxury of the motorcar, and he said it was one of those luxuries which tended to degenerate into a nuisance. They were certainly led to believe that this year something in the nature of new taxation on motor-cars would be imposed. He regretted that the Prime Minister, in the great stress under which he was working, had not time to introduce that necessary and just Amendment of our fiscal policy. He complained also that the House was led to expect last year that the Government had already set apart £1,500,000 for old-age pensions—not £1,200,000—quite apart from what was expected to be received from the arrears of income-tax. The House was led to expect last year that quite apart from the problematical £750,000 of arrears of income-tax, £1,500,000 had been ear-marked and set apart for old-age pensions. He asked the present Chancellor of the Exchequer what had become of that £1,500,000. Last year the Prime Minster, when dealing with his actual surplus for the current year, and having reduced it to £1,800,000, mentioned that he proposed to keep the £330,000 in hand for emergencies, the right hon. Gentleman used these words:—
"As regards the other £1,500,000 I propose to add it to a new Sinking Fund; I am not going to part with revenue; I shall leave this money for the future; I shall need it next year. In the meantime I make the best investment of it I know, by diminishing pro tanto our national obligations."
Later on the right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the provision for old-age pensions, said—
"I shall have in hand next year free and ear-marked for that purpose, the £1,500,000 to which I have just referred."
That was a specific undertaking to the House. He asked the question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how the House was to deal with that sum, and he was told, with all seriousness, that the £1,500,000 had gone to the reduction of Debt; that what the Prime Minister had promised was not that that particular sum should be ear-marked for old-age pensions, but the produce of future taxation, and that alone. Every expectation, therefore, based on the
1608
Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement had been nullified; and this sum of £1,500,000 had disappeared into that vortex, the Sinking Fund, which was already over-burdened by contributions which might very well have been left to posterity. Last year the Prime Minister, when somebody asked how could he get back the £1,500,000 ear-marked for old-age pensions, and which had gone into the Sinking Fund, said "You can easily get it back by legislation." But there was not a word this year about legislation, and he hoped that the Government would redeem the expectation held out last year of recovering this £1,500,000 which was sorely needed at present. Dealing with the question of national expenditure, he started with the reflection that that expenditure had reached the enormous figures of £150,000,000. He could not help remembering that one ground on which he secured election to this House was embodied in a political handbill, a copy of which he still possessed, in which he pointed out that the expenditure of the country had risen within the past few years by £50,000,000, and that it would be one of the first duties of a Liberal Government to restore expenditure to its old level. He asked himself—laying aside the Army expenditure, which he hoped never to understand, and the Navy expenditure, remembering that we were only a tight little island and that our Navy should be equal not only to the two-Power standard, but to the all-world standard—what was the expenditure on the Civil Service? He found it amounted to £30,500,000. He implored the Government to check this enormous expenditure by personal visits to all the Departments, and see whether this £30,500,000 could not be reduced to sensible proportions. He maintained that every bit of work at present done by the Civil Service at a cost of £30,500,000 could be contracted for, and a saving of at least £10,000,000 a year effected. That was capable of being dealt with by a revision of the constitution and an extension of the powers of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee should have power to check expenditure, to check the work of public servants, their hours of work, and the whole

1609
circumstances under which the Civil Service was conducted. With regard to revenue, he did not think, in view of the claims put forward in support of some of their legislative projects, that the Government had made sufficient allowance for the decrease of revenue that might be expected from the alcoholic group of taxes. No one had a more profound admiration than he for the financial genius of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he had no faith that the right hon. Gentleman would by the Licensing Bill materially decrease drinking and at the same time increase his income from that source. Admittedly next year they would have, according to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to provide £7,000,000, and to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer £6,000,000 for old-age pensions. Then there was the possible large additional Naval expenditure amounting, with other items, to fully £10,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that they must not anticipate next year's Budget; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in the course of his Budget speech—
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in other words, ought to budget, not for one year only, but for several years."
That statement was his justification for the inquiry as to how they were to get this additional £10,000,000. He was free from embarrassment on this point, nor did he look to fiscal reform. He was not concerned as to how far they might or might not remedy the evils of unemployment and improve home industry; he wished to confine himself to an outline of policy by which he would indicate where £50,000,000 additional revenue could be obtained without trouble or inconvenience, and without doing injustice to anyone. He hoped to have the effectual sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose sympathy was of such a character that if he saw a beggar eating a crust of bread he would cross the road and offer the beggar to share his crust with him. He would refer very briefly to the suggestion by which he hoped to get £50,000,000 without even involving the necessity of touching the
1610
Sinking Fund. He need not elaborate the fact, but simply say that by a supertax on enormous incomes it was possible to raise a very large revenue. Another proposal that he pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this. An old-age pension was merely a recognition that the old labourer, when unable to work, was entitled to have paid to him by the State some portion of the unpaid increment of his labour during the time that he was able to work. His suggestion, therefore, was that every employer of labour should pay 1d. per £ on the wages paid by him to his workpeople towards a fund earmarked for old-age pensions. Such a tax was easily collectable and would realise £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. There was no objection to this suggestion from an economic point of view; the money would cost little in the way of collection, and it would inflict no hardship on the employer. It might be said that that incidence would fall upon the workpeople, but that was a matter for discussion between the workmen through their organisations and the employers. He had another suggestion to offer to his right hon. friend. In this he might be told that he was inflicted with the bacillus of tariff reform, but he was convinced that without violating any true principle of free trade it was practicable, possible, right, and proper that his right hon. friend should place a heavy super-tax on all incomes derived from foreign investments. He was not going into economic statistics, but he would make himself responsible for the statement that while it might or might not be true that the imports of capital in the shape of commodities were, for commercial convenience, paid for in exports, the principle ceased to apply when they exported liquid capital. Let him put it in this form. A man sent £10,000 of his capital abroad for the building of docks. This export benefited the people abroad and deprived those at home of the advantage resulting from the expenditure of the money. But apart from that it was notorious among all persons connected with business in the City that in recent years there had grown up a system under which wealthy men who owned foreign investments sent their

1611
coupons abroad to be cleared] and altogether avoided the payment of income-tax. He was speaking the other day to a Member of the Upper House who gloated over the fact that any addition to the income-tax would not affect him, because he sent his coupons over to Paris, where his agents invested the money abroad, thereby avoiding the payment of income-tax on his foreign investments. He submitted that persons possessed of vast wealth, who claimed the protection of the State, lived under its laws, and shared its benefits, ought to contribute more liberally to the revenue of the country than those whose investments were all made at home. He saw opposite the junior Member for the City of London, who boasted in this House that he was the chairman of a trust company every penny of whose capital was invested abroad, and he could not help thinking that it was thus high time that this company should be made to pay some additional contribution to the expenses of the country for giving it the protection of its laws. That was his suggestion, and it was quite compatible with the interests of free trade. But he did not care whether it was compatible or not, because such a contribution as he had indicated would mean an income of £10,000,000 a year to this country. Again, what was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from adopting the principle followed in France and other countries of taxing advertisements and highly-priced theatre-tickets? We should copy some of France's wise institutions instead of trying to learn to speak bad French. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, follow the example of France and tax all entertainments, receiving by way of revenue what was known there as the "Toll for the poor." In that way he would obtain another £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 and no one would be a penny the worse. Then, again, why should the right hon. Gentleman shy at taxing the gambling instincts of the community? He taxed their drink, their playing cards, and their premium bonds, which the Postmaster-General said wore lottery bonds and would not allow to go through the post, but his right hon. friend shied at a tax on betting, on racing, and on bookmakers,
1612
because, he said, to tax these things meant the giving of a validity to betting. Did a tax on playing cards give a validity to baccarat? Did a tax on drink validate drinking. The moment a tax was placed upon those evils why not go the whole hog and tax them out of existence? One and a half millions of money obtained from these sources in Paris went to the benefit of the poor, and there was a big revenue to be obtained from them in this country. He was amazed also that another suggestion had not been adopted. There had grown up in this country a vast industry in joint stock companies. Why, then, not put a tax on every share certificate of a joint stock company? It was usually ultimately worthless, and in that respect, as a diminishing security, it was only copying Consols. But a small tax on share certificates would bring into the Exchequer £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year without inflicting hardship on anyone, and, like the premium bonds of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, give the holders of the stock an idea that there was really something behind it, and it would be easy of collection. He was so full of ideas that he hardly knew what to suggest next. He had already secured £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 for the Exchequer, and he would offer one other suggestion. At present there was in the possession of the banks of this country a sum of money so vast that no one had really any data to help him to fix the exact amount. This money was in the shape of "dormant balances," and they remained in the hands of the bankers. Many of the palatial buildings which decorated the City to-day had been built out of these "dormant balances," which, in a moral sense, were no more the property of the companies than of any other individual. He pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of introducing a short Bill calling upon banking institutions to disgorge all balances lying dormant in their hands after a stated number of years. The I ublic Trustee had not much to do at present, and he might very well be made the legal custodian of all these funds. If this reform were carried out it would bring into the coffers of the State £100,000,000. ["Oh, oh."] He had some data for saying that £30,000,000, at any rate, could be got

1613
from London bankers alone, and he would be glad to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the facts privately. £3,500,000 was in the hands of one well-known and highly respected bank alone, and there could be no doubt that the amount in the whole of the banks of the country would aggregate to £100,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman could at least intercept the interest of the money, and if the capital were ever claimed those who proved their right to it were much more likely to get it from the State than from those who quibbled and pleaded the Statute of Limitations. Indeed, there was plenty of money knocking about for a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no need for him to trouble about suspending the Sinking Fund, or to ask the foreigner to pay our expenses, for he would never consent to do that. There were at least £50,000,000 to be obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from various sources of taxation, and all easily capable of collection by stamp duties. In these circumstances he hoped that he would receive from his right hon. friend a less monotonous and less official reply than had been hitherto customary. He thanked the House for allowing him to throw out these suggestions and would conclude as he began by saying that he, personally, should be very grateful, whatever might be the merits or demerits of this particular Budget, that the Prime Minister and the present Government had had the courage to open the door of the National Treasury to those who by age, and age alone, were no longer able to contribute to their own welfare.
MR. BOWLESsaid that he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for South Hackney in his interesting and far-reaching proposals for increasing the national revenue. He would leave that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he could not help feeling that the House had reason to be grateful to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment for the terms in which that Amendment was drawn, which enabled the general financial situation to be dealt with as a whole. The Postmaster-General had said that there were in his opinion three points which made the present Budget. There
1614
were old-age pensions, reduction of the sugar duty, and the proposals as regards the Debt. That was a natural and convenient line for a defender of the Budget to take. His own opinion, for what it was worth, was that the real and significant outstanding feature of the Budget was neither old-age pensions nor the reduction of the sugar duty. So far from these being the real outstanding features, they wore merely clouds which obscured the real outstanding features. The real outstanding feature of the Budget was that it showed to demonstration—they now had it in black and white—either that the Government had failed even to try to redeem their clear pledges and to make good their clear statements made before the election and during the last two years, or that, finally and once for all, they were to understand that retrenchment of the public expenditure was impossible. This was a matter on which they were entitled to a serious and considered explanation on the part of the Government, in view of the language which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had held, and the attacks they had made on the late Government and their supporters in regard to national expenditure. The hon. Member who had just sat down had told them that one of the main appeals which he made to the people of South Hackney was as to national expenditure. That was an appeal made from ten thousand platforms, by Gentlemen opposite, up and down the country, and repeated again and again by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. The statements then made were to the effect that the late Administration had shown a most profligate and wasteful disregard of the resources of the country, and that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were returned to office that disregard would cease, and there would be retrenchment and economy. That appeal and those statements were made to willing ears. No doubt in 1905 the people, who had been under the strain of the war, were very ready to hear and disposed to believe—and in the end Gentlemen opposite induced them to believe—that during the few years preceding 1905 expenditure had been wasteful, wanton, and profligate. The people looked back for ten years, and saw what was perfectly true, that in that period the cost of the Army bad increased from £20,000,000 to

1615
something like £33,000,000, or 60 per cent., while the cost of the Navy had gone up from £18,000,000 to no less than £38,000,000, or 110 per cent. in ten years. And they had been reminded from every platform in the country that concurrently with this enormous increase of expenditure on the Army and Navy, there was behind it all the great and growing total of the national liabilities of all descriptions. He was not concerned to say whether or not the fears and views of the majority of the people, certainly of Gentlemen opposite, were reasonable or proper. A great many people held the view that a great increase of national expenditure was inevitable But that was not the view held in 1905–6. Rightly or wrongly, the people then clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the rate at which expenditure had increased, and they thought that there must be retrenchment and economy. On the 2nd March last, the Prime Minister, in reply to an hon. Member behind him, who complained of the growing expenditure, said—
"I quite agree that one of the heaviest counts in the indictment which many of us preferred against the late Administration is this: that during their term of office the expenditure on the Army and the Navy had enormously and unnecessarily increased. We are undoubtedly pledged to do everything in cur power to effect some mitigation of that expenditure."
What had happened? It was not very easy to get at the exact figures of the cost of the Army or Navy, or of any Government service. If one wanted to find the real cost it was really very difficult to ascertain. But in this case the House was relieved from all doubt or difficulty, because on the 2nd March last, during the same debate to which he had referred, the Prime Minister gave to the House upon his own authority the figures relating to the growth of the real expenditure on the Army and Navy since 1904–5. Although he could not, for his part, make these figures quite tally in one or two particulars, yet he accepted them, and the House of course accepted them, at once. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, in set terms and in plain language, that during the two years for 1905–6 the expenditure on the Army and Navy had boon reduced by £9,700,000,
1616
and that in the following years, 1907–8 and 1908–9, the expenditure would be reduced by only £3,500,000. On the right hon. Gentleman's own showing the total reduction made in this expenditure by two years of rigid Liberal economy was only about one-third of what had been effected in the preceding two years on the Estimates of a Unionist administration. And who in that House did not know as well as possible, and could anyone doubt it, that in the Estimates of the present year, low water mark had been reached in so far as expenditure on the Army was concerned? They knew that the Territorial Army, if successful, would add enormously to the cost of administration. It had been admitted by the Prime Minister himself that the Navy had been living out of capital, such for instance as the three years stores; and the right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge that the two-Power standard was to be maintained at whatever cost. In view of these facts it seemed impossible for anyone to doubt that the low water mark of expenditure on armaments had been reached. But even if the expenditure on the Army and the Navy were to stand still, the cost of the Civil Service of the country went on piling up at the rate of about a million and a half to two millions a year. He admitted that the Debt had been reduced, and he thought the Government were entitled to credit for that. But one was bound to make this observation, that in the language they heard about the Debt hon. Gentlemen opposite based themselves mainly upon what was mere anticipation. They always included what they hoped to do during the current year, and what they hoped to do in the current year bore a very large proportion to what they had done before. But right hon. Gentlemen opposite were entitled to the credit of having reduced the Debt at an unexampled rate, and that was really all that could be said for them; for, great though the rate of reduction had been, it would affect expenditure very little. In view of what hon. Gentlemen opposite had said up and down the country, they now found that they were really unable, after having done their best, to make any real diminution of expenditure on the Army, Navy, Civil Service, or in any Department. The expenditure which hon. Gentlemen opposite

1617
had denounced a few years ago was that to which they were practically and substantially bound to-day. In these circumstances, one would have expected at least that the Government would have re-doubled their efforts to pay off Debt, and would in any case have kept clear of any avoidable new expenditure. But the Government had not done so, and they were face to face with an inevitable and enormous increase of expenditure. In the financial circumstances of the Government, he was bound to say that it was a discreditable proposal that, without any direct authority from the electors, and in face of all that they had said at the election, they should spend £7,000,000 which they had not got, and did not know how they were going to get, upon a scheme which was certainly not going to rest at £7,000,000, and which must effect an enormous change in the whole social life of this country. That was the situation in which they stood. Retrenchment was over and done with. That to him was the real outstanding feature of the situation. On the other hand, liabilities were growing faster and faster, and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, after two years of full control and rigid economy, would be forced, so far from decreasing the burdens upon the people, largely to increase them by means of taxation. The recommendation of the Amendment was that this inevitable increase in expenditure was to be met by broadening the basis of taxation. He sometimes thought that almost all trouble in this world arose from the use of metaphorical expressions, and he could not help thinking that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House must often have re-echoed the anguished cry of the great Frenchman who said he prayed nightly to be delivered from the Evil One and from figurative language. He had done his best to understand precisely what the phrase "broaden the basis of taxation" connoted. There had been moments of gloom and depression in which the dark thought had sometimes occurred to him that perhaps it had no meaning at all. But those moods passed, and he had come to the conclusion that after all its meaning was simple enough, and that broadening the basis of taxation simply meant levying more taxes. It was an inevitable inference from the fact that
1618
what it meant was that it was proposed to levy more taxes. He was reading only the other day that during the Middle Ages they had an excellent system of dealing with recalcitrant taxpayers. If a man refused to pay the amount which had been assessed as his proper quota they put him in a press and applied weights to the top of the press progressively until he either paid or expired. He had no doubt that if figurative language had been as common and popular in those days as in these, and one had asked the mechanic who was applying the weights what he was doing, he would have said with great force and with literal accuracy that he was broadening the basis of taxation. But the question raised by the Amendment was what were the taxes, what was to be the form of the broadening, and on what principles was the broadening to proceed. He took the view that all taxes without exception wore evil and bad. Of course, some were worse than others, but whether they were good or bad, they all had this in common, first of all that they were all paid, in fact, not by goods or by interests, but by individuals; and secondly, that however the tax was raised, in whatever form it might be presented, and on whomever it might strike first of all, in the end, inevitably and always, it fell on the whole mass and body of the people. That, if it were so, was a comforting reflection. However great might be the unfairness or iniquity of the Government, however unequal, one-sided, or biassed might be the apparent incidence of the tax, however strong might be the efforts to limit its incidence to a particular class, so great was the ingenuity of the people, so great and so strong was the play of natural law, that in the end it tended to diffuse itself more and more, and percolate deeper and deeper, so deep that no economist had ever been able to follow it, and every tax if they gave it time rested upon the shoulders which alone always must bear it—the shoulders of the mass of people as a whole, and therefore in the main of the working classes. The hon. Member for Blackburn the other day formulated a scheme for broadening the basis of taxation. He said that money was wanted for social reform, and there was nothing but to tax the rich, and let the poor go free. The hon. Member was the financier of the Labour Party, and he

