Sitting of 26 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords],
Watford Urban District Council Bill, Considered, and ordered for third reading.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords],
Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas Bill [Lords],
Rio Tinto Company [Lords],
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
Ordered, "that Standing Orders 39, 128, 204, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.
Musselburgh Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the second time.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
Mr. MASTERMAN Mr. MASTERMAN—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).—Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Birkenhead, Coventry, and the Oakwell Joint Hospital District.
The LORD ADVOCATE—Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation.—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Caledonian Railway (to be proceeded with under section 7 of the Act).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3).—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Gorteen Drainage District., in the county of Kildare.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY—Sea Fisheries (Tees) Provisional Order.—Bill to confirm an Order under the Sea Fisheries Acts, 1843 to 1893, for the improvement, maintenance, and regulation of an oyster, mussel, and cockle fishery in the estuary of the River Tees.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY — Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order.—Bill to confirm a scheme under the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, with respect to Keston Common and Leaves Green, in the county of Kent.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL—Provisional Order (Marriages).—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905.

TUBERCULOSIS.
Tuberculosis,—Copy Ordered—" of the Tuberculosis Order of 1909 and of a Circular Letter issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to Local Authorities in Great Britain under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1903."—[Sir Edward Strachey.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved for a Return showing the Number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1908 under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 172, of Session 1908).
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I object to this Return.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is an unopposed Return, and the hon. Member cannot object to it.
Mr. MacNEILL: Can I in any way enter my protest against it? It has been proved again and again that this Return is illusory.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put down a Motion for a Return in the form in which he thinks it would be better.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MacNEILL: Cannot any Member object to a Return being ordered?
Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member cannot object to a Return which the Government agree to give, but the Government can object to a proposed Return. In this case the Return is moved for by the Government.
Mr. MacNEILL: Can I divide the House upon it?
Mr. SPEAKER: No.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Fuel for Warships Stored in Mauritius.
  Mr. THORNTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the supply of coal and patent fuel for His Majesty's ships stored in the island of Mauritius is maintained in the same quantities that were kept in store there three years since?
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREhad given notice of the following question: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty would he state the amount of coal available for His Majesty's ships now stored in the island of Mauritius; and would he give the same information as to the amount in store on the same date five years ago?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I will reply to this question and that of the hon. Member for North Birmingham together. It is not considered in the interests of the public service to give information on the subject of the stocks of fuel or other stores maintained at any of His Majesty's depots.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it true that the stocks of fuel are disappearing?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, it is not true.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the fuel keeps without deteriorating?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would depend entirely on the quality of the coal, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given is according to precedent, or whether in the past information of that kind has been given?
  Mr. McKENNA: The practice varies. In the past information has been refused as to the amount of stores.

  Oil Fuel (Navy).
  Mr. CARLILE(on behalf of Lord Robert Cecil) asked how many ships and vessels of all classes are wholly or partially fitted to burn oil fuel; whether any ships are fitted to convey oil to vessels at sea, and, if so, how many; and what is the radius of action at 10 knots of the oil-fuel torpedo-boats originally called coastal destroyers?
  Mr. McKENNA: From experience up to the present the radius of action of the oil-fuel torpedo boats, with clean bottoms and fine weather, is approximately 2,000 nautical miles. In practice a deduction depending on circumstances has to be made for weather, etc.

  "Dreadnoughts" (Shipbuilding on the Thames).
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with a view to maintaining in working order the warship building appliances in this country, will His Majesty's Government consider the possibility of affording the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company an opportunity of building some of the vessels in this year's programme, one of the four conditional "Dreadnoughts" for preference, at the earliest possible moment? Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have no connection with this company.
  Mr. McKENNA: I never supposed that the hon. Member had any connection with the company. The Thames Ironworks Company will be invited to tender for such contract work as it is considered the firm is capable of undertaking.

  Anti-Torpedo Armament.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty will have formed their judgment as to the substitution of other anti-torpedo armament in place of the three-pounders in the

  1165
  ships of the "Warrior" class; and when he anticipates that the judgment in question will he carried into effect?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply to the hon. Member's question on this subject of 20th May.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that the crews of these ships entertain the profoundest dissatisfaction, and in some cases dismay, in regard to the torpedo armament? Does the right hon. Gentleman think they will be in a condition to enter successfully into action in that frame of mind?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think that would be rather an exaggerated view even as regards some members of the crews. I do not think any dismay has entered into their mind. The armament of the ships designed as early as this particular class is not considered satisfactory in every respect.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Really the Admiralty are not taking the right hon. Gentleman into their confidence. These are brand new ships, and as to two of them—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be giving information instead of asking it.

  Captain Bacon's Letters.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (on behalf of Captain Craig)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if copies of letters addressed to individual members of the Board of Admiralty by persons other than Captain Bacon have been printed and circulated amongst the officers of the Fleet, like those of Captain Bacon, since 1st January, 1906; and if such letters were issued for the purpose of disseminating important technical information?
  Mr. McKENNA: Any such copies would be confidential, and I must beg the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from entering into further discussion on the subject.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that other copies have been sent'?
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to be excused from entering into the question.

  Low-water Landing Slip (Plymouth).
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to say
  1166
  what is the nature of the legal proceedings which stand in the way of work being commenced upon the low-water landing slip which the Admiralty propose to provide for the inhabitants of Turnchapel, Plymouth?
  Mr. McKENNA: The necessary legal proceedings are the completion of the agreement between the Admiralty and the parish council which the district council have stipulated shall be entered into before they will give their consent to the proposal. The procedure laid down by sections 84-91 of the Highways Act of 1835 has also to be complied with to obtain the order of the justices of quarter sessions to the stopping up of the old right-of-way.
  Mr. MILDMAY: I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to say if the legal proceedings will take much longer, and also whether the procedure under sections 84–91 of the Highways Act of 1835 might not have been taken a long time since so that the matter would not have been needlessly delayed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into these points, but I am not aware personally.