1619
had no doubt would be the first Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Labour Administration. But the hon. Member never had and never could explain how he was going to induce the capital which he desired to tax to stop in the country and be destroyed. He could not explain low he was going to take huge sums from the rich man, and insure that no injury should result to those who depended upon him. All schemes of that sort were vitiated at the root because their authors had never realised that in inflcting injury upon the rich or upon any one class they were really inflicting a far greater injury upon the mass of the people, because they had not realised that in the end every tax, every demand to take money out of the pockets of the people broadened down and that the whole people paid their share in the end. While it was true that all people paid, it was equally true that in this country, owing to our present basis of taxation, the great majority of the persons who contributed to the revenue did not realise that they were paying—or at any rate how much they were paying. In this Budget they were faced with a total expenditure which was said to be £154,000,000. As a matter of fact the figures of Budget statements were always incomplete, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not make a real complete account in his next Budget of the national finances as they stood by including at least the appropriations in aid and the other large sums which were entirely excluded. They were faced with an expenditure which was at least £164,000,000, every half-penny of which would be raised and spent. All that was provided by the mass of the people. How much of it was paid by people who knew what they were paying? Less than the odd £64,000,000, £63,180,000alone of the whole total was represented by the income-tax, estate duties, stamp tax, land tax, house duty and the other direct taxes, and the remaining enormous sum of £100,000,000, every half-penny raised by customs, excise and non-tax revenue, was paid by persons who, as for the vast majority of them, did not realise, at any rate had no very strong temptation to realise, what they were paying. To his mind that really was becoming a serious danger. The people had the power to insist on great reforms
1620
and great changes and it was the people who paid for them. Frame taxes as they would, alter the basis as they chose, in the end it would be paid by those who had demanded it, and it was increasingly important that the present basis should be so altered, broadened if they liked to call it so, although in his belief the basis always remained the same—that those who demanded, at all costs and against all advice, schemes involving great expenditure, should feel that it was always upon themselves mainly that the burden of expense would fall. For his part, since the basis of taxation must be broadened, since new revenue must be found, he hoped the broadening would take place not in an increase of indirect but of direct taxation. There was no doubt that direct taxes stimulated as no others could a wholesome interest in political affairs, and would constitute a real incentive to prudent economy on the part of the electorate. Moreover, they left the activities and enterprise of the country free to develop, and only touched its resulting accumulations, which he believed to be the true principle. And, from the point of view of the revenue there was no question that they had an enormous advantage. He was told that the estate duty cost about 1 per cent. to collect, and the income-tax from 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent., while every £100 of customs duty cost £5 for collection. So that direct taxes being at least 4 per cent. cheaper to collect than indirect, if the money raised by indirect taxation in this very Budget could be raised, and he believed it could largely, by direct taxation, there would have been £2,500,000 clear saving to everybody concerned. It was said that the poor taxpayer was indisposed to take his part of the national burden unless it was concealed from him. He believed that was a gross libel upon the poor. If the rich man was ready to pay his share of the expenses of the country, it seemed to him to be monstrous to affect to believe that the poor man, who had more power in these days than the rich man, should be unwilling to do the same, and that was particularly so if, as was clearly the case, he would pay less rather than more under the system which he advocated. He admitted the difficulty of collecting, but he believed that that was difficulty which was not insuperable; and he earnestly commended these considerations to the Chancellor of the

1621
Exchequer. He wished to add one word more with regard to another scheme for widening the basis of taxation which had been referred to. He thought it would ill become him at that moment to refer in detail to this other scheme, which he knew found favour with many of his hon. friends around him. He was, however, bound to add that for his part he was one of those who was returned to this House bound and pledged to resist two things (1) the imposition of any duty upon corn or meat; and (2) the establishment in this country of a general tariff of a protective character upon the German or the American model. That being so, if he thought it could even colourably be argued that the acceptance of this Amendment involved a support of either of these things he would never support it; he might even feel bound by his election pledges to resist it. But he did not think this either could or would be argued. The situation as he saw it was that this Government of retrenchment and economy had chosen to give up both, and instead, had plunged the country into a sea of new expenditure the limits of which were utterly unknown. That expenditure had now to be faced and borne. Mainly, like all other expenditure, it would in fact be borne by the poorer classes of our people, who could least afford that strain. And it was in the hope that neither this nor any other Government would allow the people of this country to be deceived into the notion that they could foist off that strain either upon any particular class in this country, or upon any community of foreigners, but that the people would be allowed to face it honestly and bear it knowingly and with their eyes open, that he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. WALSHsaid he rose with considerable diffidence to take part in this discussion because it took the form of what was so frequently described as a full dress debate, and those who sat on the Labour Benches were not in the habit of participating at any length in such debates. He thought, however, that they had a right to know what was the real meaning of the Amendment. The Opposition Leaders had never, since they adopted the phrase "broadening the basis of taxation," given to the public any clear idea of the meaning they
1622
attached to it. In Germany where the "scientific tariff" had been applied remorselessly, the wages of the miner had gone up seventy-three marks a year; but the cost of his food had increased by 136 marks a year. At the trade union conferences held abroad the workers of all opinions were agreed upon one thing, that "broadening the basis of taxation" meant abstractions from the wages fund, intensifying the monopoly, tightening the grip of the capitalist on labour, and placing the working people more and more under the heel of the great syndicates and combinations of capital. It was officially admitted in Prussia that in consequence of the tariff applied during the last half dozen years the cost of living had gone up so much that 8¾ millions would need to be paid to the people in order to bring them back to the conditions of living before the tariff was imposed. Wherever they looked the same thing applied. They were told to go to America for an illustration. It was admitted by papers of high repute like the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Post and by the officials on the other side of the Atlantic in the Labour Department at Washington, that in America there was a large number of unemployed, thus proving that protection did not give "a lower income-tax and work for all." In April last there were 4¾ million trade unionists out of employment throughout the United States. Wages had recently gone down by 10 or 15 per cent in the United States, and the cost of living had increased by 28 per cent. He could only interpret the proposal for broadening the basis of taxation as an attempt on the part of a party not long out of power, who never when in power touched any such problem as this, to trade upon the necessities and miseries of the people with a view to diverting their attention from the real causes of their troubles and to the firmer entrenchment of monopoly. He would quote to the House a short extract from Sydney Smith's speech upon the broad basis of taxation which existed in his time. He said:—
"Taxes upon even thing that is pleasant to see, hear, smell and taste. Taxes on heat, light and locomotion, taxes upon everything on the earth and the waters under the earth, on the brass nails of the coffin and the ribbons of the bride, at bed or at board, couchant or levant, we must pay. Taxes on the ermine which decorates the judge and the rope that hangs the criminal. The beardless youth

1623
manages his taxed horse with a taxed bridle upon a taxed road, and the dying Englishman pouting his medicine which has paid 20 per cent. out of a phial which has paid 40 per cent. expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid £100 for the privilege of putting him to death."
At that time there were taxes upon 1,800 articles. Since then it had been the almost continuous endeavour of every statesmen worthy of the name to give the people a free breakfast-table. The Labour Party were resolute in their determination to maintain and increase the present freedom of trade in this country, because they were absolutely convinced it was in the interest of the working classes. There were points in the Finance Bill which should receive a little more attention than they had hitherto. He would ask the Prime Minister where was the promise with regard to the firm foundations which the Government intended to lay this session for old-age pensions? He was a novice in this House, and not at all acquainted with the mysteries of high finance, but he would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the words which he used. He said—
"It is our intention before the close of the next session to lay firm the foundations of this urgent, long-delayed, and overdue reform. I shall have next year, free and earmarked for the purpose, a sum of £2,250,000 to provide the nucleus of a fund for the relief of necessitous old age."
These words were very definite. They conveyed to the Labour Party the impression that this year there would be at least £2,250,000 as the nucleus of a fund to provide for the claims of the necessitous in old age. Having listened to the remarks of the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it seemed to him that the £2,250,000 had mysteriously disappeared, and that only £1,200,000 would be available on 1st January next year. Even the most indulgent critic could hardly say that 1st January next year would be before the close of this session, unless the House was to sit for a very long time. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House really thought that there would be at least £2,250,000 to be the nucleus of the fund for providing old-age pensions. While they were thankful for the begining which had been made, and while the statesman who had made the start was worthy of very great credit indeed, he must say that the reasonable expec-
1624
tations they were led to indulge in last year had not been fulfilled. He wished to call attention to another point in connection with the sugar duty. Every Member of the Liberal Party voted against the continuance of the sugar duty last year. The Prime Minister last year used these words—
"Objectionable as I have always thought it as a tax both on food of the poor and upon the raw material of several important industries, it is a duty with which you cannot deal piecemeal. If you were to halve the duty I do not think you would do any good whatever to the great bulk of consumers in the country. You might benefit certain trades in which sugar is a raw material, but I do not believe you would benefit the working classes or the consuming part of the community unless you get rid of the tax altogether."
Here again they were entitled to feel disappointed. They did not advance these objections in any churlish or captious spirit, but because before they came into this House they had been led to believe in the promises of statesmen. They were gradually undergoing the process of disillusionment, but still it ought to be placed to their credit that at one time they did believe in the good faith of statesmen. The right hon. Gentleman had done the very thing which he declared would be most objectionable.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I showed in my speech that the actual reduction which had been made has given relief to the consumers.
MR. WALSHsaid that so far as he had been able to ascertain the benefit was not going to the consumers at present. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Of course, that was a matter of opinion, and other people's experience might be different from his own. He wished to direct attention to the fact that the sugar tax was wholly paid by the consumer, and that it was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be objectionable. The portion of it which was still left amounted to £2,600,000 a year, or more than twice the amount which was to be devoted on 1st January next to the payment of old-age pensions. He thought that was a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more courageous. He might have taken his courage in both his hands and dispensed with the tax altogether. He

1625
and his friends thought the right hon. Gentleman had been a little too lenient in his treatment of those who possessed large estates, and that he had been by no means so generous as he ought to have been in his treatment of those who possessed little or nothing of this world's goods. The granting of old-age pensions to people at seventy years of age would only be felt by a most inconsiderable portion of the community. It was suggested that if they taxed very large incomes, they would break down the fund from which labour derived its source. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech last year, speaking of the case of a man who left £1,000,000, said—
"I do not know what you would do with such a man."
Those who were wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, and beyond all human needs, ought to be taxed in order to meet the great, growing, and dire needs of the large bulk of the people. The payment of old-age pensions ought to begin five years earlier. Another point was that there was practically no provision made for the needs of unemployment. There was no increase of the grant of £200,000, though the percentage of unemployed was growing day by day. Among trade union members there was in April this year a percentage of unemployment of 7·5, a figure which had only once been exceeded in the last twelve years, namely in December, 1904, when it was 7·6. He and his friends believed that ampler provision ought to have been made for the unemployed. Without broadening the basis of taxation by putting greater burdens on the common people, those who had large incomes ought to be called upon to contribute in greater proportion to the overwhelming needs of the country. They had a courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he might very well tackle the subject of the taxation of land values. It was too late to do it this session, but they threw it out as a hint worthy the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. There was a great deal to be done with the taxation of land values. Figures had been supplied showing that the ground values in London alone had grown by over 200 per cent. during the last forty years. The same thing was taking place in every great centre of industry throughout the country. The taxation of land values
1626
had been upon the Liberal programme within his knowledge for eighteen years, and ha thought it was about time they began to do business. They believed that without any broadening of the basis of taxation on the lines suggested by the Opposition, and without placing any additional burdens upon the common people—which, if he know anything of the temper of the common people, they would resist to the death—they might, by tapping unearned incomes, and by placing a larger share of taxation upon these vast fortunes to which he had alluded, give greater attention and financial help to the unemployed, and so shape their Budget as to carry a message of hope to the people. Upon those lines the Labour Party were determined. They had, therefore, been compelled to disagree with the Budget as laid before the House, for they felt that upon those lines, and those lines only, was the true solution of pressing problems to be found.
MR. HEMMERDEsaid he could not hope to emulate the simplicity of the Member for Norwood in seeing no possible trace of fiscal reform in the Amendment, nor the financial ability of the hon. Member for Hackney in suggesting new sources of revenue out of which could be met the increasing expenditure; but he had been struck by the fact that until the last speaker, not a single word had been said about the taxation of monopolies, which was one of the cardinal planks in the Liberal Party's programme at the last election. It seemed to him that this question had had a most remarkable history in the programme of the Liberal Party. They came into office some three years ago, pledged, if ever they were pledged to anything, to the taxation of land values, which was certainly a, ready means of broadening the basis of taxation. If the Amendment referred, as it clearly might do, to the taxation of land values, he for one should be prepared to vote for it; but one must take the Amendment according to the sense in which it was really intended, and he was therefore not prepared to support it, because it clearly referred to nothing of the sort. When they came into office they were faced with this question, and they were told a Land Valuation Bill was necessary before they

1627
could tackle it. That seemed to be a reason why in the first session they should have had a Land Valuation Bill, but they had not one. They expected one in the second session, but they never had it. To-day they were at last assured that a Bill for the valuation of the land of England would be produced within a very short time. Many of them were devoutly thankful for that assurance, but they had got to regard the matter from the point of view of practical politics, and, seeing what had happened to a previous measure leading up to the taxation of land values in Scotland, and knowing what was likely to happen in the House of Lords if an English Bill were passed through the House of Commons he wanted to consider for a moment if it were not possible through the Budget itself, without a preliminary valuation Bill, to tax land values. During the debate on the Licensing Bill they heard that, if that measure were thrown out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might upon another occasion find himself able to proceed by way of high licences, and thus to get indirectly the remedy he was unable to get directly. If that were possible in one case, it might be possible in another. Under certain circumstances they at present, for instance, valued land at its selling price for the purpose of death duties; and, if they were faced with the House of Lords throwing out a Land Valuation Bill, he hoped they would use the powers they possessed. There was hardly a single item in the Government's programme that was not intimately connected with this reform. Last year, when the Small Holdings Bill was brought in, it was pointed out again and again how important the question of the valuation of land was in this connection. It would be the same with the Housing Bill, and all through the Government's programme of social reform. This great question of land values underlay everything. He did not want to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had made many speeches, in Wales and elsewhere, upon this subject, and in which he had developed the taxation of land values as few other people had done, but he wished to quote the words of one who was always held to be a most moderate Member of the Liberal
1628
Party. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said—
"I am sure that the party which first masters, that question (the taxation of land values), which first makes it its own, which can show that it is really capable of dealing with it, and is not going to let itself be hampered by rested interests from exercising its intelligence upon it freely—that party will have a great and solid ground upon which to appeal to the country.
If they at once took action without suggesting Land Valuation Bills they would be on great and solid ground in which they might appeal to the people. It was upon the taxation of monopolies that they went to the country at the last election, and upon the taxation of monopolies the Government ought at any rate do something in accordance with their pledges. The hon. Member for Norwood had pointed out with some truth that-one party was proposing to tax the rich and let the poor go free; and he pointed out the danger of taxing wealth so as to drive it out of the country and that in taxing wealth they taxed industry. If those were the hon. Member's views, he ought to be able to claim him as an adherent to his suggestion, because such objection did not apply to the taxation of monopolies. No one could take his land out of the country, and no economist of any repute would suggest that a tax upon land values would have the effect of actually raising rents in the country. In the taxation of land values they had a tax which would remain where they imposed it and which would not filter through the rich down to the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester had told them that it was quite impossible to find out how much the working class family now paid in taxation. That might possibly be the case. He gave certain figures pointing out how taxes affected the poor at the present time. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he first tried to find out how much the ordinary man with £1 a week paid to taxation, gave them the figure of 1s. 7d. He did not know whether the process of broadening the basis of taxation had for its object the increasing of that to some higher sum;

1629
but surely the man with. £1 per week only ought to pay considerably less than 1s., and the taxation ought to be put on the shoulders of those who could afford it. Though to-day some of his supporters seemed to be a little timid, the foundation upon which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to stand was indirect taxation, beginning, at least, with a 5 per cent. tax on all food and a 10 per cent. tax on all manufactured articles. Whether he was likely to increase the 1s. 7d. paid by the man in receipt of £1 per week to 2s. or nearly 3s., it was perfectly obvious they were going to begin, not to put taxes on the rich and let the poor go free, but to put most of the taxes on the poor and let the rich go free. The indirect taxation, on which protection was based, would not have the effect of increasing industry so that the poor could get any indirect advantage oat of the system. They were, of course, told that, although they would increase the taxes upon them, they would give them more employment and more wages; but, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman put forward a refutation of the argument himself at once, because he pointed out that, if they gave a man 1s. per week more by taxing him less, they would at once raise the amount of employment in the country and develop industry. If they so altered their taxes as to take them off food, it was obvious they were going to do a great deal for the development of the industries of the country. Mr. Carnegie said not long ago that, if they altered their taxation so as to give the majority of the people £1 a year more to spend, they would do more to develop industry than by any other method. They were faced with three alternatives. They had either to increase the taxes upon the poor, which was protection; or increase the present taxes upon the rich, which, although it might have a very lawful object and excellent effect, must to some extent be a penalisation of industry, or they could put taxes upon monopolies and the wealth of the people without in doing so penalising industry. By the last alternative they would put their taxes upon the wealth created by the people and get back for the people the wealth they had created. Of course, they were
1630
told there were certain difficulties. That was, no doubt, a reason why they should proceed cautiously at first, but it was no reason why there should not be at least a small revenue tax, or why taxation should not be so devised that it would absorb all future land values or why a land tax should not be put on all unoccupied land. If a start was made there a great deal would be done for the revenue and to stimulate industry. People said it was unfair to tax a monopoly, but was it not equally unfair to leave in private hands what ought to belong to the public? That point was very well put by a well-known writer, who recently said—
"Until the State has resumed what it never had the right to give away to any individual, its right to the fund created by its own existence and its own endeavour, it must do what is devoid of any moral sanction, deprive individual citizens of the result of their own individual labour."
What was the position to-day? A man could not be made rich unless he was a producer, without making others poorer, and to-day we were allowing these people to become rich. They were thriving on the needs and libour of the people. The Government did not seem to be giving to this question the attention it deserved. The Liberal Party had won many seats on this question. It had been fought all over the country, and in bringing this matter into prominence they had had the support of the Government and had quoted many of the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front bench. He thought that Government owed it to the party to take up this question seriously. They owed it to the party because many of them did not wish to have their pledges thrown in their faces, but they also owed it to the nation when they were face to face with this great expenditure. Of the three courses lying to their hand, there were only two that they could follow. They could tax earned of they could tax the unearned wealth, a thing which he suggested the Government had already shown a desire to do, by the differentiation in the income-tax between earned and unearned incomes. One hon. Member had said that he would support an old-age pension scheme from a fund contributed to by all. What better fund could there be

1631
than that provided by land values? When they came face to face with this great expenditure for social needs (and he did not think it was too great—he thought that twice and thrice as much could be afforded for old-age pensions), they had to find some sources of revenue which were capable of great development. He appealed to the House in the eloquent words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—
"There is a trade untouched in your midst which would bring back to the wealth of England £250,000,000 per annum, and that trade you might win, not by colonising South African deserts, not by forcing civilisation upon unwilling people at the point of the bayonet, but by r claiming the land of England from the trammels of a bygone age."
£250,000,000 might be a large estimate. The hon. Member for North Paddington thought it was too much, but here was a huge value created by the public and growing daily, and yet it was left by the Opposition for a gamble of a farthing or a halfpenny on the food of the people. That seemed to him a paltry thing, and he preferred to stand by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who was preaching then the same cause as he (Mr. Hemmerde) and those who thought with him were preaching to-day. He hoped the Government would be able to give this matter the attention it deserved and do something to assuage the bitter disappointment of the land reformers in this House. He asked the Government, in considering the question of the broadening of the basis of taxation, to do what they could to put Liberal finance on a suitable basis, on a basis that was easily understood, and one that could be put before business men and set against the attractions of fiscal reform. He asked for a lead in this matter and that the Government should, in refusing to tax the poor, at the same time come down to this great revenue that was made by the poor. Let them base all these schemes of social reform for the benefit of the poor on the wealth that the poor created, and in that way, and that way alone, let the poor make their contribution. The Liberal Party was pledged to take off not the half but the whole of the sugar tax, and to reduce the tea tax, if not to abolish it. They were not justified in keeping up these taxes when
1632
they had a huge revenue capable of being appropriated to their removal. He appealed to the Government to do what they could by their finance, not only to take the tax off production but in every other way they could, by other taxes, to assist production by giving not only free trade to this country, but freedom to produce under a careful system of land reform, which he believed could be obtained ultimately, if not directly, by the Budget.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down nor would he attempt to argue with him the question of land values, but he would point out that the hon. and learned Member had overlooked the fact that both Mr. Gladstone and Sir William Harcourt were among those who held the firm conviction that the taxation of land values ultimately and invariably fell upon the tenant. He desired to confine his remarks to that part of the Amendment which referred to local taxation. The Postmaster-General had commented upon the fact that Members of the Opposition had suddenly become very keen about this question of local taxation, but if the right hon. Gentleman or any other member of the Government would take the trouble to inquire into the matter he would find that this was not a party matter, but that there was a very large movement in the country, and great interest taken in this question; that the agricultural classes and other ratepayers were determined to bring their grievances into public notice, and they would not rest satisfied until those grievances were redressed. The right hon. Gentleman further said that two things had been done in the last two years which would benefit local authorities and reduce the burden of local taxation. With regard to one of them, namely, the arrangement made last year with respect to licences, no one in the rural districts considered that any benefit was being conferred upon their localities by that arrangement. The arrangement was made in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might benefit by any increase of the duties, and the increased amount of duty paid must on the whole

1633
tend to a certain extent to decrease the number of licences taken out. The local rates would, therefore, lose rather than gain by the arrangement. The burden of local rates had not been relieved in this way, but, although they had not been increased up to the present, there was a tendency that they might be increased in future. The Postmaster-General was not, therefore, entitled to claim that as a relief to local taxation. It was no doubt originally intended that the incidence of local taxation should fall according to ability to pay. It was equally certain that it did not now so fall, and necessarily there was bound to be a certain amount of inequality and injustice, so long as personal property was exempted from rating. He was not suggesting so large a change as that personal property should come under the rates to-day; but the result of this inequality was that some trades and professions had been rated at a very much higher rate than others, and that the occupiers of agricultural land had been rated at a much higher rate than any other trade or profession in the country. They were paying rates not only on their premises, but on their stock in trade, on their raw material, on everything they had. If anyone took the trouble to go into the figures, he would find that out of every £100 of gress income the farmer was paying an enormous amount more for rates than any other class of the community. This in justice was recognised some twelve years ago, with the result that the Agricultural Rates Act was passed. A recommendation had been made by a Royal Commission that agricultural land should be rated at only one-fourth of the rateable value, but the Act did not go so far as that. It exempted agricultural land from half the rates, and the agricultural rates grant was then made to compensate local rating areas for their loss of income owing to the Act. At that time the average rate in the rural districts was 2s. 2d. To the best of his recollection that average was arrived at by taking the rateable value of all agricultural property, and dividing that by the total amount spent in the agricultural area. The grant was accordingly fixed at 1s. 1d. In the year 1896–7, the amount of the
1634
agricultural rates grant paid to the local spending authorities was £1,330,031. From the discussion at the time, it was clearly the expectation of the Government that 2s. 2d. would remain more or less the average rate for a long time, and that the agricultural rates grant would continue to make up the loss incurred by the local spending authorities. What had really happened in the last eleven years was that the rateable value of agricultural land had doubled, being now more than 4s. in the £, while the agricultural rates grant was less than it was in the first year owing to a decrease in the rateable value, so that there was a deficiency of £1,500,000 a year. That had added enormously to the burdens of the rural districts. How was it that rates had risen to 4s. in the £? It was very largely because the local rates were used to such a tremendous extent for national services. He would confine his observations to the five services which the recent Royal Commission on Local Taxation expressly declared to be national, viz., the police, the cost of which was paid up to 61 per cent. out of local rates; lunatics and asylums, paid out of local rates to the extent of 75 per cent.; education, to the extent of 48 per cent; roads and bridges, 86 per cent.; Poor Law relief, 91 per cent. He had taken the figures for 1904–5 which were in the latest Blue-book on the subject, and in round figures the local rates paid £40,000,000 towards the £56,000,000 which was expended altogether on these five national services. Was there any justification for this large preponderance of cost falling on the localities rather than on the whole community? He did not think there was. The police were now largely under Imperial control; at all events they had to be kept up to the standard laid down by the Imperial Parliament, and to that extent they were not under local control. Lunatics and asylums, he thought, on every ground were a national matter. Education, again, was a national matter. The Imperial Parliament laid down the conditions of education, and there was very little beyond local administration left in local hands. Another point was that in the rural schools the children were given an education which fitted them in the large majority

1635
of cases, not for the rural community, but for the towns, with the result that a very large proportion of the children, after they had received their education paid for by the agricultural community, eventually left their districts for the towns, and were lost to the areas which had educated them. Therefore, he contended, education should be on a national basis as far as expenditure was concerned, or, at all events, great relief should be given to the local rates. Then as to the roads and bridges. Time was when they were very largely a local affair. But now they were very largely a national affair, and they were becoming of an increasingly national nature, because the most serious user of the roads was by very fast travelling vehicles and heavy motors. coming, it might be, from hundreds of miles away, and which, therefore, did not contribute in any sense whatever to the upkeep of the roads which they destroyed. He did not intend to ask the Government to do anything definitely to-day with reference to roads and bridges, for it was generally expected that before very long increased taxation of motor cars would be proposed, and that would be the most fitting time to propose an increased contribution towards the roads. He did not think the roads could be taken entirely away from the local rates, because there was bound to be a certain amount of local control, and wherever there was local control there ought to be a local burden.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
MR. COURTHOPE, continuing his observations, said he had enumerated the five services which cast so heavy a burden upon the local rates. There was a tendency, particularly noticeable in the last two years of legislative proposals, largely to increase the burden on the local rates for national purposes. There was certainly a generally accepted belief in the rural districts that if the present Education Bill was passed in its present form it would throw an increased burden on the local rates. The Small Holdings Act had thrown an extra burden upon them, and the Housing
1636
Bill would certainly impofe a very heavy burden. Then there were such Bills as those for the feeding and medical inspection of school children, and others of that nature, which tended to increase the burdens on the local ratepayers, though the services were essentially national. He thought the time had come when the local ratepayers could no longer stand this increased burden. The subject which he thought constituted the strongest case of all, and with regard to which the Government might reasonably be asked to do something at once, was that of lunatics and asylums. There was no doubt whatever that, if the Government took over the whole of the administration as well as the cost of the pauper lunatics and asylums, the gain to the community would be very great. It was in 1846, he thought, that the Government took over the prisons, the conveyance of prisoners, and so forth, and the result had been a great saving to the community at large. Of course, slightly more had to be found in the shape of taxes, but the relief of rates was much greater than the increase of taxes. The reason was obvious in the case of prisons. In the old days every prison had to provide accommodation for every class of prisoner. Now the management was much more economical because certain prisons were arranged for certain classes of prisoners, So it would be in the case of asylums and pauper lunatics. At present each county had to provide for every type of lunatic—and there were a great many types which required different treatment and even a great variety of premises, and there was not the slightest doubt that a very large saving might be made, probably as much as a third of the total cost, if the whole administration of pauper lunatics and asylums was taken over by the central authority. He urged the Government to give this matter their real consideration, because it would undoubtedly be a great relief to the local spending authorities and the ratepayer, and at the same time a real economy for the community at large. One objection usually raised was that this could not be done without a Valuation Bill. He could not, however, see what a Valuation Bill had to do with the control of lunatics. The central authority

1637
could take over the whole affair. The local authority did not want to keep the control of the asylums. He did not know of a single case where a county would mind parting with the control and losing the burden of their lunatics. Where a Valuation Bill came in passed his comprehension. Even if the Government felt they could not entirely take over the administration, a certain amount of that could be done locally, and it would be very easy to make a contribution per head of the lunatics. That did not require a Valuation Bill. He really thought that that argument was a very poor reason for shelving the difficulty and causing delay. In the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation it was stated that roughly there were 100,000 pauper lunatics in county and borough asylums, and the numbers were increasing annually, and they recommended that efficient management should be carried out by a central authority at an additional cost of £1,500,000 to the Exchequer, while the saving to the rates would be nearly £2,500,000 for exactly the same service, which at the same time would probably be managed more efficiently centrally than locally. He considered the matter to be of the greatest possible importance. It was to the supreme interest of the country at large that injustice of this kind should not continue, and that the life of those who lived and were taxed locally in the rural districts should be made as easy as possible. The increase of rates had been a very large item in the causes which had driven the yeoman farmer off the land, and anything that reduced this burden, and helped to get a useful class of the community back where they ought to be, would be a decided stop in the right direction. He urged this sincerely and not captiously in any way, and he hoped the Government would be able to hold out some promise of help in the future.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he found himself in general agreement with the main lines of the Finance Bill, and in absolute disagreement with the object of the Amendment. He did not think those who piled up Debt to so extraordinary a degree in bygone years were in a very
1638
strong position in attacking the finance of an Administration which had paid off Debt at such an unparalleled rate, and at the same time afforded considerable relief in ordinary taxation. He agreed that some sources of taxation were already heavily burdened, but others were not, and though the provisions of this Finance Bill must increase the burden of taxation before very long, there were sources of taxation on the existing basis from which a considerable amount of additional revenue might be raised. He was aware of the risk of driving capital out of the country, but it was obvious that the contribution of many of the largest incomes was not equivalent to that of many of the more moderate incomes, and, therefore, from the largest incomes a considerable amount of revenue might yet be fairly raised upon the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. Again, the services conducted by local authorities, many of which were mainly national, and very largely onerous in their character, entailed an undue burden upon realty, and personalty gave an insufficient contribution. He did not believe it was impossible to make personalty contribute fairly to local taxation, and a great deal was shown by the minority Report on the incidence of local taxation—that of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the Secretaries to the Treasury—as to how that burden ought to be lightened. At one time in his own country there were counties in which rates were levied on income, whether it was personalty or realty, and he had never been satisfied that, although that system dropped out, in some respects it might not have been maintained. Again the cost of the administration of the liquor traffic entailed a considerable additional burden upon local administration, and the monopoly value, the profits of the retail trade conferred by the monopoly, had been allowed hitherto to go into private hands. Ultimately a very large revenue might be derived from that source, while there were other forms of wealth, which might be more immediately rated, although at first they might not make so large a return as was sometimes supposed. Land values and mining royalties had been referred to, and there was certainly fair ground for consideration whether wealth in that

1639
and in some other forms made its fair contribution to public burdens. He did not think it did; and from these sources they should look for some addition to the revenue, although he expected in the matter of land values the local authorities, and not the Treasury, would be most likely to get anything that came out of it. For some works he believed they would have to use loans, and loans could not be altogether barred in making provision for some of the public requirements. Yet, however, sanguine they might be as to increased returns from these and other sources, and the increased returns on existing taxation which would accrue from increased national wealth under a free trade system, and our national wealth was, happily, rapidly increasing, we had to reckon in the immediate future with a vast increase in public expenditure. The doubt that crossed one's mind was whether these liabilities had been sufficiently discounted in the present Budget. They were grouped under several heads—old-age pensions, defence, the relief of local taxation or contributions by the State to local taxation, public works, and social legislation. As regarded old-age pensions they found themselves confronted with the very moderate figure of some £6,000,000. It had been estimated to go as high as £7,000,000, but it seemed likely to involve them ultimately in perhaps three or four times that sum. No Government could resist reasonable pressure to reduce the age-limit. Really a seventy years old-age pension was almost a mockery of an old-age pension scheme. Many of them, even in that House, were pretty well worn out before they got to the age of seventy, and he thought sixty-five would not be an excessive limit. For many of the working classes sixty would not be an excessive age at which to provide against old age. The question was how to get the best results from this expenditure. What was incumbent upon them was to consider whether this scheme had been introduced with due safeguards against imposition, waste, and thriftlessness. He would support a lower age-limit, and he hoped the Government would devise a more stringent qualification. As the
1640
scheme developed he trusted they would be able to engraft upon it some form of contribution, and that it would be accompanied also by Poor Law reforms and by a stipulation that the drunkard and other classes of that description would be eliminated. Under those circumstances only would the old-age pensions scheme be a sound financial investment. What they had to fear was that by tinkering, patching, and muddling through, although they might escape disaster in the field, they might yet incur disaster in their domestic administration. Many of them had been alarmed by the recent utterance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which implied that they might be able to reduce their armaments, but the uneasiness created by that disquieting impression had been soothed by the recollection of the firm promises and declarations made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary with so much emphasis. It was clear that a largely increased expenditure would have to be incurred immediately to secure naval pre-eminence. Unless the Territorial Army scheme failed there would be less economy in the Army, because the Territorial Associations would need more money. Their main requirements at the present time was the transference of the main naval base to the North Sea, which involved the completion of the works at Rosyth. He could not imagine any greater misfortune than that this country should be forced into war without a naval base in the North Sea ready, more especially in view of the activity now being displayed in deepening the harbours and channels on the opposite coast of the North Sea. He did not altogether approve of the policy of the total abstention form loans in the carrying out of works in which the national security was involved, and by means of a loan the millions required for Rosyth could be raised at once. He agreed that it was well to do without loans where it was possible, but in view of the enormous liabilities which the next Budget must disclose, the question was whether they could face the cost of these vast works out of revenue within the time in which the works should be completed in order to render the country secure. Then there was the cost of the social programme. The expenditure upon education and

1641
physical fitness was a good investment, and the Government could not cry "Halt" in those outlays which were Involving a great burden upon the ratepayers, and were becoming a growing liability upon the State. The questions of the incidence of local taxation and grants-in-aid from the Treasury were becoming pressing. New departures were being inaugurated in the form of national undertakings, the burden of which would come upon the Exchequer. The means of communication were to come under public control, and Irish land settlement would have to follow upon Irish land purchase. Then there were undertakings such as afforestation, He was inclined to think that hardly enough revenue was being raised for all these undertakings. Committee after committee had urged the liability for afforestation upon the State, and the Government would ultimately be obliged to act in this and other matters which would entail a considerable burden upon their resources. He was making those objections in no pessimistic spirit. So long as they aimed at strengthening individual character and resource, so long as we had security for peace with our neighbours, and the prosperity for ourselves which free trade afforded, we were in the strongest position of any nation in the world to meet our national responsibilities and requirements. It was in regard to defence that he had some concern. This country would never again go lightly into war, and still less would we take the initiative in making war. Nevertheless, the nation would be sure to make short work of any Ministry which was unprepared for war, because any national misfortune would be crushing and irreparable. A naval scare would be the most costly and dangerous of all possible contingencies, and he urged the Government to face boldly the inevitable and not unduly delay a prudent provision for the immediate future in matters of defence, more especially as regarded the naval base in the North Sea. The greatest service the Government could render to the State was to make it comprehend the true financial situation, so as never to allow the country to imagine for a moment that the conditions in regard to safety were more favourable than the acutal facts warranted.
MR. BEALEsaid he would be glad to see the basis of taxation broadened in a true sense, but before he could support that proposition in the sense of the meaning which had been attached to that phrase throughout the country he would like to be satisfied that it was not going to benefit particular trades, because protection to his mind would bring about a disastrous condition of trusts and coalitions in the commercial world. If the basis of taxation was to be broadened in order really to benefit those who were brought into the scope of the taxation by the broadening, then it was quite another thing. If they eliminated all those ideas of restoring prosperity to certain trades which were not making as much profit as the capitalists desired, if they left off mixing up this phrase, which had been interpreted in the country as meaning a promise of protective duties to manufacturers, if they would eliminate all the absurd notions of making the foreigners pay our taxes, and the idea that they could increase the total volume of trade of this country by a process of protective duties, then he was quite willing to consider the subject. He was not in favour of a contributory scheme of old-age pensions, because that had been explained as meaning a scheme of insurance as an absolute condition for getting a pension. He agreed very much with the previous speaker's description of the present scheme as paltry and unsatisfactory. It. might, however, eventually grow into one of a larger and more comprehensive character, and he welcomed it for the benefit it would confer in substituting a pension scheme for the present method of maintaining the aged poor. He hoped that eventually an attempt would be made to bring about a broad national scheme of old-age pensions. They knew what was meant by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by many people throughout the country, when they spoke of the broadening of the basis of taxation; they meant duties on the articles consumed by the community. He would not rule out such duties if they were imposed for the purpose of providing old-age pensions, if the money could not be obtained otherwise, but he did not wish to express approval of the retention of such a