  Anti-malarial Measures (Colonies).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the 11 Colonies which made no Special Report on malaria, in response to the circular of 6th June, 1906, have since been communicated with, and have been asked to furnish Reports?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Yes, Sir. A special circular has recently been sent out by the Secretary of State with a view to obtaining fuller information with regard to anti-malarial measures, both from the Colonies to which my hon. Friend refers and from other tropical Colonies.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the Colonial Office has made any representation to the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis drawing their attention to the fact that, according to Cd. 3992, page 32, nothing has been done by them to destroy the breeding-places of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, although half the adult population are infected by them; and what has been the result of the representation'?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has made no further representation to the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis in this matter. He fears that effective action in

  1167
  this direction may be hampered by financial considerations, but the officer administering the Government will be asked for a report on the possibility of taking action.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the Colonial Office has entered into correspondence with the Government of the Bahamas, in consequence of the opinion expressed by the Administrative and Executive Council of the Colony that rules, for the suppression of mosquito-born diseases, including malaria fever and yellow fever, were ultra tires; and with what result?
  Colonel SEELY: The incident to which my hon. Friend refers took place in 1906, and there has been no recent correspondence on the subject. The Secretary of State will now call upon the Governor to furnish a Report as to the measures taken in the Bahamas to combat tropical diseases. It has to be remembered that legislation and expenditure in this Colony are dependent upon the consent of the House of Assembly, which is an elective body.

  Reported Attack on the Mullah by British Force.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House as to the causes and circumstances of the recent attack on the Mullah by a British force, in which 600 camels were recovered; and whether further operations are contemplated?
  Colonel SEELY: No information has been received from the Commissioner as to any occurrence such as that alluded to in my hon. Friend's question, but he has been requested by telegraph to state what the facts are.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCH: Has the hon. Gentleman seen Renter's telegram'?
  Colonel SEELY: We have seen Reuter's telegram, but we have not received any confirmation of it from the Commissioner. It may be quite so, but we have not yet received any official confirmation. We have telegraphed to find out.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this recent engagement seems to express a more active policy on the part of His Majesty's Government, or whether they are still pursauing the purely defensive policy?
  Colonel SEELY: No, it does not. Obviously if the hon. Gentleman had read the Renter's telegram he would see that it could not express a more active policy on the part of his Majesty's Government because it was stated that the camels were recovered. The use of that word indicates that the Mullah was the aggressor.
  Mr. REES: May I ask if any change is reported in the Mullah's mental condition?

  "Kruger" Sovereigns.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances that Kruger sovereigns can only be exchanged in South Africa at a discount of 1s. 6d. per sovereign; if so, whether the Secretary of State would take steps to get the coins called in, so as to avoid further loss falling upon people who accept these coins in good faith and in the absence of any official caution or warning being issued?
  Colonel SEELY: Complaints of this kind were made some time ago in the Cape and Natal, where the sovereigns are not legal tender, but in November, 1907, the Transvaal Government stated that they did not anticipate any difficulty in withdrawing and disposing of this gold coinage in the Transvaal as bullion, and no complaints on the subject have been made to the Colonial Office since that date.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the hon. Member make further inquiry in view of the fact that on the mails just arriving home there are serious complaints as to these sovereigns being tendered?
  Colonel SEELY: What I have said is that no complaints have been received at the Colonial Office. Of course, no doubt complaints may be made. If the Noble Lord wishes for inquiries made of course I will have them made.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOON: Has any order yet been issued?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think any order has yet been issued. Of course the whole matter is a little complicated by the possibility of the approaching union of South African States, which must involve considerations of coinage. As the approaching union has a bearing on the question I cannot make any statement on the matter at present, but I will inquire further as to the matter raised by the Noble Lord.

  Censorship of Plays.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state in what countries a censorship over stage plays previous to public performance is in existence; and in what countries such censorship is exercised by an official not appointed or controlled by any publicly-elected authority, who levies fees for the reading of each play and whose decisions are not subject to any appeal?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It is only in respect to France and the principal States of the German Empire that any information on the subject is in the possession of the Foreign Office. In these countries the police authorities exercise powers of supervision and prohibition, subject, in most cases, to an appeal to a Minister of State. I shall be happy to show to my hon. Friend the several Reports from His Majesty's representatives at the capitals in question.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Am I to understand that according to the information in the possession of the Foreign Office there is no foreign country which has a censorship over plays previous to performance as distinct from control after production?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it would be better if my hon. Friend would look at the documents.

  Russian Troops in Tabriz,
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether there is any intention on the part of the Government of Russia of withdrawing or reducing the Russian troops in Tabriz at an early date?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Russian Government have stated that they are most desirous of withdrawing or reducing their troops at Tabriz as soon as possible, but that before doing so they are awaiting the arrival of a regular Governor in the town. As I informed the hon. Member 'for West Mayo on 20th May, the town is at present under the Deputy-Governor.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked whether a loan has been or is about to be made by Russia to Persia; if so, for what objects and on what terms; and whether His Majesty's Government is satisfied that such action will not be prejudicial to the cause of constitutional reform'?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Russian Government have decided to make a small
  1170
  advance of from £50,000 to £100,000 to the Persian Government on the Shah undertaking to restore the Constitution. The advance will be applied to paying off and disbanding some of the troops, to payment of arrears of diplomatic salaries, and other pressing needs. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the proposed action will not be prejudicial to the cause of Persian reform, and that it will be in accord with the views of the two Government in their endeavours to obtain a stable Government for Persia on constitutional lines.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the Government satisfied that the proposed loan will not be prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes. I think we are satisfied on that point.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOON: Has our Plenipotentiary in Teheran any say as to the way in which this money should be expended?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe that there were some confidential communications between our representative and the Russian Government, but it is a strong thing to say that he has a "say" in a matter of this kind.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this loan necessitates the permanent establishment in Persia of Russian troops?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I do not think it does at all.