1643
duty as the sugar duty. He did not approve of any taxation the burden of which was relative to the number of little mouths which the taxpayer had to feed. He was glad to hear from the hon. Member for South Hackney that there were many methods of taxation which could be tried before they had recourse to an expedient of that kind. Some people were in the habit of discussing the question of old-age pensions as if only the very poor who could not bear more taxation were to get the benefit of them. Under a large and comprehensive national scheme an enormous number of people belonging not only to the lower, but the middle classes and even the well-to-do would benefit. He did not agree with the previous speaker that as time went on there should be more definitions, restrictions, and conditions. If a poor person received 5s. a week he would be able to live with his friends, and it would be far more economical for the State to pay that sum than to spend 14s. a week in keeping that person in a workhouse. He was ready to face any broadening of the basis of taxation which might be found necessary in order to raise money, provided it did not indirectly involve protection.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he did not intend to go into the whole question of the Budget, nor to follow his hon. friend into a theoretical discussion as to the true meaning of broadening the basis of taxation. It seemed to him that one could push theory on the question of taxation a good deal too far. While one might hold that taxation was mainly—as of course it was—for the purpose of providing revenue, yet he failed to see why they should not use taxation where they could in order to get some indirect benefit out of it. If taxation were so adjusted that they could get some benefit from it it would be better than a system which was merely disagreeable to the person on whom it fell. Those countries which adopted a system of taxation which they considered suited their needs had something which we had not. No one could say that in Germany there was not far less inclination to kick at the amount of taxation
1644
imposed than there was in this country. The Germans would probably be more willing to spend a large part of their revenue upon their Navy than even we should on our Navy, although the Navy was of more paramount importance to us than it was to the Germans. He was profoundly disappointed with the Budget because it did not deal in any way with local taxation. Last year the Prime Minister led the House to expect that he would in the near future do something more definite to put local taxation on a sound footing. He was afraid as Governments went on, each Government put off dealing with this important and crucial subject. This Parliament was now in its third year, but this subject seemed very likely to meet with the same fate as others and not be dealt with at all. The Postmaster-General had said that the late Government did nothing in his direction. That fact did not really affect the argument, because the late Government during the whole time they were in office dealt with War Budgets. It was in this Budget, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a boom year and a large surplus, that they expected something would be done to put the question of local taxation on an equitable footing. As representing an agricultural constituency he urged the Government to recognise this as a reform which should be carried out as soon as possible. The burden of rates was increasing year by year, and no one could say that the increase was entirely due to the local authority. It was due to duties imposed by Acts of Parliament. No doubt some of the local authorities might be extravagant, but that accusation could not be levelled against all of them. A large part of the increase was due to education, added to which now was the medical inspection of children, and various requirements, owing to improved standard of living made by the central authorities such as their requirements with regard to lunatic asylums and the regulation of the police and so on. The rates in 1879–80 were 15s. 6d. per head of population, but in 1904–5 they had increased to. 28s. per head in spite of the fact that the rateable value had increased by about 40 per cent. It had increased from

1645
£116,000,000 to £163,000,000 and, therefore they might have expected that taxation would have gone down in consequence, During the whole of that time the Exchequer contributions had not increased in the same degree as the burden on the ratepayers. The Exchequer contributions had only increased by £2,197,000, and consequently a large proportion of the additional burdens thrown upon the local authorities had fallen entirely upon the ratepayers. There were several grievances which the ratepayers had to endure as against those endured by taxpayers. The ratepayers contributed 82 per cent. of local taxation while the owners of other forms of property contributed in a very trivial degree. Then there was a grievance which the agricultural ratepayers had as against the urban ratepayers, but he did not propose to deal with that particular grievance on this occasion. When he said that the ratepayers contributed 82 per cent. of the expenditure required in local districts by the local authorities, it had to be recognised that it was not entirely for local purposes, but that a considerable proportion of it was for services which in reality were more national than local. Why should one form of property contribute almost entirely to this taxation for the expenditure of the local authorities? They all knew that that state of affairs had arisen purely by a series of accidents. It was intended originally that all the money required for local purposes should be raised according to the means of the people of the locality paying for Imperial taxes. Gradually personalty escaped local taxation; local taxation was raised alone from rateable property, and there it remained. The position was at present burdensome, but it was becoming more burdensome owing to the increasing requirements of the central authorities. Those services to which the ratepayers were obliged to contribute were not always local in character. They had been over and over again described as national services. The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation stated that education, main roads, police, lunatic asylums, and Poor Law were services which should be regarded as national. That was a wise recommendation which nobody could dispute. No better defini-
1646
tion of what the local authorities should be required to contribute to had ever been made than that given by the late Sir Massey Lopes in this House. He said that the Exchequer ought to relieve the ratepayers of expenditure which was not dependent upon local control. As regarded education, one might say that it depended on local control but it was at a standard fixed by the central authority. In regard to poor relief, it might be said that local control was reduced to a minimum, and the same was especially true with regard to the police service and lunatic asylums. That being the case, it seemed to him absurd that a large proportion of these services should be paid for out of this local taxation which was raised so unjustly, and not from the national funds. The Postmaster-General had admitted that there was a grievance with regard to local taxation, but said that it could not be removed without a Valuation Bill. They had heard talk of a Valuation Bill for a long time, but it had never come off. It did not seem to him necessary to have a Valuation Bill in order to remedy these particular grievances. National services at present paid for by local authorities could be put on the Imperial Exchequer without a Valuation Bill at all. To remedy the grievance of the agricultural ratepayers as against the urban ratepayers a Valuation Bill might be necessary, but for the other grievances a Valuation Bill was not necessary at all. Lord St. Aldwyn, whose authority on finance hon. Gentlemen opposite would be ready to admit, criticising some proposal that had been made in the agricultural interest for the benefit of local taxation, went so far as to say that in his opinion a good many of those services should be borne entirely by the national Exchequer, such as lunatic asylums, workhouses, and the police. That was the minimum for which he would ask; and that was the ground on which they could make a beginning in the way of relief of local taxation. It had already been done with regard to prisons, and there was no reason why it should not be done now in regard to lunatic asylums, Poor Law relief, police, and main roads. Main roads were every day becoming mare and more national and less local. In old days they were the main arteries of communication, and then they were

1647
paid for by the people who used them by toll bars, which he thought was an admirable method. But when the roads became of more use to the parishioners than to anybody else, the upkeep of them was charged to the parish or local authority. Now they were going back to the old system and the main roads were becoming again the main means of communication, and it seemed to him reasonable that they should be paid for out of the national Exchequer and that all that the local authorities should be called upon to do was to pay for the district roads. He had mentioned the general lines on which local taxation reform might proceed immediately without any special effort on the part of the Government. It did not require any heroic measure of valuation or anything else to carry the reforms recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which were long overdue. These services should be put on the national Exchequer. There was in regard to this matter throughout the country a great feeling which the House hardly recognised. It was the only thing which stood in the way of all progress in carrying out the wishes of that House in regard to local legislation. The fear of increasing the rates stood in the way of the advance of secondary education and other reforms, and until something was done to relieve the ratepayers of the unjust burden which fell upon them he was afraid that the local authorities in the rural districts would be very chary of spending money on necessary services. He entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer in next year's Budget—it was too late for this year's—to make a beginning by putting some of those services on the Imperial Exchequer, and so relieving the local authorities of the amount they cost at present.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that there was very general agreement with part of the observations which fell from the noble Lord. Undoubtedly the time was long overdue for a readjustment of the financial relations between the Imperial and local authorities. But the noble Lord would forgive him if he dealt with the even more important considerations raised by the Amendment before the House. A good
1648
deal had been said in the debate about broadening or widening the basis of taxation. He could not help expressing surprise that no one had defined what was meant by the "basis of taxation." What was the basis of taxation in this or any other country? It was the sum of the productions of the labour—mental and manual—exercised by the people of the country. That and that alone was the basis of taxation. In other words, the national dividend was the basis of taxation. They could make it no wider or bigger by taxation, but he asserted that if they were not very careful in their methods of taxation they might very easily make it narrower. That was the first point. He would like to advance this proposition: that they could not by means of import duties increase the national dividend—increase the product of the country. There was one observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government—he almost regarded it as a gleam of humour—to the effect (interpreting or misinterpreting something that fell from the Postmaster-General) that we could levy a market toll, and so bring in as taxpayers other people outside these realms, including presumably British Colonists, and make them contribute to the revenue of this country. He could hardly think that suggestion serious. If it was really believed that the foreigner could be persuaded to pay a portion of our taxes, why was such nice discrimination made between different articles? Why were raw materials always excluded? Why not levy a market toll on raw materials and give us old-age pensions at thirty-five years of age? Hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds as to which leg they would stand upon, whether they wanted tariff reform for the purpose of revenue or for the purpose of protection. If they wanted it for the purposes of revenue, to lower the income-tax by broadening the basis of taxation, if they wished to put a greater burden on the poor and less upon the rich, where did the protective effect come in? If, on the other hand, the intention was to decrease the imports of this country let them give up the revenue tax. They could not ride both horses. He passed to more general considerations. The

1649
general charge made against the Budget was that it increased expenditure at the same time that it decreased revenue. He would have been inclined to sympathise with that charge if this were not a free trade country admitted to have passed through a considerable period of prosperity, compared even with other periods which were nothing less than prosperous. This country had within its borders an amount of accumulated wealth and national income which compared more than favourably with any other country in the world. It had been stated that our war reserve had been greatly trenched upon. That was a gross exaggeration. The war reserve was the taxable capacity of the country, which was not gravely altered by a degree of taxation such as we had at present. Our expenditure had been stated as £154,000,000. If they brought under consideration things which were left out in the ordinary financial statement the amount was said to be as much as £160,000,000. But taking it at £154,000,000 could such a statement be justified? If they deducted £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 relating to Post Office business, which should not appear as national expenditure at all, the amount was reduced to £136,000,000. Of that £136,000,000 the National Debt Service absorbed £28,000,000, reducing the expenditure for 44,000,000 people to £108,000,000. Of that £108,000,000, there were absorbed for the purposes of defence, £60,000,000, leaving about £40,000,000 for Imperial expenditure on the Civil Service. Could that be said to be too great an expenditure when compared with the national income, which now amounted to something like £1,800,000,000? When that comparison was made, as it ought to be made, it was an exaggeration to say that we had greatly trenched on our resources by our expenditure. It was not enough to go back five, ten, or fifteen years and hold up our hands in horror because our expenditure had increased by £5,000,000, £10,000,000 or £20,000,000. When it was possible for German visitors to come to this country, as they did recently, and express their pity for the condition of children in a school in Clerkenwell, did it not make hon. Members think, not whether we
1650
were spending too much, but whether we were spending enough? If such considerations were taken into account, it would be realised that it was not possible to reduce the national expenditure.
SIR F. BANBURY: It is a pity you did not say that two and a half years ago.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he was not responsible for anything he had not said. What he did say to his electors was not that we were spending too much but that we were raising money in the wrong way and spending it on the wrong things. Looking at the Budget as a whole, it seemed to him to show a want of confidence in the wealth of the country. When he considered the old-age pension scheme with its limitations as to age, as to pauperism, and as to penalising married couples, he asked himself did the Prime Minister, in framing his scheme, want to make these limitations—did he desire to do these ungrateful and ungracious things? No. The origin of them appeared to be a want of confidence in the taxable capacity of the country. Having said that, he would like to add that whatever the limitations, it would remain to the credit of the Government and of the Prime Minister that they had made old-age pensions an actual reality. He did not believe that the proper means of redistributing the income of the country was by taxation. The proper means was to change the distribution of the product of labour at the source. As to taxation, the present distribution of income came in in this way. When it had been decided how much it was wise to spend, then it was for the Government to look at incomes as they existed, and to adjust their taxation accordingly. But he should denounce any idea that it was possible greatly to ameliorate social conditions by means of taxation. Having said that, however, he was entitled to call attention to one or two striking facts with regard to the present social conditions. In this country about 700,000 persons died every year. Only 82,000 left property worth the attention of Somerset House, and they left £300,000,000, and of that amount £200,000,000 were left by only 4,000 people. That was no extraordinary case in 1907—it was only the

1651
ordinary case. It happened every year with even greater precision than the seasons. What was the fact with regard to the distribution of income? Various estimates had been made, and one could only advance what were the general probabilities of the case; but he thought, within a margin of error which did not matter, the following facts might be taken as giving a correct view and a proper sense of proportion. They had an annual income of about £1,800,000,000. About £600,000,000 to £650,000,000 of that was taken by 1,250,000 people, about one-thirtieth of the whole; another 3,750,000 took about £250,000,000 or £300,000,000; and the balance, about one-half, was taken by nearly the whole mass of the population of people below the income-tax line. It seemed to him high time that a Chancellor of the Exchequer made a Budget having regard to these extraordinary facts. How could taxes be fitted to the shoulders of the people, how could they be so levied as to do justice all round, if these facts were not taken into consideration? He earnestly hoped the time would soon come when a Chancellor of the Exchequre would have at his disposal, as he ought to have, a Census bureau, thoroughly equipped and able to supply all these facts and information impartially to the House, so that they could base their taxes and proposals upon them. In 1897 the income brought under the review of the Inland Revenue Commissioners was £700,000,000; the late Chancellor of the Exchequer told them in his remarkable Budget speech that in the last financial year, ending this March, £980,000,000 was brought under their review. That was an increase of nearly £300,000,000 in eleven years. And it was of interest and importance to note how the increased gross figure of £980,000,000 for 1907–8-was arrived at. The Prime Minister told them that the- remarkable increase last year arose from the differentiation introduced in the income-tax, and by the fact that if persons with incomes under £2,000 wanted the rebate off the nominal rate they had to make a declaration. By that process over £30,000,000 more income was reviewed last year than the year before. The Prime Minister called that a great moral and financial reform.
1652
So it was, but it was something else. Could it be called entirely a moral reform when it was brought about, after all, by what was a very large fine? If a man with £1,500 a year did not make a declaration, he would have to pay £75 income-tax; if he did, he would get off with £56 5s., a saving of £18 15s. That was not exactly a moral consideration; it was a fine. He thought also that the statement of the Prime Minister was a further argument in favour of a graduated income-tax and universal declarations. If declarations-on incomes up to £2,000 had brought to-light £35,000,000 more income, how much more income would be brought to light if they demanded declarations from the remaining taxpayers—those who enjoyed the lion's share of the national income? At the present time so great was their dislike to inquisitorial methods, so impressed were they with the belief that the English people were not of a kind who would submit to inquisition, that they went to their employers and asked: "How much do you pay to John Smith?" The employer wrote down that John Smith got a modest £300 per year. Then the Inland Revenue Commissioners sent Smith an assessment form. That, forsooth, was not inquisitorial; it was the method which suited the freedom-loving Briton. Of course, it was much more inquisitorial than anything done in any other country. They had inquisitorial methods with regard to-the poorer taxpayers, but, with regard to the rich taxpayers, they never asked them to make declarations except in the case of a man whose business was his only source of income. They only got a. declaration of total income from people up to £2,000 who earned their incomes. He noticed that an hon. friend dissented, but he assured him the fact was as he had stated. He himself last year moved an Amendment to compel rich taxpayers to declare their incomes, and the Government would not accept it. If they had that declaration from all taxpayers, they would know the nature of the basis of taxation, which, as he had said, was the national income. But how was that income divided amongst the people? At present we only had the estimates of unofficial industrious persons

1653
like himself. People who opposed a graduated income-tax denied those unofficial estimates, but they would not give them an official estimate. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform himself with regard to the distribution of the income of the nation. What reasons were there against the proposal? Some people said it was not worth while, because there was not much income at the top of the scale. Whatever doubts there might be, however, there was no doubt whatever that a tremendous amount of income in this country lay over £2,000 or £3,000 a year, and even £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Corroboration of that could be got by inference from the death duties figures. One had only to look at the graduated list of estates brought to light by the graduated death duties to see how wise Sir William Harcourt was not to stop his graduation at a low point. Did he say: "Here are only a few rich people in this country; shall I irritate them by graduated death duties? Shall I cause them to fly to foreign countries?" He wisely brushed aside those considerations. He attached proper weight to them, and graduated the death duties up to £1,000,000, The Prime Minister, agreeing with him, and not being content with even the Harcourt scab, carried the graduation further and graduated even millionaires by means of a sort of super-tax. If that was a right process to apply to death duties, surely it was proper to apply it to the income-tax. If they graduated death duties up to 8 per cent. and then beyond 8 per cent. by a super-tax to 11 or 12 per cent., he argued that they should treat incomes in precisely the same way in effect if not in method. What would be the effect upon the average taxpayer of the receipt of a paper demanding to know his income, if they had a proper graduated scale which had regard to his position in society and the amount of his income? Let them suppose a man with £500 a year received such a paper. He would see he was taxed at 4d. or 5d., that the man with £2,000 was taxed at say 11d. or 1s. and the man with £5,000 at say 1s. 3d. The man with £500, under those conditions; might grumble a little bit, but he would feel a pure joy that other people were paying more. Could it be said that those above
1654
him would be very bitterly discontented if they were asked to pay their just contribution? He did not personally think the number of grumblers would be-very great. There were threatenings in advance, but there were threatenings in the case of the death duties, and they knew now exactly how much importance to attach to them. He did not believe in the term super-tax; it was not the right expression to apply. He did not think there should be any suggestion that the rich should be taxed more because they were rich. He would have a plain graduated scale, which would be so arranged as to do justice between one man and another. That was how it was done in Prussia, and he did not see why it should not be done here. The term "super-tax" would not then be necessary, and there would be no suggestion that the rich man was being taxed because he was rich. The suggestion was entirely unnecessary. There was only one more point he desired to deal with. A good deal had been said about direct and indirect taxation. Somebody had said all taxes were bad. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone did not express that opinion about direct and indirect taxation. In a very famous Budget speech, Mr. Gladstone led forth two blushing damsels, one a blonde and the other a brunette, one direct and the other indirect taxation. He b3gged to submit, however, that there was really another lady in the case. He referred to revenue-producing State businesses. This country was at considerable disadvantage by being dependent almost entirely upon direct and indirect taxation. It was not the case with Prussia. The Prussian railways in 1905 made a net profit of £33,500,000. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that example furnished another means of meeting the growing expenditure of the country. The country would be severely handicapped if it did not set itself to control the revenue-producing monopolies of the country. The hon. Member for Dulwich the other day directed attention to the fact that German taxation per head was lower than in England; but they had the Prussian railways paying not only the interest on the railway debt, but the whole of the interest on the National Debt of Prussia, and furnishing in addition

1655
£9,000,000 or £10,000,000 in relief of ordinary taxation every year. This country, therefore, was very greatly handicapped as compared with Prussia in raising its revenue. In addition, of course, they possessed their State forests, about 20 per cent. of the mines of Prussia, and the Prussian Government had their hands reaching out to the control of the whole of the mining interests of Prussia. He believed that not only the railways of the country, but also the coal, which in the twentieth century was the very life of industry, should be in the possession of the State. If we did not set our hands to the policy of national organisation, which would not only benefit the trade of the country directly, but would also furnish increasing revenue to the State from time to time, we should feel an increasing handicap in competition with other countries.
MR. J. F. MASONsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down made one remark with which he heartily agreed, viz., that we were raising money in the wrong way and spending it in the wrong way. His reason for agreeing with that remark would become apparent later, but he desired first to refer to the part of the Amendment dealing with the proporton of local to Imperial taxation. In looking at this matter they ought, of course, to bear in mind that in the existing system of taxation local and Imperial taxation was borne by the same people, although in varying proportions, and in endeavouring to reduce in any way the respective burdens of those different classes of taxation, it would appear desirable to examine each class with a view of noting not only its yield and its incidence, but also the collateral effect either for good or evil which was exercised by that class of taxes. Local taxation was raised on land and buildings in proportion to their value, so that any man who was able either to improve his land or erect extra good buildings was always faced by the discouragement of having to pay higher rates. This had had a bad effect on all schemes for housing and improvements, and to that extent was evil in its collateral effects. Coming to
1656
Imperial taxation, when the State took a part of income which would otherwise be spent by the individual it did no harm to the community except in so far as it reduced the spending capacity of the community and reduced the reserve taxable capacity of the nation. But when the State took income which would otherwise be capitalised, it did something more, because it restricted the capitalisation which was necessary to make good the waste of capital which was taking place in other directions. To that extent the income-tax had a bad effect. But the death duties appeared to him to be wholly bad, because they took existing capital, which had already been produced and built up, not for the purpose of keeping it as capital, but for the purposes of the current expenditure of the State. Unless that was counteracted by some means of replacing that destroyed capital, it was quite evident that to that extent they reduced the capital of the country on which the whole prosperity of the nation depended. He thought nobody would offer any argument in favour of the destruction of capital. He could quite understand that reasonable arguments might be put forward in favour of transferring capital from the individual to the State. He did not agree. He believed the argument could be demolished, but he understood that it could be put forward logically. But he thought no logical argument could be put forward for the ruthless destruction of capital which already existed. In doing that they were not only reducing the amount of capital necessary for the nation, but they were also killing the goose that laid the income-tax egg. Five-sixths of indirect taxation was raised on alcohol and tobacco and the remaining sixth, amounting to 4s. 7d. per head of the population, was raised entirely on articles of general consumption, food and tea, articles which we could not produce in this country, and on which there was no question whatever that the consumer paid the whole of the tax. The evil of this form of taxation was that this was throwing the burden on the cost of living, a burden of 4s. 7d. a head, which was equivalent to about half the total import duties of Germany, including their manufactured goods. It seemed to him

1657
that all those existing forms of taxation certainty had their disadvantages, and none of them appeared to have any corresponding advantages sufficient to justify a transfer on any large scale from one class to the other. But had we got to the end of our tether? Not if we removed a portion of the burden from our own shoulders to those of the foreigner. That remark always caused considerable hilarity among Gentlemen opposite, but if the idea was so supremely ridiculous why was it that we should object to the tariffs imposed by other nations when we wanted to send our goods into those countries? Was it not evident to every manufacturer in this country that the tariffs of other nations did stand in our way because we had to pay a portion of them? If the consumer paid the whole of the tax what would it matter to us whether they had tariff walls or not? The gospel of the free trader was that the consumer paid the whole of the tax on the necessaries of life and of industry unless they could substantially make good the supply from domestic sources. That was the gospel as laid down by the Prime Minister. Given a preferential system under which foreign imports came into this country and were taxed, and Colonial imports came in free, thus widening the word "domestic" in the sense used by the Prime Minister into the word "Imperial," he should like to ask whether there were any articles and if so whether there were many which could not be substantially made good from within the British Empire. The consumer did not pay the whole of the tax even when they could not substantially make good the whole of the requirements of the nation. They were all agreed that the whole of the tobacco duty, for instance, fell upon the consumer. They were all equally agreed that if there were an import duty on coal, the quantity of coal coming into this country being very small, the duty would have no effect whatever on the price. That small quantity of coal, if there were an import duty of 2s. a ton would probably continue to come in, but it would be sold at the price of our domestic supply, and the duty would be paid by the foreigner who would either send it in and pay the duty or keep his coal, but if the duty were small, it would not be sufficient to stop him sending it
1658
in. But if it was granted that a tax on a very small quantity would not alter the price and would therefore be paid by the foreigner, might he assume that the foreigner would pay the tax if, say, 1 per cent. of our total requirements of coal were imported? He thought probably a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite would grant that with 1 per cent. of our total requirements imported, the price would not be affected, and that 1 per cent. would pay the small duty imposed upon it. According to the definition laid down by the Prime Minister there was a particular point—a small quantity of any given article which could be imported into this country without affecting the price, and the duty on which therefore was paid by the foreigner and not by the consumer. When they got beyond that point and outside the limit laid down by the definition of the Prime Minister, then by implication he said the consumer paid the tax. Was it suggested that in passing over this little point of limitation the tax suddenly jumped from the shoulders of the importer to the shoulders of the consumer? Was it not evident that, between the extreme case of tobacco or tea at one end where they all agreed that the consumer paid the tax, and of coal at the other extreme where they all agreed that if there were a tax the foreign importer would pay it, the quantity being so small, there was a large range of articles of which we produced in this country a considerable proportion and on which the duty would be divided between the consumer and the producer? This would be a very different result from that laid down in the definition which he had quoted. The fact was that the foreign importer would pay the tax in proportion as he needed our market and we did not need his goods. The more home production was fostered the less was the tendency for prices to rise. It made no difference to price so long as the amount was the same and it was produced equally cheaply, but it made a great deal of difference to the producer and to his country whether the work was done in his own country or by the foreigner. It had been urged that they could not impose a tariff from which they could derive revenue and at the same time foster industry. If they could make the foreign importer pay any

1659
part of the tax, this country would still gain by the relief to the taxpayer, or by fostering Imperial production and Imperial competition would tend to lower prices. Hon. Gentlemen opposite held strongly the view that by no means could any portion of the burden of taxation be thrown upon the foreigner. We brought food from a good many sources of supply and the cost of transit was different in each. Yet the goods were sold at an equal price. The cost of transit for grain from Buenos Ayres was, he was told, 19 cents. a bushel higher than from Winnipeg. Who paid the 19 cents? Was it suggested that the whole of the wheat supply at home and elsewhere was raised in price by 19 cents.? No one suggested that the consumer paid the 19 cents. All that happened was that the Argentine merchant pocketed 19 cents. less profit, a course which he would continue to follow as long as any profit was left to him. If, then, the Argentine corn merchant pocketed less profit than his Canadian rival in order to secure access to our market, why should he not pay a similar burden when imposed under the form of a tax? If he was ready to pay the one burden, he would be willing to pay the other, and the consumer would not pay. What difference would it make to the Argentine farmer whether he paid to the owner of the ship or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Hon. Members objected to the preferential system, and yet they supported the most flagrantly preferential system that had teen devised—the system by which the foreigner was given a preference in our home market without having to pay one penny towards the upkeep of the country's defence and administration. The people of this country had to pay for the upkeep of their markets, and yet they allowed foreigners to compete with them without paying their fair share. When the traders of this country went into foreign markets they had to pay a toll towards their standing charges, and yet the foreigners were allowed to come into our markets without paying anything towards our standing charges. If any hon. Member kept a shop, would he allow a stranger to come in and sell goods across his counter without paying something towards the upkeep of that
1660
shop? If he did, he ventured to think that that business would not be a financial success. It was only a question of choice between one preferential system and another. Hon. Members opposite preferred to give a preference to the foreigner in our markets, but the Opposition believed that preference, like charity, should begin at home.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down on being the first Member who has had the courage to speak to the Amendment. He is the only man who has elucidated the doctrine of that Amendment, though I observe that he very carefully chose an opportunity when his Leader was not present before he started on that elucidation. However, I am not sure that I do not owe him a debt of gratitude. He finds me embarrassed with a very considerable deficit, which grows with each subsequent speaker, and he is going to relieve me of my troubles. He tells me that it is no use my taxing any commodity at home; somebody has got to pay that, and it is injurious to industry. But, he says: "I have got a way; you should tax the foreigner." How very odd that that has never occurred to anyone before. I rather wonder why Germany, which has been trying it on for years—and the Germans are not without ingenuity; they are of a very scientific turn of mind, and could produce even a scientific tariff if it were possible—has got to borrow money this year when they could so easily raise it by taxing the foreigner. The hon. Member has been kinder to me than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He rather laughed to scorn the notion that he should be called upon to provide details. It was quite enough for him to talk largely and generally about broadening the basis of taxation, but details—he laughed at the idea that he should be asked for them. The hon. Member has been kinder to me, for he has told me that I can tax the foreign coal that comes to this country. He gives that as an illustration, and I am not sure that it is not rather a good illustration of the sort of thing that you can do in the way of raising revenue by taxing a foreign

1661
commodity. I find that last year we imported £20,000 worth of foreign eoal—18,000 tons. I think the hon. Gentleman suggested that I should place a tax of 2s. a ton on foreign coal, so that I get towards my £6,000,000 for old-age pensions—
MR. J. F. MASON: I merely used the case of coal as an example of the way the foreign importer would undoubtedly pay the tax if there were one imposed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said so, and I am taking the only illustration that the hon. Member was good enough to supply me with. I get £2,000 towards this gigantic deficit I have to face. But that is not all. This is an illustration, in another respect, of the utter futility of this sort of taxation, because it is not reliable. In 1905, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the coal which was imported was £40,000. This year it has gone down by half. You cannot depend on it, and that is an illustration of the sort of thing that happens if you begin taxing these commodities and expect to raise a revenue from them—they are uncertain, they fluctuate. That is not the way to raise revenue when you have got a big deficit to raise. That is the sort of illustration that Germany, who has got to borrow £50,000,000, has followed, and has found herself in financial difficulties. Does any one deny that she is in financial difficulties?
MR. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be able to give the facts to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, he does not think it is a difficulty, because he belonged to a Government that always borrowed. "Oh," they said, "you need not pay your debts." There are many men of that kind. They never find it difficult; they go to the first man that will lend them money. It is much easier than taxation—borrow and let your successor pay. [OPPOSITION Cheers.] I am glad to think there is so much appreciation of the services of my light hon. friend in paying off £40,000,000 of the debt created by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The discussion has touched upon everything except the Bill of which we are asking a Second Reading, Hon.
1662
Gentlemen have criticised our system of local taxation; they have criticised our fiscal system; they have criticised expenditure; but they have never criticised the one Bill we are asking the House to consider. There are two propositions in the Budget. One is the abolition of the sugar duty.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: Not the abolition.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A very considerable reduction of the sugar duty. Has anybody criticised that? The other is a provision, at any rate, for the only old-age pensions that will become due during the current year. There has been no criticism of either of the two main features of the Budget; but an Amendment has been put down which seems to cover the whole ground of finance and three or four propositions have been advanced, all leading up to one conclusion—that it is necessary to broaden the basis of taxation. I note that the very part of the Amendment about which we have heard nothing is how that is to be brought about. My right hon. friend, speaking earlier in the discussion, asked for some particulars. He asked for a statement of what is proposed. We have not had an answer, with the exception of that of the last speaker. We have not had an explanation of the Amendment, which is, I understand, the official Amendment of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Norwood, who made a singularly able speech, said he thought it was a free trade Amendment. I wonder whether that is the view of the hon. Member for Dulwich. Does he accept that interpretation of the Amendment?
MR. BONAR LAWindicated dissent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then the Opposition are not quite agreed as to the meaning of the Amendment, and yet they ask the Hou3e of Commons to accept it. In the debate, as far as it has gone, the real issue has been shirked. And no one has any doubt at all that it has been shirked at the instance of the L3ader of the Opposition. A very wily strategist, he knows that these fiscal debates are not very useful from a propagandist point of view. They are a great disadvantage from that point of view, for in

1663
this House every argument is answered, every statement and figure is tested. It is so much better to leave those things to the gramophone. There is another tactical disadvantage in urging these proposals on the floor of the House. If you go to a constituency you can talk of taxing the particular article which is manufactured in that constituency; but if you go to other constituencies you will find probably that that particular article is the raw material of the manufacture carried on there. But in the House of Commons all constituencies are represented, and we have to consider all industries, and once you begin specifying detailed taxes, you find disagreement—you find that what you would tax for the benefit of one constituency would be to the disadvantage of other constituencies. Therefore, it is far better to relegate this kind of discussion to outside the House of Commons, and that appears to be the strategy of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I will reply to some of the speeches made in the course of the debate. However inconsistent their proposals may be, I have got to take them more or less one by one. Several speakers have pressed upon the Government the reconsideration of local taxation. There have been various suggestions made to the Government on that head and with regard to some further grants-in-aid. Some hon. Members have suggested that certain services should be taken over by the nation, and others have urged the taxation of land values. I can only deal generally with the whole of these, because they are not strictly relevant to the Budget of the year. Local taxation is a very large and a very urgent question, and one which, I think, will have to be dealt with and dealt with effectively at the earliest possible moment. I have always thought so; but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government have done nothing. I agree that there has been an enormous increase in the financial demands of local authorities and in local taxation within the last few years. I was very much struck by the observation of the noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division, that since the Agricultural Eating Act the local rates had almost doubled. But I may be permitted to point out—and I am not making this point merely as a tu quoque—that the hon. Gentle-
1664
man admitted that much the largest increase of all was attributable to the Education Act of 1902. The placing of the voluntary schools on the rates involved an increase of £3,000,000. The mere fact of putting all the education of the country on the rates was, on the whole, the best part of that Bill, but it has undoubtedly been in the main the cause of the enormous increase of local taxation in the country. There has also-been a very great increase in the burden of maintaining the main roads. That is very largely attributable, probably, to the motor traffic. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: "'No."] During the last five years, more especially, the increase has gone up by leaps and bounds, and during the last ten years the cost of maintaining the roads has increased by something like £20 a mile. That is attributable partly to the fact that the roads are in better condition and much better looked after than they were, but also to a very large extent to the fact that the motor traffic tears them up. However, whatever the cause may be, there has been an enormous increase in the burden of local taxation, and the Government are fully alive to it and to the fact that it has got to be dealt with. Now we propose to do something this year if right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite will allow us to proceed with our Bill. There is a very considerable relief to local taxation in the Education Bill—considerably over £1,000,000 at any rate, and that is very substantial relief to local taxation.
AN HON. MEMBER(on the OPPOSITION Benches): How much will the rates have to pay?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I say that a very considerable proportion of that sum would go in relief of rates, and I do not doubt that the simplification or rather the unification of our school system will work economically in our educational management. After all, I am not so sure that there is not very great waste at present, and probably the dual system is very largely responsible for that. If you have two schools in a small community, with two staffs, two head teachers, and two assistant teachers, you are practically doubling the expense of the education of that community.
LORD R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman forgets the enormous amount saved to the rates by the non-provided schools.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should agree with the noble Lord if he had said that during the debate on the Bill of 1902. The saving at the present moment is not considerable, and I am certain that it is not equal to the amount wasted through doubling the staffs and doubling the expenditure in all these districts. But I only made that observation in passing, and perhaps I went a little beyond the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I only point out the extent to which the education rate and the main roads rate are responsible for the increase in local taxation, more especially in the last five or ten years. In order to redress an evil of this kind you have to proceed very carefully, otherwise you cause a greater inequality to one section of the community in trying to redress the balance. The Agricultural Rating Act is a very good example of what has occurred. What the noble Lord the Member for Thirsk has said proves the danger of partial legislation of that kind. He said that since that Act the local burdens have almost doubled, more especially in rural districts. But on whom do the burdens now fall? By the Agricultural Rating Act land has only to bear half its burdens, so that when you double the burdens the other ratepayers in the district bear a far greater proportion of these burdens than they did before. The local tradesmen, the local manufacturer—and it is very important to encourage these rural manufactories, and in that respect Germany beats us—are hit very hard by an operation of that kind. It is very dangerous to deal piecemeal with the problem of local taxation, because if you do you are bound to cast an unfair burden on some section of the community in relieving another for the moment. That is why the Government are proceeding scientifically in a matter of this kind. Scientific local taxation is a very good principle. Our idea, and it was the idea of the late Government as well, is that the first step in dealing with the problem of local taxation is revaluation upon a proper basis—to start with a Valuation Bill for England and Wales. That Bill, I hope, will
1666
be introduced in the course of the next few weeks. I have already given an Undertaking that it will be introduced in the course of the present session. That is the first step to be taken, and until we get a proper valuation it will be quite impossible to deal with the problem of local taxation. It is not merely the problem of the farmer. It is very largely also the problem of; the tradesman. The in justice is that local rates do not always fall upon-persons according to their means. Here you are taxing all the raw material of a man's industry. Take the ordinary case of a tradesman. He may be paying at the rate of £200 or £300 a year for the premises in which he conducts his business. He may not be making more than £300 or £400 out of those premises—I am taking now a little provincial town. There may be next door a man with a income of £1,500 a year, living in a house rated at £150 or £200. The man who is only making £300 or £400 out of his trade has to pay more than the man in receipt of an income of £1,500 a year. The letter ought to bear more in proportion to his means. I think that is a very fair proposition. I agree that it is very difficult to apply, and up to the present it has only been applied by means of redressing the balance through grants-in-aid. These are questions which will have to be considered very carefully when you come eventually to setting up your system of local taxation. I will not say anything further as to local taxation at the present moment. Now I come again to the broadening of the basis of taxation. I observe that, as we proceed, all this new taxation, which is to be raised by broadening the basis, is applied to an increasing variety of purposes. It is to be applied to abolishing the sugar duty and the tea duty. It is to be applied for old-age pensions. To-day in the debate the new taxation suggested by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is to be applied also to relieving local taxation. I think it will be perfectly obvious that no tax that can possibly be raised will cover the whole of these purposes, and hon. Gentlemen will have to elect which of these purposes they will choose to take. But I wonder whether they consider really what will be the effect of such a scheme as that. We have had no scheme. The proposition is simply a

1667
nebulous, vague proposal which is called "broadening the basis of taxation." We have only had certain hints that it means the taxing of manufactured goods, and I suppose, of wheat, although we have not heard anything about it during this debate. It has been most carefully shunned. But the German example has been quoted over and over again. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich rather challenged a statement which I made that Germany was finding herself in financial difficulties. I wonder whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by a group of members who support the present Government in Germany, by members of the Bloc, not by opponents of the Government. Now this is the resolution which they have just passed—
"The unfavourable state of the finances of the Empire, which, in spite of repeated efforts to reform the financial system, still exists, is to be attributed to the policy of protection and prohibition which renders all commodities dear."
This resolution, as I have said, has been passed by a group supporting the Government—
"So long as Germany adheres to such a policy it cannot be expected that a lasting improvement will be experienced in her financial situation."
These are the very suggestions which are made to us in order to effect an improvement in our financial position. The resolution is so very important, and so very germane to the controversy of the hour here, that I will read the whole of it—
"Meanwhile, in the interests of Germany, both political and commercial, it is necessary speedily to provide for the financial necessities of the Empire."
I really would, if I might, invite the Leader of the Opposition to follow this.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How many was it passed by?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was passed by one of the groups.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which group?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the Radical group. Well, it is a group supporting the Government. It is one of the Bloc. ["How many?"] The Resolution goes on—
"To achieve this end the first step should be a far-reaching scheme of taxation upon the moneyed class."
1668
They demand an Imperial income and property tax, the extension of the death duties, a reform of the spirit tax, and it is said that with the increase of the revenue a decrease of expenditure must also be brought about, not only by means of general economy, but also by a simplification and improvement of the entire administration, and more especially the reduction of the financial burden of the German Army in such a manner as will not endanger the national position of the German Empire. Well, that is our policy. Talking about the German position, I should like to say another word. The Prime Minister suggested that next year, after paying about £41,000,000 of Debt, the Sinking Fund might be raided to a certain extent. But in Germany the Sinking Fund has been suspended—and not for social reform, but to meet the current expenditure of the year. That is the difference between a protective country and a free-trade country in the matter of raising revenue. Although we propose to increase by means of this Budget our commitments very considerably, still there is no suggestion that the Sinking Fund should be suspended. So much for German finance. So much for protectionist finance. I repeat, however, the question put by my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General. I think we are entitled to ask for a few more particulars. This is not our proposition; we are simply meeting a proposition which comes from the Opposition. We are told, "You are not raising the revenue in the proper way; you should do it by means of broadening the basis of taxation." We ask hon. Gentlemen opposite would they mind telling us how. 'What do they mean by it? A tax on manufactured goods is not a productive one for revenue purposes, and the higher you make it the less productive it is; so that the more protective it is the less productive it is. Therefore, you cannot depend upon that for revenue purposes. If you want to raise a revenue by this means you must tax commodities that people must consume. Now what are these? We tax tea, coffee, sugar, beer, and tobacco now. Therefore, if you are to broaden there are only wheat, meat, and dairy produce left. Do hon. Gentlemen propose to tax these in order to broaden the basis? You cannot do it in any