  Gaelic Notices (Scotland).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the statement contained on page 32 of the recently issued report of the medical officer for Ross and Cromarty, will he state whether the leaflets giving directions how to prevent and cope with the different infectious diseases, including consumption, will be printed in Gaelic as well as English; and when are the leaflets likely to be circulated to the Lewis townships?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The county medical officer reports that the leaflets referred to. giving directions how to prevent and cope with different infectious diseases, will be translated into Gaelic and circulated through Ross-shire, including Lewis, as soon as possible; probably by the end of June.

  Poultry Breeding (Scotland).
  Mr. LAMONTasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that it has been decided to close the poultry farm at Theale, hitherto conducted in connection with Reading University College, and that the Report of the Departmental Committee has emphasised the need for education, experiment, and research in regard to poultry breeding in Scotland, he will consider the advisability of negotiating with the authorities at Theale as to the transference of their institution to a suitable locality north of the Tweed?
  Mr. URE: The Report of the Departmental Committee is now under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland and the Congested Districts Board; but I have no statement to make at present. The Secretary for Scotland is already aware of the information which my hon. Friend's question contains. I may add that a considerable amount of work in this particular direction is already being done on the West of Scotland Agricultural College farm at Kilmarnock, and there seems to be no need to negotiate for the transference of the institution at Theale to Scotland.

  Stornoway Hospital (Water Supply).
  Mr. WEIRasked, seeing that the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty, in his recently issued Report, again calls attention to the fact that. the infectious diseases hospital at Stornoway is in urgent need of a water supply, and that the Lewis district committee declare their inability to take. action owing to need of funds, will the Government consider the expediency of making a grant or advance to the committee such as will admit of water being laid on to this hospital, so that the patients may no longer suffer for want of water?
  Mr. URE: There are no funds out of which a grant can be made for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. WEIR: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to getting the necessary money out of the additional millions that he is raising?
  Mr. URE: I shall make the effort, but I cannot hold out hope that it will be successful.

  Sheep-worrying, Monkton Hall, near Musselburgh.
  Mr. FALCONERasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to cases of sheep-worrying on the farm of Monkton Hall, near Musselburgh, where, on 8th December, two ewes with lambs were badly worried, and on the night of 12th March 12 lambs were worried to death; whether he is aware that the sheep were watched every night for two months by the shepherd and a police constable, and on. the last occasion the dog was unmistakably identified; that the owner has made no compensation for the loss, and the dog has been temporarily removed to another part of the country; and that the farmer reported the matter to the procurator fiscal of Midlothian, but no action has been taken; and whether the Lord Advocate will direct the necessary proceedings to be taken under the Dangerous Dogs Act to have the dog destroyed, and also for the protection of the flocks of the country issue general instructions to all procurators fiscal directing them to carry out the Act in such cases?
  Mr. URE: My attention has been directed to the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I have given directions that proceedings be taken under the Dogs Act, 1871. I have considered the question whether general instructions should be issued in order that the Dogs Acts may be efficiently administered in Scotland, and I have decided to give the appropriate directions to the procurators fiscal to secure that object.

  Fishery Board Cruiser (Scotland).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate if he will state the name of the new Fishery Board cruiser; whether her trial trip was. satisfactory; and what waters she has been detailed to patrol?
  Mr. URE: I have not yet received the information to enable me to answer the question.
  Mr. WEIR: Why has the Scottish Fishery Board in Edinburgh failed to furnish the information to the Scottish Office, seeing that this cruiser has been under construction for three years and reported to be complete and at work?
  Mr. URE: I have not yet received the information, and would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should postpone the question.
  Mr. WEIR: Does such a cruiser exists or is it a phantom ship?

  Congested Districts Board (Scotland).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland, page 8, the Secretary for Scotland states that, it being doubtful whether the Board under the existing Act have power to hold land either temporarily or permanently, it is the intention of the Government to seek such powers from Parliament, will he state whether the proposed legislation will take the form of an Amendment of the Congested Districts Board (Scotland) Act, or does the Government contemplate the reintroduction of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill; and, if so, when?
  Mr. URE: My predecessor in office and I have, after careful consideration of the provisions of the existing Act, reached the conclusion that under it the Congested Districts Board has power to hold land. Amending legislation in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend is, therefore, in my judgment, unnecessary.
  Mr. WEIR: In view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board Report just issued, and signed by the Secretary for Scotland, throws a doubt on the point, will he ask the Secretary for Scotland to amend his statement so that it may agree with the opinion of the Law Officers?
  Mr. URE: I am quite in agreement with my predecessor that the Congested Districts Board have power to hold land.
  Mr. COCHRANE: May I ask whether the opinion which the Lord Advocate has expressed regarding the power of the Congested Districts Board to hold land is in accordance with the opinion expressed by his predecessors?
  Mr. URE: It is entirely in accordance with the opinion of my immediate predecessor. I am not aware that the Law Officers were ever consulted on this question previous to its being submitted to my immediate predecessor, myself, and the Solicitor-General.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date when that opinion was expressed by the Law Officer?
  Mr. URE: I cannot at this moment give the date, but it was certainly anterior to the commencement of the present Session.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been hitherto based on the assumption that such a power did not belong to him?
  Mr. URE: I believe my hon. Friend is quite right. I believe the question was only considered for the first time by my immediate predecessor in office.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Is there any way of reviewing the matter and obtaining a definite decision on this point?
  Mr. URE: Challenge of the action of the Congested Districts Board may be made in an appropriate court.

  Police Weekly Rest Day (Committee's Report).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet seen the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of the Police Forces (Weekly Rest Day); and, if so, how and when he proposes to give effect to the recommendations contained in it?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): If the hon. Member will kindly put his question down again on Monday, Pith June, the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make a statement upon the matter.