1669
other way. I think we are entitled to ask and I specifically ask the hon. Member for Dulwich; he does not as a rule shirk these things. I do not think he does, he has been a perfectly straightforward protectionist all through; it is more than I can say for most of his colleagues—I think I am entitled to ask him for an answer to this question. Is it his idea of broadening the basis of taxation that you should tax wheat and meat and dairy produce?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not relevant.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not relevant. If it is not relevant what does broadening the basis of taxation mean? If the right hon. Gentleman will say now that he does not mean that I will drop that argument at once. But he dare not say that he does not mean that. It is really not fair to the people of this country. At any rate, if their bread and their meat and their dairy produce are to be taxed I think they ought to be told about it. I do not think it is fair to go on from year to year shirking it, not saying a word about it, organising a conspiracy of silence on your side, telling them "You can talk at large about broadening the basis of taxation, but never mention wheat; laugh at particulars when they are demanded;" and then when you come in to bring in a stiff duty on the whole lot. It is not fair, it is not straightforward; and therefore I ask again—because this is your Amendment—what does it mean? A tax on wheat is the very worst of all taxes; it is worse than tea or sugar, and certainly worse than tobacco, for the simple reason that it is a tax on the very poorest. It hits them much harder than it does the rich. Now Germany, up till recently, was able to produce quite enough wheat to supply her own market; but now year by year they are increasing their imports. And what is the result? Germany raised last year out of the foreign wheat which it imported £6,750,000 of revenue. That was added on to the price plus 9d. of trade profit. But that is not all. They imported 50,000,000 cwt. of wheat; they consumed another 64,000,000. What was the result? The 64,000,000 cost exactly the same as the foreign meal plus the duty, so that the German poor were taxed, not £6,750,000, but £15,000,000.
1670
Out of that £6,750,000 went to the revenue and about £9,000,000 went into somebody else's pocket. It went into the pockets of the manipulator, the landowner, the mortgagee; it certainly did not go into the pocket of the agricultural labourer who is much worse paid than in this country. The worst of a tax of this kind is that you are really taxing the community £16,000,000, and only £10,000,000 of it goes to the revenue. Taxes on tea, sugar, and tobacco, on the other hand, go straight to the Exchequer, and the country gets the benefit according to the way it is spent. I found a very interesting document in the Exchequer, prepared by one of the ablest masters of political economy, and he points out that when Germany was, comparatively speaking, a free-trade country, living there was practically 3s. as against our 5s. Taking the year when that document was prepared, I think 1903, living in Germany was 6s. as against our 5s. Since then living has gone up higher in Germany, and it is now much nearer 6s. 6d. or 7s. to our 5s., because they have increased their duty on bread and on meat, so much so that there has been a meat famine in some districts. The country where living was cheaper than in this country suddenly becomes in a few years, by means of these protective duties, dearer than in this country. And this is what they call broadening the basis of taxation in order to benefit the poor of this country. Let me point out another thing with regard to Germany. They are proposing to increase their official salaries there. Why? Because the cost of living has gone up so much that the families of the officials do not have enough to make both ends meet. That is the problem they have got to meet. I should have thought that with these examples before us we should have taken good care to shelve the example of Germany with regard to her protective tariff. I think I have dealt with most of the suggestions which have been made in the course of the debate. I have had a good many proposals laid before me as to how to raise revenue for next year. The hon. Member for Hackney was exceedingly liberal. He was going to raise a revenue of £50,000,000 a year and evidently thought he had found £100,000,000 lurking somewhere which we could use for the purpose

1671
of reducing the National Debt. I will beat the hon. Member's suggestions in mind. Then the Member for Padding-ton's virile brain was full of resources. All these hints and suggestions are exceedingly valuable. I will pigeon-hole them very carefully with a view to considering what can be done in the next Budget. There was one suggestion which was common to both sides of the House, and that was the suggestion of economy. Hon. Members on the other side of the House thought we were spending too much and hon. Members on this side of the House agreed with them. But there was no agreement as to the direction in which economies could be effected. I am not sure that that is not the dividing line between the two Parties—the dividing line as to the suggestions for increased taxation. Hon. Members on the other side said: "You must increase taxation"; but they said "You must increase it by taxing the bread of the poor; and we object to your taking the sugar tax off, because the poor contribute to it." That is their suggestion. We say on the other hand: Tax people according to their means. That is the dividing line in taxation. We will come to the dividing line in expenditure. Hon. Members on the other side say: "You are increasing expenditure. The feeding of children, the appointment of Commissioners for planting the people on the soil, housing, old-age pensions—all these items of expenditure you are suggesting result in your spending too much. Pinch and starve in those directions. That is the direction in which you should save." Hon. Members on this side say: "What about the burden of armaments; the Christian communities of the world are spending this year £400,000,000 on the hideous mechanism of human slaughter. If you must economise, that is the direction in which you should seek economy." I am quite willing to take this Budget upon those two principles. If you economise, do not economise at the expense of the provision which Parliament made with fair unanimity for improving the condition of the poorer classes. If you want to increase taxation, place the burden, not upon the bread and meat of the poor, but upon the shoulders of those who are rich enough to bear it.
Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Bonar Law,)—put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES (EXPENSES).
Resolution reported, "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to University Education in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament: (a) of the remuneration of the Secretary to the Commissioners, and of any persons appointed or employed by them, and of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of such Act; and (b) of grants for the purposes of either of the new Universities, or of the constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin, or of the governing bodies thereof."
Resolution read a second time.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that this was not a Resolution to which he had the smallest objection, but at the same time a pledge was given by the Government the other day that twenty-four hours notice should be given of Resolutions of this kind, and perhaps in these circumstances it would be as well that the Government should defer it for twenty-four hours.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that on Thursday it was impossible to give notice, but he took an opportunity of officially intimating to the Opposition whips that he proposed to take the Resolution on Monday.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not aware of that fact, and he withdrew his objection.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that no arrangement to that effect was intimated to the the general body of Members on that side of the House, and an hon. Member who had an Amendment had gone away, not expecting the Motion to come on. Accidentally the hon. Gentleman had broken the arrangement, and he would suggest that the Resolution should be taken on the next night after eleven o'clock.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said it did not make any difference to him who her they took this Resolution tonight or next day.
Resolution to be further considered tomorrow.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Garw and Ogmore Gas; London County Council (General Powers); Wolverhampton Corporation; Doncaster Corporation; Manchester Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee.—Report from, That the Standing Orders not compiled with in respect of the petition for the River Wandle Protection Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill. Read and agreed to.
River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
Lincoln Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Leeds Corporation Bill.—Reported with Amendments.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.].—Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over this day, and not to sit to-morrow till Three o'clock.
Llanelly and Burry Port Water Board Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Brought from the Commons.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Paisley District Tramways—Was presented by the Lord Denman (for the Lord Herschell) (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 86.)
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (No. 88); Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill (No. 89); Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill (No. 90).—Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills.—Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX, who had given notice to move, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council Order, said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I desire to detain your Lordships for as short a time as possible. The facts are not disputed, and they are, very shortly, these. The school at East Hardwick has been a Church school for over 250 years. Improvements were required in it by the local education authority, and the Board of Education. It is not denied that the managers submitted plans for these improvements which were considered adequate by the inspector of the Board of Education, and by the inspector of the local education authority. The question of a playground having been raised, the managers, although they had been told by the Board of Education that in the opinion of the Board they could not be required to provide such a playground—and, indeed, if your Lordships were acquainted with the hamlet of East Hardwick you would see how completely unnecessary the playground is—did provide a playground; and not only so, they provided the playground which had been recommended by the inspector of the local education authority.
The plans for these suggested improvements were detained for considerably over a year by the local education authority, and then, though throughout the whole course of the negotiations it had never been once suggested that the premises were such as could not be made sufficient, the local education authority gave notice of their intention to build a new council school. Upon this there was a public meeting of all the ratepayers and inhabitants of East Hardwick to protest against the decision of the local
1476
education authority. That meeting was unanimous in its condemnation of the proposal; but, nevertheless, the local education authority persisted in its determination to compel the erection of a new council school, to accommodate sixty children at a cost of £14 a head, making a total of, roughly, £1,000, though thirty is the outside number of children attending the present school, and the erection of such a council school contrary to the wish of every inhabitant of the parish would add 1s. to the existing 8d. education rate. The managers appealed to Mr. McKenna, who refused to upset the decision of the local authority; and I wish to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the fact that he did not grant a local inquiry, in accordance with his powers, nor consider, as he was bound to do under Section 9 of the Education Act of 1902—first, the interests of secular education, which were amply provided for assuming the school to be altered as the managers were prepared to alter it; secondly, the wishes of the parents, about which there is no dispute; and, thirdly, the economy of the rates, which, as I have explained, are proposed to be raised 1s. in the £ in respect of a school which nobody wants.
Upon the decision of the Board of Education being made known, the managers were enabled, by the generosity of a lady residing in the neighbourhood, to offer to build a new school themselves free of cost to the ratepayers. This offer was refused, and the local education authority were supported in their refusal by the Board of Education, who informed the managers that Mr. McKenna had already decided that it was to be a council school. And, lastly, the feeling against the proposed school in the neighbourhood is so strong that no one in the parish will sell land for its site, and the Board of Education are now proposing to take compulsory power of acquisition. I submit that these facts speak for themselves. No one disputes their accuracy, and, emphasised as they are by the further fact that there is a council school already existing within a mile and a quarter of East Hardwick, I am compelled to say that the only reasonable interpretation that can be put upon them is the determination of the Board of Education and the local education authority between

1477
them to squeeze out a Church school at all costs.
As I have said, I am not going to comment on these facts, because I think they require no comment and are stronger left to themselves. But there are two or three questions with regard to them that are very pertinent to the matter and which ought to be asked. I should like to know, if the premises were such as made it impossible to render them satisfactory, which is the excuse now alleged in support of the new council school, why additions and improvements to the school were suggested by the local education authority themselves? Why was it never once suggested that the premises were irremediably unsuitable, and why was all this waste of time and money incurred if they were incapable of improvement? Why did no member of the local education authority go to East Hardwick to inspect the school and see whether it was quite impossible to avoid this great addition to the rates? And then, why did not the authority accept the offer of the managers to erect a school free of expense to the parish? Why was there no local inquiry? Who made the discovery that the present premises could not be rendered satisfactory, and why was it not made before the managers were asked to submit plans for the improvements necessary to make the school efficient?
I am quite aware that it will be said that this Motion is one of an unusual character, and it may be thought a strong thing to refuse leave to a local education authority to purchase land which they say is required. But I submit that the facts of this case are very unusual in themselves, that the action of the Board of Education is no less unusual, and that it is a very strong measure to strain the law in order to take compulsory powers to acquire land for a purpose which is not necessary under the Act. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord the President of the Council, whose illness we all so sincerely deplore, admitted that no inquiry had been made as it ought to have been made, and that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that this was a very nicely balanced case and that he could not say what his own decision
1478
would have been in regard to it. My noble friend added—
"I should have been in considerable doubt on the subject."
I think it is not too much to say that if the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been at the head of the Board of Education, as I devoutly wish he were, the decision would not have been what it was. My noble friend Lord Crewe knows the locality extremely well—in old days he and I have both frequently hunted over it—and I would ask him whether, when a mistake has been made, as I feel sure he thinks is the case here, it is not really better frankly to admit the mistake and remedy it? In this instance I very seriously ask him whether His Majesty's Government will not consent to my Motion that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding County Council Order, and allow the East Hardwick managers to carry out their proposals for improving the school to the satisfaction of everyone in the parish and to the great saving of the rates.
I should like, if I may, to give two reasons which I think will incline the noble Earl to agree to my request. I find that in 1871 my noble friend's father, the late Lord Houghton, was active in raising funds to erect a church in place of the old chapel in connection with this trust; and in 1872 the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal laid the foundation of this new church with the aid of the Freemasons of the West Riding of Yorkshire Province. I submit that if the late Lord Houghton and my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal were able in 1871 and 1872 to be so friendly to the arrangements connected with this trust, it is not a great thing to ask that they should continue their good offices at the present time. I also find that on 16th May there was published in a local Yorkshire paper called the Stalwart—I had not heard of it before, but I rather infer from its name that it is a Liberal paper—a letter from Mr. Runciman, in which he seems to suggest that if a Provisional Order authorising compulsory powers for the acquisition of a site had not been granted and a confirming Bill had not been before Parliament, he might have reopened the

1479
question. I do not know if I am right in putting this interpretation on Mr. Runciman's letter, but he certainly mentions the Provisional Order as a reason why he regrets his inability to reopen the question. If His Majesty's Government will agree to my Motion that difficulty will be removed out of Mr. Runciman's path, and he will be able to remedy what has been done and allow the managers of the East Hardwick school to carry out the necessary improvements.
We hear at the present time some talk about a possible compromise on the education question. I do not know whether such a compromise is possible without the sacrifice of essential principles. Certainly it is no business of mine to discuss that question to-day. But I do very seriously say that if any compromise is ever to be arrived at, it certainly will not be promoted by showing such a spirit towards denominational schools as has been shown towards the East Hardwick school. I am told that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, whose interest in educational affairs is so great, is likely to say that this East Hardwick school was founded by a Nonconformist in 1653 and was stolen by the Church at the Restoration. Well, I should have thought that possession of a school for all these years was a sufficiently good title. But if the noble Lord should use that argument—and I will say something on that point in a moment—all I can say is that if the wishes of a founder are to be pleaded as a justification for depriving the Church of a school held for over 200 years and putting it into the possession of those who would allow only undenominational teaching to be given in it, then I look forward to obtaining the whole-hearted and complete support of my noble friend against any educational proposal to break the trusts of schools founded within our own memory all over the country, and founded for the giving of denominational instruction. If the argument is good in one case, it is equally good in the other.
But I hasten to relieve my noble friend's mind by telling him that there is really no sort of doubt as to the intentions of the founder of this school. The school was founded in 1653, a critical
1480
time in the history of religion in England. It was in that year that the tide of Puritanism reached its flood and the prohibition of every kind of Church teaching took a form so excessive that it created a reaction; and no Churchman at heart dared at that time endow a school in connection with the Church of England. In the absence of absolute knowledge it is impossible to say what the private opinion of the founder was, but there is the strongest reason to believe that he was a Churchman. What makes it nearly certain that this was the case is that in his will he provides for a convenient chapel and free school in East Hardwick, and calls the minister of the chapel a "preaching schoolmaster." I have looked carefully into the matter, and there is not a single case of a free school being founded by a Nonconformist in the seventeenth century. If so, it is quite clear what the opinions of the founder were; and I can only say that the present action of the Board of Education in trying to take away this school from those who have enjoyed it for 250 years is extremely like the action of the earlier Nonconformists, who very much preferred using schools provided by other people to providing them for themselves. I ask His Majesty's Government whether they cannot agree to my Motion and disallow so much of the Bill as takes compulsory powers for the erection of this new school, and so avoid inflicting a very great hardship on a small parish, composed of working people who are strongly opposed to the action of the local education authority.
Moved, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council Order."—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, we must all heartily recognise the exceedingly moderate and genial manner in which my noble friend opposite has introduced this question to your Lordships' notice for a second time. These cases are undoubtedly among the most difficult which fall within the purview of the Board of Education. You have, on the

1481
one hand, a powerful, energetic, and modern-minded local authority, very largely concerned with urban schools of the most approved type; and, on the other hand, a little old parish school which, as I think appeared from all the facts which came out when we had this question before us the other day, was not in its general arrangements in full accord with modern notions of what an elementary school should be.
After a great deal of correspondence and investigation, the matter came before the Board of Education, and what the Board had to decide was not whether the managers ought to be given a chance of repairing the school or of making various changes in it, but whether, if that was done, the school would be permanently, or for a considerable time ahead, of a thoroughly satisfactory character; because it clearly would not be fair to the managers themselves to allow them to spend money on making improvements it there was a risk that in a few years time the school might again be brought up before the Board of Education and possibly condemned. The local education authority had come to the conclusion that the premises could not be made satisfactory, and the Board of Education supported them in that view. They, therefore, under Section 9 of the Act of 1902, declared that a new school was necessary, and in doing so the Board was undoubtedly impressed by the first of the three considerations which have to be taken into account—namely, the interests of secular education; that is to say, broadly speaking, the provision of a thoroughly satisfactory elementary school. In the opinion of my right hon. friend that was the paramount and governing consideration.
The noble Viscount almost seemed to imply—and this, I think, was the only inaccuracy with which I am bound to tax him—that, all through, the managers, or somebody on their behalf, was willing to erect a new voluntary school in place of the old building. That is not so. As a matter of fact, the Board's decision was given on the 18th May, 1907, and certainly up to that time not a whisper had ever reached the Board of Education as to the possibility of a new school being provided. What did happen was that
1482
in the following August the vicar of the parish came to the Board of Education and suggested that the managers would build a new school; but nothing more followed. The decision of the Board had been given, and the matter proceeded no further. I do not know that the denominational question as regards the wishes of the parents is very strong in this case, either one way or the other. In any case, the Board of Education have no reason to suppose that it is; but undoubtedly the third consideration, that of the economy of the rates, is a very strong argument, and it is one which the parish have an undoubted title to press. A penny rate in this parish produces only a very small sum, and there is no doubt that the provision of a new council school would represent a very heavy burden on that small community. I do not think it is fair to tax the Board of Education with having had anything whatever in view but the interests of education, and it certainly is not the case that they failed to take great trouble in investigating the matter. Their inspectors made personal inquiry, with the result which we know.
Now I quite admit that it does seem somewhat absurd, if you like, and rather in the nature of cracking a nut with a steam hammer, to apply compulsory powers in a matter of this kind; but the House must remember that when once the Board of Education had decided that a new school was necessary, they either had to ask for these compulsory powers or to do nothing and practically leave the whole matter at the complete option of the managers. I am quite sure that the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, will agree that, speaking generally, it is a very unusual and a very undesirable thing for the Board of Education to reverse a decision which has been arrived at under Section 9 There, I am sure, I shall have the genera concurrence of the noble Marquess. As the matter stands, the Board of Education, supposing the noble Viscount's Motion were carried, would find themselves in the position of having to choose between the continuance of a school which they regard as unsatisfactory, or closing it, and, land being unobtainable,