  Middlesex Sessions (Flogging Sentence).
  Mr. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the punishment of John Byrnes, sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions to 12 strokes of the lash and 12 months' imprisonment, is. still under the consideration of the Home Office; whether the offence was only that of an old man asking for charity; and whether, therefore, in the interests of humanity, he will cancel or reduce the sentence?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary of State has advised the remission of that portion of the sentence which imposed corporal punishment. In view of the fact that the prisoner had in all 35 previous convictions for begging, and had several times previously been convicted as an incorrigible rogue, and was on this occasion drunk as well as engaged in begging, the Secretary of State finds no sufficient reason for recommending any further interference.

  Church in Wales (Royal Commission).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a minority of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales

  1175
  have objected and still object to the separate presentation to Parliament of two selected volumes of the evidence taken by the Commission without the third volume which contains the evidence of the four Welsh Bishops, and which volume is already in print; and whether, in view of this objection on the part of the minority, he proposes to advise His Majesty to issue His Royal Consent for the separate presentation of such mutilated evidence to Parliament?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As no interim Report has been received from the Royal Commission the question of tendering advice to His Majesty on this point has not arisen.
  Mr. JOYN SON -HICKS: Will it be necessary before the Report is presented to Parliament for the right hon. Gentleman to advise His Majesty on the point?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware whether any such Report is to be presented. As I have said in a previous answer, if a Royal Commission presents a Report, or an interim Report, that Report has to be presented to the King, and the Secretary of State is the adviser of his Majesty as to the presentation of the Report to Parliament.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is not the publication of the evidence in the nature of an interim Report, and must not that receive the sanction of His Majesty?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No evidence can be presented except in connection with a Report or interim Report.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will repeat his first answer, which was not heard by those of us who are far from the Throne of Grace?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are over 70 questions on the Paper. We cannot have the answers repeated without detriment to the chances of some Members getting their answers.

  Germany and France (Import Duties).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the import duties in Germany and France may be altered annually or are the traders and manufacturers in these countries kept from suspense as to alterations of tariffs dealing with their trades for longer periods than one year?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): There is nothing to prevent the legislatures of Germany or France from altering the tariffs of import duties in force in those countries as often as they may see fit, so far as these duties are not fixed by commercial treaties with other countries, but in practice it is usual for these tariffs to remain substantially unaltered for several years. So far as the tariff rates are established by commercial treaties with other countries, the power of the legislatures to alter those rates is of course restricted while the treaties remain in force.

  Companies Act, 1907 (Payment of Interest out of Capital).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications the Board of Trade has received under Section 9 of the Companies Act, 1907, for permission to pay interest out of capital during the period of construction of works; how many of such applications have been granted and how many refused; and whether he can publish any regulations which would act as a guide to companies applying for such permission?
  Mr. TENNANT: Five applications have been made to the Board of Trade for permission to pay interest out of capital during construction. Of these applications three have been granted, one has been refused, and one application was not proceeded with by the applicants. I do not think that any regulations could be usefully published which would act as a guide to companies making application to the Board of Trade. The section to which the hon. Member refers is very clear in its terms, and I do not think that anything could well be added by regulations, for the circumstances will necessarily be different in each case.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the nature of the works that were under construction to which this privilege applies?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think I ought to have notice of that. One of them was a railway company.

  Trade Marks Registry (Bradford Dyers' Association).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an application

  1177
  lodged with the keeper of cotton marks at the Manchester branch of the Trade Marks Registry by the Bradford Dyers' Association for the registration of the letters 13. D. A. under the provisions of section 62 of the Trade Marks Act of 1905; whether he is aware that some three years ago the same association applied for a similar registration under section 64 of the Act, and were refused under the provisions of subsection 10 (c); whether the provisions of section 62 are intended to apply only for registration in such cases in which the Board of Trade may consider it to be to the public advantage; whether the same section has ever been invoked to grant the registration of letters as a trade mark in the case of any commercial company; whether the Board of Trade have received any representations on the subject; and whether he will postpone the granting of his permission until a full inquiry can be held into the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am aware of the application referred to. The Board of Trade have received representations from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce with regard to it, and are meeting representatives of the Chamber to-day in order to give them an opportunity of fully expressing their views.

  Old Age Pensions (Expenditure in Ireland).
  Mr. MENZIESasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated expenditure for old age pensions in Ireland for 1909–10; and what is the estimated increased revenue from Ireland under present Budget proposals to meet this expenditure, exclusive of her proportion of the increased naval expenditure?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Out of the £8,750,000 estimated to be required for old age pensions in the current year about £2,500,000 is payable in Ireland. It is not possible to earmark any specific portion of the additional revenue required to be raised for the needs of the public service generally to any particular head of expenditure.
  Mr. MENZIES: Is it not possible for the hon. Member to give us the amount of the taxation which is due from Ireland under the proposals of the present Budget?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the question addressed to me, which is, "What is the estimated increased revenue from Ire-
  1178
  land under the present Budget, exclusive of her proportion of the increased naval expenditure 7"

  Customs and Excise Amalgamation.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the terms of reference to the Committee of Inquiry considering the Customs and Excise amalgamation will admit of the salary case of the second-class examining officers of Customs being discussed before them; and, if not, will he take steps to have the terms of reference extended in order that this may be done?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The terms of reference to the Amalgamation Committee do not preclude discussion of the scale of salaries paid to examining officers, second class, so far as the Committee may deem necessary for the purposes of their inquiry_

  King's Bench Division (Arrears of. Business).
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Attorney-General how in any special jury actions, No. 2 List, published for hearing last week, have been tried or disposed of since Monday, 17th May; and if he can state how ninny special jury actions are now set down for trial, and when he anticipates such list can be disposed of?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): In reply to the first part of the right hon. Member's question, one part-heard case in No. 2 List was taken last week and adjourned until 25th May instant. In reply to the latter part of the question, 265 special jury actions are awaiting trial, but it is impossible to form any idea when they can be disposed of.
  Sir E. CARSON: Within a year?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I would not like to pledge myself to any sort of definite date.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does it not really amount to a denial of justice?
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General if he can state how many cases of all kinds which are ready for hearing now remain for disposal in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and when he anticipates the arrears will be cleared off?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The total number of cases now ready for hearing in the King's Bench Division is 819. It is impossible for the officers of the court to form any-

  1179
  idea as to when these cases are likely to he disposed of, as so much depends upon the nature and length of each particular case.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General if he can state how many judges have been occupied in the Court of Criminal Appeal during the present term, and for what period of time; whether his attention has been called to the dislocation of business in the King's Bench Division owing to the constant withdrawal of judges for the purpose of hearing cases in the Court of Criminal Appeal; and whether it is intended to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Court of Criminal Appeal has sat on 17 days-. up to and including May 24—during the present term. The court was composed of three judges on 12 occasions and of five judges on five occasions. My attention has been called to the state of business in the King's Bench Division, and I would respectfully refer the right hon. Member to an answer given by my right hon. Friend the. Prime Minister upon the subject on Monday last., the 17th instant. This matter is under the earnest consideration of the Government.
  Sir E. CARSON: Has consideration been given to the immense cost to which litigants are put by reason of cases being postponed, the hearing broken off, witnesses being sent away, and matters of that sort?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am not in a position to deny the consequences which are suggested as the necessary and inevitable result of delay in the hearing of cases.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if a sufficient number of judicial appointments might not properly be made from among hon. Gentlemen behind him?
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: May I ask whether it is not the fact that if all the judges attended to their work there would be plenty of judges for all the business to be done?
  Sir W ROBSON: I think all the judges do attend to their work, and rather more than attend to their work. A very great amount of judicial work is done out of judicial hours. Judgments are reserved, and they are much more carefully considered than in the olden time. There is
  1180
  not the slightest reason to suggest that the arrears which have now taken place are due to any lack of most earnest vigilant care and industry on the part of the judges.
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the arrears of cases awaiting trial in the King's Bench Division, three judges were obliged to sit last week in the Court of Criminal Appeal, one in the Court of Appeal, one in the Railway and Canal Commission Court, and one at the Old Bailey; and how many judges were available for carrying on the general business of the King's Bench Division?
  Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: The right hon. Member has been correctly informed as to the allocation of business amongst the judges of the King's Bench Division last week--from Monday. 17th May, to Friday, 21st May, six judges sat. daily for the disposal of the general business of the King's Bench Division.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the Attorney-General represent seriously to the Prime Minister the great need for more judges?

  Evicted Tenants (County Carlow).
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many cases of evicted tenants in county Carlow have been placed on the list of the Estates Commissioners; how many of that number have been provided with new holdings or reinstated in their old ones; and what steps have been taken to provide holdings for the remaining unprovided cases?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, for the Chief Secretary): Seven evicted tenants in county Carlow, or their representatives, have been reinstated in their former holdings by the Estates Commissioners, three have been provided with holdings on untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners, and:33 have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of land when acquired. Three others have been reinstated by landlords.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Prime Minister whether he has received copies of resolutions passed at recent meetings held at Nigg, Portmahomack, Hilton of Cadboll, Balintore, and Hill of Fearn (Easter Ross),

  1181
  strongly urging the Government to reintroduce the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and to take such steps as may be necessary to limit the veto of the House of Lords; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes; Sir, I have received the resolutions referred to by my hon. Friend. I cannot at the moment say more than that the matters referred to are not being lost sight of.

  Budget Proposals (Yield of New Taxes).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether in his statement that the new taxation imposed by the Budget upon property is evenly balanced by that upon consumers of commodities, he took into his consideration the inevitable increase in the yield of the former after the first year, as compared with the probable automatic decrease of the yield of the latter; and whether he has formed any estimate as to how long the balance of new taxation to which he referred can be maintained?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The comparison to which the hon. Member refers was expressly stated to be between the estimated yield of the proposed new taxes in the current year. How long the balance is likely to be maintained is a matter of speculation, but I do not, as at present advised, share the hon. Member's view as to the probabilities of the increase and decrease in the future of the respective kinds of revenue.
  Mr. G. R. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement distinctly told us that in the case of almost every new tax on property there would be a progressive increase, and if that be so, was it a fair way to state the case?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it was a perfectly fair way. I confined my estimate to the present year.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: When he made the statement referred to did he take into consideration the fact that the consumers of the taxed commodities are paying ten times more than the increase that comes to the Exchequer.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That was not within my purview at the moment.

  Empire Day.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to
  1182
  the contradictory regulations issued by the Ministers in charge of the War Office and Post Office with reference to the attendance at Empire Day parades of those under their control; and what steps he proposes to take to bring the practice of these two Departments into harmony?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of anything contradictory in the regulations issued. The conditions with which the two Departments have to deal are not the same.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that schoolboys in uniform are prohibited, while postal officials in uniform may attend?

  Westminster Abbey.
  Mr. GODFREY BARINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to certain recent occurrences, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation vesting the control of sepultures in Westminster Abbey in some authority other than that of the Dean of Westminster?
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Prime Minister if, inasmuch as Westminster Abbey has developed from a local cathedral into the national Valhalla, he will consider whether the time has come for legislation whereby the duty of awarding the honour of burial within its walls should be transferred from the custodian of the fabric to sonic authority representative of the nation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not able to express any opinion on this matter without much more time and consideration than I have been able to give to it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask if he can say who is the final authority with reference to the Abbey to decide matters of the kind?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe the Dean.
  Mr. A. LYULPH STANLEY (Cheshire): Can he say if Westminster Abbey ever has been a Cathedral in the proper sense of the term or a Valhalla?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know the technical meaning of either of those terms.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not a fact that the right of sepulture to any person, however eminent, absolutely depends on the veto for the time being of the Dean of Westminster?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that is so.
  Mr. MacNEILL: When are you going to alter it?