1483
leaving the children of the parish without any school at all. That is the position.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: They could have the new school.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am coming to that.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The improvements which have been already said to be adequate could easily be carried out in the course of the holidays.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The improvements have not been said to be adequate. The Board of Education have said that no improvements which the managers could effect would make the school a permanently satisfactory school. Consequently, therefore, the Board are placed in that dilemma. The question is, is there any way out of that difficulty? A possible way out of the difficulty appears to me to be this. If it is true that the managers, or somebody on their behalf, is willing to provide a new school, that would be a new fact, which I think, would justify the Board of Education in reconsidering the decision they came to under Section 9. I have very little doubt that my right hon. friend would be prepared to consider the matter in that light; but it would only be on an understanding of that kind that I think my right hon. friend would be disposed to review the decision arrived at by the Board. That offer was not made—I wish that to be quite clear—before the decision of the Board was reached, and, therefore, it would be an entirely new fact which my right hon. friend would, I think, be disposed to take into consideration. Whether the noble Viscount is able, I will not say, to enter into any engagement, but to hold out any hopes of that being done, of course I am not in a position to say; but, if it were so, I should not be inclined to oppose the Motion which my noble friend has proposed.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Earl will quite understand that it is impossible for me now to state if the offer to build a new school still holds good. But I am obliged to say that all the
1484
reasons the noble Earl has alleged for the action of the Board of Education are entirely disposed of by the fact that when the offer was made to them to build a new school they refused it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, what has just been said by the noble Viscount is, I suppose, all that we could have reasonably expected, him to say. He is not, of course, in a position to make a legally binding offer, but I was under the impression, after what passed at the last discussion, that the offer was still open.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I have no information on that subject. All I know is that a definite offer was made to the local education authority and refused.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Seeing that the offer has not been withdrawn, the proper course would be to postpone the decision until the point could be cleared up. If the offer made has been withdrawn, then the matter stands in a very different position from that occupied a few weeks ago. I hope the matter will be postponed until the wish of the generous donor can be known.
LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, may I be allowed to make a suggestion to the noble Viscount which will, I trust, bring agreement? I would point out that, if the noble Viscount insists upon his Amendment striking out a part of this omnibus Bill, he will defeat his own object, which is to obtain a solution satisfactory to the parish and also one that would have general approval. If he takes advantage of his position and the serried battalions which, I think, on this occasion he commands and strikes out this particular proposal, I think he will he taking a very strong and drastic course when a milder one would equally serve his purpose. If, on the other hand, the Bill is allowed to go upstairs—and I presume the procedure in regard to a Provisional Order Bill in your Lordships' House is very similar to what it is in the House of Commons, with whose procedure, I confess, I have hitherto been more familiar—it can be altered after consideration in a judicious and judicial spirit free

1485
from misunderstandings which have embittered the controversy in the House. I was not present when the matter was discussed the other evening, but I have read the debate, and I find that the noble Viscount said there had been a definite rejection of the offer to build a new school. As far as I can make out from the papers at the Board of Education, which I have had the advantage of reading, the vicar of the parish made an observation, apparently not of a representative kind, with regard to a new school. He said something of this kind—
"Well, if you finally reject the offer of these improvements we shall have to build a new school."
That is not what anybody would call a "firm" offer; and I cannot make out that until the debate the other evening there had been anything that amounted to what may be called an offer on the part of this parish to build a new school, and still less a rejection of the offer on the part of the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to note the more conciliatory attitude taken by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies than that in which the matter was treated on the part of the Government when attention was last called to it. I believe, with the noble Viscount, that had Lord Crewe been President of the Board of Education he would have recognised the justice of this case. The noble Earl is now divided between his sympathy with the views put forward by the noble Viscount and his loyal desire to support his colleague; and I cannot blame him for that. But the point is that when the offer was made it was peremptorily rejected.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Not by the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why was that offer made? It was made because the Board of Education declined to accept the report of their own architect in approval of the plans and proposals submitted by the managers of this school. Why has that report been ignored as well as the report of the architect of the local education authority? I do not wish to say anything of a controversial
1486
character when we have been met in such a conciliatory spirit, but with the regard and affection which noble Lords in this House have for denominational education, this is a matter that cannot pass unnoticed or without remonstrance. There has, undoubtedly, been a considerable amount of correspondence between the Board of Education, the local education authority, and the managers of the East Hardwick School; and I think that before we arrive at any decision your Lordships should have the right to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the whole of the correspondence. I think we are entitled to ask that the correspondence should be laid on the Table. The local education authority is known to be hostile to denominational schools, and, without wishing to say anything disrespectful, it cannot be denied that the President of the Board of Education has shown no love for them. It does not seem unreasonable, in the circumstances, that the House should postpone a decision until your Lordships have had an opportunity of reading such correspondence on this subject as can be published. Reference has been made to the points on which I put a Question the other day to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I asked whether the Board of Education were acting legally in ignoring the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1902. Certainly they are ignoring the spirit of that Act when they propose to saddle a parish with an additional 1s. rate to build a school which is not required and which is strongly objected to. As it does not appear possible for the noble Viscount to give a definite answer to-day as to this offer, I think the question might be postponed, and that in the meantime we might have the Papers laid on the Table. This is an unusual course to take on a Bill of this kind, but the circumstances are unusual.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I would give a word of advice to the noble Viscount opposite never to make a speech for anyone else in anticipation, because I have no intention whatever of saying anything in regard to the history of the seventeenth century into which he entered. After the speeches we have heard, surely the House is very near to a settlement of this question, and I rise

1487
to support strongly the suggestion of the most rev. Primate that this matter should stand over. We are on the eve of the Whitsuntide holidays, and I do not suppose anything very serious will happen if the sending of this Bill to a Select Committee is postponed until the House reassembles. That will give a fortnight in which the necessary investigations can be made. With regard to the point raised by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, if the matter is going to be settled by a compromise the presentation of Papers is not urgent, though they might be moved for later as an independent historical document. As I rise to plead for a postponement in order that the matter may be settled in a harmonious way, I think that is a good reason why I should not touch upon any of the matters of fact, or alleged fact, which have been brought forward in this debate. Therefore, I do not wish to go into any of the disputed facts. But I would urge that as we are so near a settlement the matter should stand over.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only rise to say that the course which my noble friend opposite has just proposed seems to us to be an eminently reasonable one. I do not think that after the conversation which has taken place it would be fair to expect that we should send the Bill as it now stands to a Committee upstairs. Noble Lords opposite will remember that we took exception to the manner in which this case had been treated by the Board of Education, not only for the reason that the munificent offer made by this lady had not been accepted, but for a good many other reasons. In our view the conduct of the Board of Education throughout this transaction has been what I can only describe as of a very aggressive character. I have no desire, however, to press that at present, because we now have it from the noble Earl opposite that if the offer made by this lady was a firm offer and if my noble friend is in a position by-and-bye to say that the offer still stands, the Board of Education will be prepared to entertain it. My noble friend very naturally is not able this evening to say whether the offer still holds good. In these circumstances we think it
1488
would be a reasonable course to adjourn the discussion until after the holidays, when, no doubt, my noble friend will be able to tell the House whether the solution proposed is still open to us.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. Nothing will be lost by it, and when we resume in a fortnight's time we shall be in a better position to discuss the matter.
Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Lord Heneage).
On Question,
Debate adjourned accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 557. East Africa Protectorate (Report for 1906–1907).
  No. 558. Uganda (Report for 1906– 1907).

  Correspondence relating to the tenure of land in the East Africa Protectorate.
  Fifty-first Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1907–1908.
  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1907. Part I. General Report.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, the Copyhold Act, 1894, the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts, the Universities and College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1898, the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, and certain other Acts, for the year 1907.
  BELFAST HEALTH COMMISSION.
  Report to the Local Government Board for Ireland.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers, for the year 1907–1908.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Report on the trade in imports and exports at Irish ports for the year ended 31st December, 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WESTMORLAND).
  Order made by the council of the county of Westmorland altering certain polling districts in the two Parliamentary Divisions of the county.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Twenty-fifth Report of the Comptroller-General of patents, designs, and trade marks, with appendix for the year 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE NAVAL CONFERENCE.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend who represents the Foreign Office a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can inform the House when the further Report relating to the Peace Conference at the Hague will be laid on the Table, and whether the invitations to the proposed Naval Conference on International Maritime Law have been issued.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD FITZMAURICE): My Lords, in regard to the first part of my noble friend's Question I am glad to be able to inform the House that the further Papers which, in reply to my noble friend Lord Eversley, I stated that I hoped before long it would be possible to lay, are now practically ready and will be in the hands of Parliament almost immediately. In regard to the further Question which my noble friend has asked, as to whether the invitations to the proposed Naval Conference have been issued, the reply
  1490
  is in the affirmative. The desire of His Majesty's Government is to discuss certain points on which it is essential for us that we should have an agreement with the chief naval Powers before ratifying the Convention relating to Prize Courts, which was one of the results of the Hague Conference. The most important of those points, as your Lordships are aware, are the rules relating to blockade and contraband. The capture of private property at sea is not included. I cannot say what subjects other Powers may desire to raise, but it is desirable that the discussion should be concentrated on points like blockade and contraband, which are strictly germane to the proposed Prize Court Convention.

  THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHrose to call attention to the position of County Associations in connection with the raising of the scientific arms of the Territorial Force. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my reason for placing this notice on the Paper is that during the course of the debate which took place the other night on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Denbigh, those representing the County Associations had no opportunity of expressing an opinion. That debate took the form of an artillery duel between artillery experts on the one side and the Government on the other. Those who listened to that debate, especially noble Lords interested in raising the troops of the Territorial Force, must have heard the speeches of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, and of the noble Earl Lord Denbigh, with feelings of apprehension, and certainly the answer that was given by the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House was not very reassuring. But one thing we did learn—namely, that the original scheme as proposed by the Secretary of State for War would be adhered to under any circumstances, and that there was no alternative possible. There have been many debates on this question of the Territorial Force, and one is rather tempted to ask of what use those debates are if it is impossible to make any alteration.
  In addition to the condemnation in debate, there was a letter in the Press the other day from Colonel Lonsdale Hale, who joined in the cry against the Territorial Artillery, and said he would undertake to fill any hall in the United Kingdom with military experts opposed to the proposal of His Majesty's Government. Well, I think he might have gone further and undertaken to have filled any hall in the country with military experts opposed to any scheme of military reform that ever has been or could be devised. My noble friend Lord Newton went a good deal further the other day than Lord Roberts, and condemned the whole scheme of the Territorial Army root and branch.
  LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: The noble Lord expressed an opinion upon the old Volunteers, and I am not sure that his opinion regarding the Volunteers has always been the same. We all know what he wants, and if this scheme fails he will very likely get what he wants. The noble Lord made a comparison between the old Volunteers and the Territorial Force as it at present exists, but I do not think such a comparison was fair, seeing that the time has not yet definitely arrived when the ranks of the Territorial Force have to be filled. There are, as we know, a great many differences under the new system which may or may not prevent a number of old Volunteers from rejoining, but I do not think the progress we have made in the raising of the necessary troops is at all one to cause discouragement.
  In the views he expressed the other night, Lord Roberts represented the Regular Artillery. We had at the same time the opinion of Lord Denbigh, who has not only had a good deal of experience as a Regular artilleryman, but is in command of the Honourable Artillery Company, which is often quoted as proof of what Territorial Artillery might be. Against that evidence we had quoted to us the remarks of the Military Correspondent of The Times as a complete answer to the criticisms of Lord Roberts. I venture to say that that was no answer at all. It was merely the expression of another opinion. Lord
  1492
  Roberts has given one opinion, and the Military Correspondent of The Times has given another; and I think nine people out of ten will look upon the opinion of Lord Roberts as far more valuable than that of the Military Correspondent of The Times on matters connected with the Artillery. But, after all, it is expert opinion; and we know very well from our experience of Committees upstairs that when there is a scientific or technical question involved each side brings forward a certain number of expert witnesses. If one side brings forward three the other invariably calls four, and the result usually is that it is one of the expert witnesses who gives the case away.
  I regret that Lord Denbigh's proposal to stiffen the Territorial Artillery with a Regular battery in each brigade was not considered. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War said it was perfectly simple, if you could raise two efficient batteries, to raise three. That is not the case. The great difficulty in the way of the Territorial Artillery is the lack of a Regular battery to show them what is wanted, and if you could stiffen these brigades of Territorial Artillery by having in each a Regular battery it would be of enormous advantage to the whole corps. The Regular battery would set a high standard, and there would be great competition among the amateur batteries to get as near as possible to that standard. On the question of the disappearance of certain batteries of Regular Artillery, I confess that I am in rather a difficulty. There has been a heated, and perhaps not very edifying, correspondence in The Times between Mr. Arnold-Forster and The Times Military Correspondent. The charge, I think, was in the first place made by Mr. Arnold-Forster that under the present scheme thirty-three batteries were to be done away with. The retort was that the only man who had abolished a battery of Regular Artillery was Mr. Arnold-Forster, and he replied that that brigade was not lost but had gone before and was really merged into others, and while each side accuses the other of reducing batteries of Artillery, each side claims that under their own system the Artillery has been stronger, both as

  1493
  regards men and efficiency than ever before.
  The noble Lord the Under-Secretary stated that under the present system the Regular Artillery would be short by 7,000 men on mobilisation, and that this shortage would be after stripping the thirty-three surplus batteries and returning the guns to store. What I suggest is that an easy method of averting shortage of men on mobilisation is to stiffen and strengthen the Territorial Artillery by a sort of nucleus battery. Lord Roberts, in the course of his remarks the other evening, expressed reluctance to place any difficulties in the way of the Secretary of State. I do not think he need have any fear of that, because as regards the raising of these troops the whole of the difficulties have been placed on the shoulders of the County Associations, due to absolute un-preparedness of administration after two years of incubation, hurry in the formation of the County Associations, and the contradictory orders we are always getting. I really begin to doubt whether the whole of the staff at the War Office are favourable to this scheme. They do not appear to me to do very much to help us out of our difficulties, and I would suggest that it should be clearly understood that with regard to military matters we should be under the general officer commanding in each division and that we of the County Association should be responsible for the civilian side, and we might drop the War Office out of the matter altogether.
  I also have to complain of the meagre assistance afforded by the War Office for the instruction of the artillery and engineering branches of the Territorial Force. Surely those who have taken so much trouble to make each county scheme a success should at least get that amount of assistance in the way of instructors necessary to teach the men. In addition to the sergeant-instructors, there is a certain amount of materiel which is absolutely necessary and which ought to be supplied to the various scientific arms at the moment of recognition. We have six batteries to raise. They are all recognised and two are complete, but we have only two guns. I maintain that we should have for each battery that is recognised two
  1494
  guns with four sets of appointments. With regard to the engineering branch, we have three field companies either recognised or ready to be recognised, and they are absolutely without any of the necessary equipment. The same applies to the brigade company of the Army Service corps and the mounted brigade of field ambulance. I think that recognition ought not to be looked upon as an empty compliment, but that we should be given what is really necessary to enable the instructors to teach the men in the scientific branches of the Territorial Force.
  There is another point which has exercised my mind. It is not for the County Associations to express any opinion as to what is necessary in regard to the Regular Army. That, of course, is a matter entirely for the military authorities. But there is an idea abroad that the Government intend gradually to reduce the Regular Army and to fill its place with the Territorial Force. The County Associations have put their hands to the difficult task of raising the Territorial Force on the distinct understanding that it was to be a second line army, and quite supplementary to the Regular Army. If there is any question of that force ever taking the place of the Regular Army we ought to be told so at once. We are perfectly willing to supplement the Regular Army but not to supplant it. I would urge my noble friend to do what he can to help us in our present difficulties, and I can assure him that the County Associations to-day, what with the activity of the critics on the one hand and the inaction of the War Office on the other, are in the position of being between the devil and the deep sea.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, I should like first of all to say that the Army Council owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord Dartmouth for the energy he has thrown into the work of the Staffordshire County Association. We admit that there have been difficulties. As the situation was a new one and as we had little to guide us from the experience of the past, difficulties were inevitable and mistakes

  1495
  were bound to be made; but we have always been ready to rectify them immediately our attention has been called to them. As quickly as the guns are converted—and the conversion was begun very soon after the Act of last year became law—they are being distributed among the batteries of the Territorial Force. The noble Earl referred to the difficulty experienced in finding the means of instructing the men when they had been recruited. Equally difficult has been the question of supplying them at once with permanent staff, and on this matter I would beg for a certain amount of forbearance on the part of the County Associations. The lack of instructors for the batteries is due to the fact that the Artillery of the Regular Army is about to go on its annual training, and the non-commissioned officers intended as instructors cannot at present be withdrawn without destroying a certain part of the year's work, with the result that the batteries would inevitably suffer in efficiency. I can assure the noble Earl that the War Office is really doing its very best to meet the new situation. The noble Earl says the County Associations have been harassed by the number of circulars that have been sent out.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Contradictory circulars.
  LORD LUCAS: The different circulars sent by the War Office to the County Associations are not so much contradictory as developments and elaborations of previous instructions, and are due to special cases brought to the notice of the Army Council by County Associations, to which the original rules that had been laid down could not apply. The circulars that have been sent out have invariably been the outcome of Associations writing to us for instructions. The noble Earl expressed the position quite correctly when he said that the general officer commanding is the authority on purely military questions, and that the County Association is the authority on administrative questions. The County Association, of course, is responsible to the War Office for the way in which it spends its money, but otherwise it is free so long as it keeps
  1496
  within the, expenditure and as long as there is nothing questionable in the way in which the funds are administered. For instance, if they spent an inordinate amount on matters which could not be considered of first-rate importance whilst neglecting matters of greater importance, there would come the day of reckoning at the end of the year.
  It is the desire of the Army Council to encourage the County Associations to manage their own affairs as much as possible. We do not wish to interfere more than we can possibly help; but while the thing is absolutely in its infancy we have had to send advice and counsel occasionally to the County Associations. I can only say that the Army Council no more like sending out circulars than the County Associations like receiving them, and as soon as the County Associations are fully cognisant of the conditions of their work that sort of thing will cease. In some cases the County Associations resent the letters sent them from the War Office; but, on the other hand, many Associations have returned grateful thanks for the information they have received and which has been of great use to them.
  As to the position of the Territorial Force, to which the noble Earl referred, we have always laid down that the Territorial Force is bound to be a Second-Line Army, and that it can never replace the Regular Army as the Force which is required instantly on the outbreak of war. I qualify that only by the statement that there is a clause in the Act which provides that certain members of the Territorial Force, not properly considered as combatant members, may, if they like, take on an engagement to serve with the Regular Army. That applies to such men as doctors. But our view has always been that the combatant arms of the Territorial Force, under peace conditions, cannot be made fit to take their places in the field against trained troops on the outbreak of war without a certain amount of training on mobilisation. Therefore no one, I think, would agree more readily than we should that it is out of the question for the Territorial Army to be regarded as replacing the Regular Army.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH:I did not mean to press the case of the