  Dramatic Censorship.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to recent incidents in connection with the existing dramatic censorship, and also to prosecutions of music - hall managers for the performance of stage plays; whether the Government contemplate any legislation on these subjects; and, if not, should the House consent to give a second reading to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs and supported by members belonging to all political parties whether he would be prepared to appoint a Select Committee to examine the Bill, and hear evidence, on the understanding that the Bill would not be further pressed during the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a very important matter and it is receiving careful consideration. I do not know what may be the fortunes of my hon. Friend's Bill, but I am disposed to agree with him that the time has come for some such inquiry as he suggests.

  Valuable Pictures and Death Duty.
  Mr. THORNTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of registering officially valuable pictures owned by individuals and so keeping them on the same footing as family heirlooms attached to estates by deferring the payment of death duty upon all such works of art until they are actually sold?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I explained in my Budget speech that I propose to extend to free estates the concession made by section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, under which exemption from Estate Duty is granted in respect of objects of national, scientific or historic interest forming part of a settled estate. The Estate Duty in respect of such objects will, therefore, under my proposals, only become chargeable if and when they are actually sold.

  Spirit Duties and Liquor Licences.
  Mr. MENZIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the contribution
  1184
  per head of the population in Spirit Duties and in Liquor Licences separately in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, under his proposals for 1909–10; and what is his estimate of this same contribution for 1910–11 in duties and licences separately and in each country, respectively, if levied at the same rate.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The estimated contribution per head of population to the additional revenue estimated to be derived from the increase in the rates of duty upon spirits and Liquor Licences respectively in the three Kingdoms in the current year is:—

  Spirits.

  Licences.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  England and Wales

  0

  7¾

  1

  3¾

  Scotland

  1

  2½

  0

  7¾

  Ireland

  0

  9¼

  0

  4¾

  I am not in a position to give an estimate for 1910–11.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if those figures are based upon the amount of spirit imported into these countries or manufactured in the respective countries or consumed there?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand they are on the basis of consumption in these countries.
  Mr. MOONEY: If that estimate is based on the amount of spirit which is duty paid in Ireland, but which is exported to England or Scotland, it would mean a very considerable difference.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is based on consumption, not on manufacture.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is he not aware he has already stated the only way that the consumption can be arrived at is by finding out the amount of Spirit Duty paid in Ireland and where a large amount paid is for spirit for consumption in other countion?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would rather have notice of that question.
  Mr. MENZIES: Is it not the case that the Spirit Duty, through forestalment and other reasons, would be very little this year and much larger in future years, and will he on that account not reconsider the amount of Spirit Duty this year?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not quite clear as to what is the point put to me-by my hon. Friend. Does he want the matter reconsidered?
  Mr. MENZIES: Owing to the fact that the duty this year, through forestalment and other reasons, is less than it will be next year, will he not, for that reason, reconsider the proposal for the tax, so far as the duty is concerned for this year?

  Petrol (Price in Ireland).
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the price of petrol is always higher in Ireland than in England; that the retail price of petrol per gallon, before the Budget was introduced, was 1s. in Dublin as corn-pared with 10d. in London, and that the price is now 1s. 4d. in Dublin and 1s. 2d. in London; and whether he would recommend a rebate on petrol used in Ireland, so as to equalise the cost of it in both countries?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that the price of petrol varies in different parts of the United Kingdom, but I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Channel Islands and Income Tax.
  Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an apprehension exists among persons residing in Jersey and other Channel Islands in various employments, who have hitherto been entitled to the same deductions or refunds of Income Tax as if living in England, that they will henceforward be treated for this purpose as if they resided out of the United Kingdom, and thereby be disentitled to such deductions or refunds; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to meet the case of such persons?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I do not see my way to treat residents in the Channel Islands as other than residents outside the United Kingdom.

  Colonial Companies' Dividends.
  Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a notice issued on 18th May by the Inland Revenue Department notifying that dividends entrusted by Colonial companies to an agent in this country for payment here (presumably for shareholders resident either here or abroad), and also like dividends which, although not entrusted to an agent in this country for payment, are realised in the United Kingdom through bankers and others; and whether he is aware that, in
  1186
  consequence of this notice, Colonial companies are now considering arrangements for the payment of their dividends through bankers abroad and the removal of such business from their agents in this country; and whether he has considered the loss of business thus involved to the mercantile community, the volume of such business, and the business connected or consequent thereon being large, and affecting more or less all the British Colonial mining companies in the Empire and their connection with the mother country?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No new departure is involved in the issue of the notice referred to in the question, it having been the custom now for many years past to issue similar notices on the passing of the Income Tax Resolution. There does not appear to me to be anything in the present notice which should cause any alteration in the arrangements made by Colonial companies for the payment of their dividends.

  Oudh and Rohilkund Railway.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that complaints are made in India of the insufficiency of the station staff at Lucknow to cope with any sudden increase in the local traffic of the Oudh and Rohilkund Railway; and whether he will inquire into the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (in the absence of Mr. Buchanan): The Secretary of State has received no information as to the complaints referred to by the hon. Member, but he has no doubt that if they are brought to the notice of the Railway Board they will receive due attention.

  Madras Medical College.
  Mr. MOONEY (for Mr. Kettle)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the present president of the Medical College, Madras, was appointed to that post after having acted as surgeon on the personal staff of three successive governors of Madras; and what educational experience this gentleman possesses to qualify him for his present appointment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The present principal of the Medical College, Madras, was surgeon to the Governor of Madras from May, 1892, to February, 1902. He has also held various other appointments in the medical service, and was professor of medical jurisprudence and professor of surgery for 21 years before he became

  1187
  principal. The appointment is one for which the authorities in India are responsible, and the Secretary of State sees no reason to question the propriety of their selection.

  Indian Medical Service.
  Mr. MOONEY (for Mr. Kettle)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the policy of the Government of India to make use of the civil branch of the Indian Medical Service as a reserve of officers for the Indian Army; whether it is proposed in case of war to withdraw officers of the Indian Medical Service from the posts which they hold at present in all the important civil medical institutions; and, if so, whether any provision is or will be made to fill their places?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The civil side of the Indian Medical Service is intended to be used to a considerable extent as a war reserve; but the officers holding the more important and specialised posts in civil medical institutions are not regarded as a part of the war reserve.

  Income Tax on Dividends.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what date the increased Income Tax would become payable; whether he was aware that some bankers were deducting Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound on dividends accruing from 1st November last and due on 1st May; and whether, in that case, they should have deducted Income Tax at the increased rate for one month only, and not for the whole six?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The increased rate of Income Tax is applicable for the year beginning on 6th April last. If the dividends referred to are dividends on foreign or Colonial securities the deduction at 1s. 2d. in the pound was correct.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Is it right to deduct Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound on dividends which accrued five months before 5th April?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am only following the usual practice, but if there is any reason for a departure I shall be quite willing to consider it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question if I raise it at a future time?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will always very carefully consider any representations made by the hon. Baronet.
  Mr. J. F. CHEETHAM: Does the same practice apply to dividends on Indian railway stocks?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I assume that the practice is the same; the same principle seems to apply.

  Income Tax (British Chaplains Serving Abroad).
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to continue the abatements and relief from Income Tax hitherto enjoyed by British chaplains serving abroad'?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see my way to make a special exception in the case of British chaplains serving abroad other than military and naval chaplains resident abroad on duty.

  Income,- Tax (Foreign and Colonial Dividends).
  Sir GILBERT PARKER (on behalf of Mr. Fell)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state on what grounds instructions had been issued by the Treasury that Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound must be deducted from foreign and Colonial dividends for the half-year ending 31st March if such dividends happened to be paid after the introduction of the Budget?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the same subject on the 24th instant.

  Customs Department (Promotions).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether, as admitted by the Secretary to the Treasury in the Debate on the Estimates in June, 1908, paucity of promotions existed in the Customs Department; if vacancies at present occurring in the grades of first and second class examining officers were being filled by the transfer of Excise officials to the further detriment of deserving officers, whose period of waiting was already considerably in excess of the average; and whether, if such was the case, it was proposed to compensate officers so affected in any way?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The action that has been taken by the Board of Customs and Excise is of the nature of a temporary

  1189
  expedient, pending full consideration of the whole question of amalgamation by the Departmental Committee which has been appointed by the Treasury. In the interests of public economy it is clear that, so long as there are redundant officers, employment must be found for them on duties suitable to their rank. Any other alternative would involve the addition of new entrants to the establishment, with a correspondingly increased charge on the Vote.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the Excise officers who have been transferred to fill vacancies in the grades of first and second class examining officers being paid their old salaries as Excise officers, or higher salaries adequate to the work they are now doing?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I ought to have notice of that question.

  Customs Department (Salaries).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury, when Financial Secretary to the Treasury, admitted in the House of Commons on 16th May, 1907, that the disparity between the salaries of clerks and officers of Customs was greater than anyone anticipated it would be; and whether steps would be taken by the Committee of Inquiry now sitting to carry out the right lion. Gentleman's wish that some means should be found to lessen this disparity?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on this subject. The Amalgamation Committee has been appointed in order to secure the fusion of the Customs and Excise staffs with the least possible hardship to the various grades affected, rather than to consider questions of this kind. I understand, however, that the salaries of clerks and officers will, necessarily, both come under the review of the Committee.

  Motor Taxation (Improvement of Roads).
  Sir ALFRED THOMASasked whether a direct grant would he made to minor local authorities, out of the fund proposed to be raised from the taxation of motor cars and petrol, towards the improvement and maintenance of roads within their areas now maintained by urban district councils?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I explained in my Budget speech that I propose that the
  1190
  revenue raised by the taxation of motor cars and petrol shall be placed at the disposal of a central authority, who will make grants to local authorities for schemes of road improvements, etc. I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend any further information until the Bill dealing with my proposals in connection with this matter has been issued to the House.
  Mr. HORATIO MYER: Will these sums be ear-marked for the purpose named, so that local authorities cannot use the money so granted for other purposes?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The money will be spent only for the purpose of carrying out schemes submitted by the local authorities to the central authority.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will these grants be for the benefit of the ordinary users of the roads—that is, in relief of the rates—or to cover additional expenditure, in the interest of motorists?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They will be for improvements in the roads referable to motor traffic. Some of those improvements are at present carried out at the expense of the rates, and to that extent the grants will be a relief to the rates.
  Captain G. BARING (Winchester): Will these improvements be carried out in London streets?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If there are any schemes for the improvement of roads in London for motor traffic it will be quite within the competence of this authority to consider schemes of that kind.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): What interest have motor 'buses plying in London in the improvement of roads in the country?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a point the hon. Member should advance in debate.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I did so last night.

  Drummond. Estate, Castleisland (Case of J. Harrington).
  Mr. BOLAND (on behalf of Mr. John Murphy)asked whether the Estates Commissioners were aware that Mr. Jeremiah Harrington, of Knocknachue, Castle-island, county Kerry, a tenant on the Drummond estate, which was now before them, was about being evicted by the landlord; and whether the Commissioners could take any steps to prevent the eviction?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for the sale of this estate were only lodged in September last. It will be dealt with in its order of priority, but its turn will not come for some years. No agreement has been signed by Jeremiah Harrington, who is, therefore, still liable for rent. The Commissioners cannot interfere in any proceedings which the owner may take to collect such rent.