  1497
  Staffordshire County Association unduly. It is the one that I happen to know most about, and as it was very likely that the difficulties which had arisen in our case had also arisen in others, I took Staffordshire merely as an illustration. I did not wish to make any complaint against the War Office on account of the number of their letters, because I have had communications at the War Office for sometime now which have not yet been answered. I quite understand the difficulty about the guns, but surely there is no such difficulty in supplying the various scientific arms of the force with the necessary equipment for instruction. Surely those should be supplied immediately the unit is recognised.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I think my noble friend may be very well satisfied with having raised this debate, and I am sure all the Associations in the same group with him will be obliged to him for having done so. I think we ought to take note of what the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has just said. It has now been authoritatively laid down as clearly as can be that while in military matters the commanding officers of districts are responsible, for everything connected with administration and financial affairs the Associations are free and unfettered to manage their own affairs without the interference of the clerks or of the staff at the War Office.
  We have no complaint whatever to make against the Secretary of State for War or against my noble friend the Under-Secretary. So far as I can speak as a chairman of a County Association, they have done everything they can to assist us, to give us the very best advice, and to take into consideration any suggestions that have been made either formally or informally. But I have not been four months at work with my Association without having formed a very distinct opinion that the very worst friends the Secretary of State for War has got are in his own household. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, said just now that we had asked for information. Yes, for information on practical points; but we have waited for the answers. We have, however, been inundated with
  1498
  circular after circular on matters with which the War Office had nothing to do, if my noble friend's statement is right that we have to work out our own salvation. Early in the development of the Associations the War Office interfered with us with regard to the salaries of our secretaries and secretariat. They had no right whatever to send us a single line about that. It was clearly laid down in the twenty-first Article of Association that when the recommendation of the Secretary had been agreed to we had entire power as to what we were to pay. Eventually the War Office had to give way.
  Take another instance—that of the calling in of the clothing. We had several contradictory circulars with regard to that. First we were told that we were to call in the clothing to headquarters; next that we were not to call it in but that it might be valued from the books. Very soon afterwards we received circulars from the military authorities to say we were to call in the clothing, and they knew nothing whatever about the other circular that had reached us, I could mention a dozen cases or more in which circulars have been sent out and then altered or withdrawn. I will give the most recent one. Only the other day the War Office sent out a circular to say that we were not to pay our markers. Our Association directed the commanding officers to go on as before, and said they would certainly be paid. Then down came an order to the commanding officers that they were not to pay the markers. I was asked what was to be done, and I replied, "Telegraph to the officers that they are not to obey it. I will be responsible for the money." Two days afterwards I received a circular from the War Office saying that they had recalled this order and that the markers were to be paid. I mention this to show my noble friend Lord Dartmouth is quite right when he speaks of contradictory circulars. If Mr. Haldane could only keep the War Office quiet, the practical men on the County Associations would be able to get to work. I think that if half of the clerks at the War Office were sent on a voyage round the world for the next six months it would be very much better for the Territorial Army.
  LORD LUCAS: May I be allowed to reply to one or two points raised by Lord Heneage? I am extremely sorry if anything I said, in my reply to Lord Dartmouth, could by any possibility be made to convey any reflection whatever upon the War Office staff.
  LORD HENEAGE: No, no.
  LORD LUCAS: Nothing could have been better than the way in which they have worked. Many of them have worked for months together not getting away from the office until late, dealing with an overwhelming mass of detail. As to the contradictory circulars referred to by Lord Heneage, probably the larger proportion of these were sent out because of letters received from the noble Lord himself.
  LORD HENEAGE: I asked for information. I did not ask for circulars, though I did ask very peremptorily for the withdrawal of a good many of them.
  LORD LUCAS: The noble Lord asked for information on many points on which, T admit, information was required. The information was sent to the noble Lord, and then, as other County Associations were in similar difficulties, the information was embodied in a circular and sent all round. It was only in our struggles to satisfy the questions and claims of the different Associations that we had sometimes to alter or recall our previous circulars; but in no instance have we ever made an alteration in any instruction or circular which has not been to the advantage of the County Associations.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is a very short Bill consisting of a single clause. Its object is to remove certain restrictions upon the
1500
holding of land by colonial companies in this country, to which restrictions those companies are at present liable under the Mortmain Acts. The Statute of Mortmain recallsone's early studies of English history, and I think a great many people would be surprised, as I confess I was, to find that that Statute was still in force. But it is in force, and it is still illegal for any corporate body to hold land in this country unless it has first taken out a licence in Mortmain or unless there is a statutory exemption from the provisions of the Mortmain Acts. Those statutory exemptions are given, in the first place, by the Companies Act of 1862, and, in the case of statutory companies, by a clause which is invariably inserted in the special Act of Parliament under which those companies are formed. Those exemptions are operative in the case of companies registered in this country, but they do not exempt companies registered in any of the British Possessions. In the case of those companies a licence in Mortmain must be taken out from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at a cost of £70, in the case of every piece of land which it is desired to acquire. That restriction has been found to be very harsh in the case of certain colonial companies, such as insurance and banking companies, carrying on business in this country, and it is thought that it should be removed. What it is proposed by this Bill to do is to place those colonial companies on exactly the same footing in regard to this matter as that upon which British companies now stand I feel sure that this is a proposal which will commend itself to your Lordships, all the more so when I am able to state that there are no similar restrictions in the case of British companies which desire to hold lands in the Colonies. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 16th instant.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Earl Carrington)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have to ask the House to agree to two formal Amendments suggested by my noble friend, Lord Onslow. The first is in Clause 47, to add, after the words—
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, the compensation in respect of an improvement made or begun before the commencement of this Act, or made upon a holding held under a contract of tenancy,
the words—
"Other than a tenancy from year to year."
And the second Amendment is to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 48, namely—
"(2) The expression 'tenancy current on' a specified date shall include a tenancy from year to year current at that date."
Amendment moved.—
"In Clause 47, page 21, line 33, after the word 'tenancy,' to insert the words 'other than a tenancy from year to year.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 48, page 22, lines 39 and 40, to leave out Subsection (2).—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SPECIAL RESERVE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: (1) If he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House at any early date after the adjournment for Whitsuntide the Return which was promised on the 5th May comparing the results of recruiting for the Special Reserve during the first four months in 1908, with the results of recruiting for the Militia in a similar period in 1907; (2)
1502
How is it intended to employ the services of Militiamen who elect to remain in that force until time-expired in event of embodiment. The Militia will have disappeared, and I am rather puzzled how to explain to the men under my command the nature of their service in a force which has become non-existent.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I am sorry we have not yet been able to lay the Return for which the noble Duke asks, but it is practically ready and I can promise it to him immediately after Whitsuntide. As to the second question, in the event of embodiment, I take it that if their services were urgently required they would be attached for the time to the unit most closely resembling the unit of which they were members as Militiamen. Of course, they could not be sent abroad unless they volunteered to go.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would point out that such a proceeding would be against the Militia Act of 1882, and that is where my difficulty arises. The Act says that you must not—
"Authorise a Militiaman when belonging to one corps to be transferred without his consent to another corps; or where the corps of a Militiaman includes any battalion or other body of the Regular Forces, authorise him to be posted without his consent to that battalion or body."
Section 5 of the Militia Act provides that—
"Where a Militiaman was enlisted or reengaged before the date of any Order or Regulation under this Act, nothing in such Order or Regulation shall render him liable without his consent to be appointed, transferred, or attached to any military body to which he could not without his consent have been appointed, transferred, or attached if the said Order or Regulation had not been made."
I think the noble Lord will see the difficulty in which we are placed.
LORD LUCAS: I think the passages quoted by the noble Duke refer to peace time, and not to embodiment in time of war.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: (1) The number of officers required for the Territorial Army, ex-

1503
cluding the Yeomanry; (2) The number of officers who have transferred from the Volunteers to the Territorial Army; (3) The number of officers now serving as Volunteer officers; (4) Excluding the Yeomanry, on 1st May 8,520 men had transferred to the Territorial Army for four years, and 72,179 men for the period of one year only, with the right to claim a free discharge at the end of twelve months. Will the 72,179 men who have transferred to the Territorial Army on the understanding that they can claim a free discharge at the end of twelve months be held to serve for an extra year in the event of the Territorial Force being embodied; (5) The number of recruits who have joined the Territorial Army since the date of its formation; (6) The number of officers and men, including Yeomanry, wanted to complete the establishment of the Territorial Force; (7) What is meant by not allowing a Volunteer unit to transfer to the Territorial Army unless it has enlisted 30 per cent. of the required establishment? The required establishment of an Infantry battalion of the Territorial Army is 1,000 men. Is a Volunteer battalion, therefore, required to transfer 300 men to the Territorial Army before being counted as a unit of the Territorial Army? (8) In the case of a Volunteer battalion with an establishment of 600 men and a strength of 300 men, would every man serving be required to transfer to the Territorial Army before the battalion was counted as a Territorial unit, or would 30 per cent. of the men serving, that is to Say ninety men, or less than 10 per cent. of the required establishment of a Territorial battalion, be accepted as sufficient to justify the transfer? (9) In leaflet No. 2, issued by the War Office, and setting forth the terms of service in the Territorial Force, it is stated that—
"The Territorial soldier is entitled to pay at army rates, including the extra emoluments paid by certain corps while in camp. He does not draw the threepence a day messing allowance given to the Regular Army, but a daily allowance of 1s. would be paid to his commanding officer to improve his messing."
Will the extra emoluments referred to, and a daily allowance of 1s. be continued to the Territorial soldier when called out on permanent service, or will the pay and allowances of the Territorial soldier
1504
during embodiment be precisely the same as those given to the corresponding; branches in the Regular Army? (10) Is it the fact that between 4th April and the present date 208 officers have resigned their commissions in the Volunteers? and (11) What was the percentage of men under twenty years of age in the Volunteer force according to the last annual return, and may not a similar percentage be accepted as true of the Territorial Force?
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, in answer to the first Question, the total number of officers required for the Territorial Army, excluding the Yeomanry, is 10,578. As to the second Question, I am sorry I cannot at the moment give the noble Lord the information he requires. We have not yet been able to make up the numbers. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means by this third Question. I take it that he wants the number of officers who are still holding their commissions as Volunteers officers, not counting those who have transferred but deducting all those who have resigned That number is 8,543. In regard to the fourth Question, the noble Lord will find that Question 15 (d) on the attestation paper makes it clear that the 72,179 men to whom he refers may be required to prolong their service for a further period not exceeding twelve months in the event of the force being embodied. As to the fifth Question, the number of recruits of all arms who had joined the Territorial Army up to 1st May, which is the latest date to which we have the figures, was 4,936. I cannot give the noble Lord the number of officers in reply to his sixth Question, but the number of non-commissioned officers and men wanted to complete the establishment of the Territorial Force on 1st May was 193,790 of all arms. With regard to the seventh Question, 30 per cent. of the establishment is laid down in the Army Order of 18th March.
LORD RAGLAN: For the Territorial units?
LORD LUCAS: Yes. So that in the case the noble Lord quotes in his eighth Question the battalion would have to raise the necessary 300 men before it

1505
was recognised. That was made clear in a circular memorandum to the County Associations, dated 11th April. As to the ninth Question, the Army Order of 18th March, Part II., Paragraph (1), states that on mobilisation the emoluments of the Territorial Force will conform in all respects to those of the Regular Army. The messing allowance will be made the same as it is in the Regulars. The emoluments which that Army Order refers to are the special pay, engineer pay and corps pay, which will be drawn by the Territorial Force exactly the same as they are now drawn in the Regular Army. The Answer to the tenth Question is that 207 officers have resigned their commissions; and, in reply to the last Question, the percentage of Volunteers under twenty on 1st November last, including boys and trumpeters under seventeen, was a little under 28½ per cent. There is no reason to suppose that that percentage will be very much varied in the case of the Territorial Force.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War two Questions of which I have given him private notice—first, whether in addition to paying the rent due for ranges for last year, the Associations can pay for the rent of ranges for the current year in this year's accounts, or whether such rent must be carried forward into the next year's accounts in order to comply with War Office methods for book-keeping? Secondly, whether, having regard to Paragraphs 65 and 85 of the Financial Memorandum circulated in March, 1908, the Associations can advance money to commanding officers for the current-expenses of taking units into camp out of their Grant for administrative purposes; and if so, whether they can requisition the War Office for repayment of the money so advanced at once, as grants for camp expenses are not paid through the Associations, but through the general officer commanding the district.
LORD LUCAS: If the rent was paid till April last, and it is paid annually, naturally the Association would not tender the rent again, as it would not fall due till April, 1909. As to the second question, the County Associa-
1506
tions are responsible for the travelling of the troops to camp, but are not responsible for the expenses incurred by them in camp. The Association can make an application to the War Office to have sums advanced to cover travelling expenses, but the money spent in camp comes out of the training grant.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, with reference to the appointment of the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the appointment of a Deputy Registrar—Was presented by the Lord Alverstone; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, 16th June. [No. 87.]

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland)Act, 1907, in respect to the compulsory acquisition of tenanted land. As this Bill does not bear the explanation of its introduction on its face, and as we are about to adjourn for the holidays, I think, perhaps, it would be convenient if I briefly explained the circumstances under which it is brought in. The Bill consists of only one operative clause, as follows—
"The proviso at the end of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, shall not apply in any case where the tenant consents in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners."
Subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Act of last year runs as follows—
"No tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Act applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, and to the cost involved, consider it expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated as a purchaser of that land."
Then comes the proviso with which this Bill deals—
"Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
I may remind your Lordships of the discussion which took place on that

1507
Amendment. Its design was to carry out a purpose of which, we all approve, although, we were some time before we were able to hit upon a form of words which commended itself to the House as a whole. Its object was to secure that no bona fide tenant who desired to stay should be compulsorily removed by the Estates Commissioners; and the conclusion which, I think, will be clear to everybody who reads the report of the debate in Hansard is that it was in the interest of the tenant, and of the tenant alone, that this proviso was inserted. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, speaking on this Amendment on 23rd August of last year, said—
"The 'caretaker' the nondescripts, the birds of passage, will not be protected under the terms of our Amendment. Then there are other of these planter-tenants who, no doubt, will be perfectly willing to move elsewhere, under the liberal inducements which are to be offered to them; those men are willing to go and need not be considered. What then remains? Only that residuum—that handful of courageous men—who are farming their land properly, who have their farms stocked, who are paying their rent, and who wish to remain where they are."
In the course of the present year a case has occurred on a single estate which has caused the introduction of this Bill. On that estate certain planters came to an agreement with the Estates Commissioners, and it was expected, as we read the Act, that the planters would retire and the evicted tenants be reinstated. But it occurred to the landlord, or some one who advised him, that the section might be read in a different sense. He assumed that not only was the agreement of the tenant to move necessary, but that his assent was also required, and this view was upheld by the Court. The result is that so far as that particular estate is concerned—and the same, of course, would apply to any other estate when the landlord took a similar view, so long as that view is upheld in the Courts—the Evicted Tenants Act of last year becomes nugatory. The object, as we all remember, of that Act, keenly debated and canvassed as it was in this and in the other House, was to produce a kind of eirenicon, a general system of allowing bygones to be bygones; it was an attempt to heal an open sore which, by common consent, was doing much harm in Ireland. We do think it is a very un-
1508
fortunate thing if a landlord, for reasons of his own—whether they be bad or good I do not pause to consider at this moment—is able to prevent the operation of the Act in a case where the planters are perfectly willing to leave. We, therefore, propose that the proviso at the end of the subsection shall not apply in any case where the tenant assents in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. Of course, I do not expect noble Lords opposite, having only heard the clause read for the first time to-night, to express a final or definite opinion upon it now, but it seemed to me convenient that I should make this statement in moving the First Beading. I do not propose that the Second Reading should be taken until a week or so after the House meets again.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to make me aware of the course he intended to adopt with regard to this Bill. I think all my noble friends on this side will agree that it was extremely desirable that he should do this evening something more than formally move the First Beading of the Bill, and that he should lay before us a clear statement of the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to move in this matter. I was glad the noble Earl went on to say that he did not expect us on this side of the House to pronounce a final judgment upon the proposals of His Majesty's Government this evening. I am not prepared to do so even on my own account; still less am I prepared to commit those with whom I usually act. I will only say this with regard to what fell from the noble Earl, that to the best of my belief he described correctly the main object with which we insisted upon the insertion in the Evicted Tenants Bill of a clause protecting a certain section of what were generally described as planter-tenants. What we desired was that those planter-tenants who were bona fide farmers, who were cultivating their land in a proper manner, and who did not desire to leave their holdings, should be protected from extrusion under the very strong and arbitrary machinery placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. Our great

1509
object was that the protection afforded to these farmers should be real and effectual protection; and I am quite sure that we, on this side of the House, should regard with great jealousy any proposal for new legislation which might render that protection less real or less effectual than it is at present. I add to that that if, inadvertently, we inserted in the Bill words going beyond what was necessary for the purpose of achieving the object we had in view, if it can be clearly shown that the Amendment went beyond the necessities of the case, we should certainly be ready to consider, with an open mind, the propriety of fresh legislation. But it is right, I think, that we should have ample opportunity to consider the manner in which the proposal of His Majesty's Government will work, and that time should be given to noble Lords interested in Irish land affairs to confer with one another, and with those who advise them, as to the propriety of accepting this measure.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on behalf of those who come from Ireland and are very much interested in this subject. The speech of the noble Earl has taken me quite by surprise, and I was astonished that, in moving the First Reading, the noble Earl should have dealt at such length with the Bill and quoted extracts from the speech made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition when the clause in question was under discussion last year. If we had had notice of the proposal there are Members of the House who would have been prepared to meet some of the statements which the noble Earl has made. All I wish to say now, however, is that we hold ourselves quite free as to our future action in the matter; and I hope the noble Earl will allow ample time before he puts down the Second Reading, as there are many interested in the question who would like to come over from Ireland to hear what has to be said upon it by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I "suppose we shall have the Bill in our hands very shortly?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, to-morrow morning.
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 25th instant. (No. 91.)
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Tuesday, the 16th instant, a quarter-past Four o'clock.