  Morrogh Bernard Estate, County Kerry (Inspection).
  Mr. BOLAND (on behalf of Mr. John Murphy)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state what purpose took Mr. West, of the Estates Commissioners' Department., on the lands of Upper and Lower Faha, Morrogh Bernard estate, county Kerry, on 20th May; and whether he was met by the evicted tenant and had to procure police protection to carry out his inspection, as the evicted tenant strongly protested against the apparent purpose of the Commissioners to sell 250 acres of untenanted land to a person at present in the Argentine Republic?
  Mr. CHERRY: An inspector visited the property on the 20th instant for the purposes of estimating the price of the lands to he repurchased by the vendor under section 3 of the Irish Land Act, 190:3, and as he was interfered with by one of the evicted tenants from the property whose application had been rejected by the Commissioners, he sent for the local sergeant of the police, and proceeded with his inspection without further interference.

  Territorial Army (Compensation for Injuries).
  Mr. WARINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that the authorities in the Scottish command had disallowed the claim of a trooper in the Lothians and Border Horse for compensation for injuries to his horse when riding to camp in uniform; whether there had been other disallowances of the same kind; and on what grounds such disallowances were made?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Paragraphs 660 to 662 of the Territorial Force Regulations lay down the conditions under which compensation for injuries to horses can be granted, and in the case of a man on his way to camp paragraph 680 (a) lays down that he must
  1192
  be with a detachment under the command of an officer or non-commissioned officer not below the rank of sergeant. Claims for compensation are decided by the general officer commanding-in-chief.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the question of the efficiency or inefficiency of the men concerned nothing whatever to do with the matter
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not see what. that has to do with this question. I have merely read the regulations which lay down the conditions for compensation for injuries.

  Ravelin Battery, Sheerness.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the two 9.2-inch guns in the Ravelin battery at Sheerness had been fired with full charges since they had been mounted; and what was the cause of the delay in handing them over, seeing that they were tested in October, 1906, and were not handed over to the Royal Artillery till February. 1908.
  Mr. HALDANE: These guns were fired with full charges on completion of their mounting in October, 1906. Owing to the difficulty in getting satisfactory foundations it was anticipated that some settlements would occur after the guns were mounted. The actual amount of settlement, however, proved to be small, and did not affect the efficiency or serviceability of the battery. The actual formal handing over after test of mountings was deferred on account of certain subsidiary work, such as tree planting, fencing, etc., which did not affect the structure of the battery. and which was not completed until November, 1907.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I take it that these guns are in perfect working order at the present time?
  Mr. HALDANE: I believe so.

  Enteric Fever (Military Medical Treatment).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for War if he was aware that several non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, who had been found to be enteric germ-carriers, having contracted enteric fever in India and elsewhere abroad, were confined as such, and had been for many months in military hospitals; that various experiments had been tried on them by inoculation and other means so far, ap-

  1193
  parently, without result; and if he could say under what section of the Army Act these soldiers were deprived for such long and indefinite periods of their liberty?
  Mr. HALDANE: The question evidently refers to the seven non-commissioned officers and men under treatment at Mill-bank Military Hospital. I am informed that the condition of these cases rendered them dangerous to their comrades in barracks. It was, therefore, decided, on the recommendation of the Army Medical Advisory Board, to place them under special treat went to see if their condition is curable. This treatment has met with encouraging results, and one, at least, of the cases, it is hoped, has been cured. Although patients in hospital, they are allowed considerable freedom, and are not treated as ordinary patients, but rather as convalescents.
  Captain CLIVE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long these men are likely to he confined against their will?
  Mr. HALDANE: They will be free so soon as the danger of the bacilli which they brought to this country has been destroyed.
  Captain CLIVE: Is it not, quite an unproved theory in regard to this germ carrying?
  Mr. HALDANE: No; I do not think so. The advance in medical science on this subject within the last two years has been enormous.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are these experiments being made with the sanction of the men; and in the case of permanent injury to their health will the men be pensioned'?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not know why the hon. Member treats these as experiments; they are a well-known ascertained cure.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: Will the right Lon. Gentleman be so good as to lay Papers on the subject of these interesting pathological investigations?
  Mr. HALDANEwas understood to say that he would have no objection to so doing.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: While they are detained are these men in receipt of full pay?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are certain deductions made from the pay of men in hospital, but they are on the active list.

  Territorial Army (Royal Engineers).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state how far the Royal Engineers of the Territorial Army are still in difficulties as to training, likely to affect interest in their work, and caused in part by lack of necessary stores and arms; if he can say how many works or balloon companies are without mining, bridging, or balloon stores, or in possession only of stores officially called in; how many electric, wireless, air-line, cable, and search-light companies are without modern plant; whether he can explain the position of the engineer companies as regards facilities for instruction in electrical and technical duties; and whether it is now proposed to lend to unarmed companies defective arms for use in camp?
  Mr. HALDANE: All the Royal Engineer units of the Territorial Force, except the wireless and balloon companies, are receiving sufficient equipment for training. Instructions to demand the stores have been given and the stores are being issued. Wireless equipment cannot be issued until a supply now under manufacture for the regular units has been received, when experimental equipment now held by them will be liberated and issued to the 'Territorial units. In the present condition of balloon equipment and the modification likely to be made by the introduction of dirigible balloons, it is not thought desirable to issue equipment to the Territorial balloon units. They will train at Aldershot with the regular unit. Small stores, however, for instruction are being issued. No technical equipment that is obsolete is being issued to any Territorial Royal Engineer units, but it must be remembered that the latest pattern cannot in all cases be issued to even the regular units. It is intended to arm all the Territorial Royal Engineer units with the long rifle.

  Territorial Army (Group-Command and Staff).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state when group-command and staff were arranged for Royal Engineers (Territorial); whether committees and sub-committees of county associations are now to communicate direct with officers commanding the various companies or with officers commanding groups of units of Royal Garrison Artillery and Royal Engineers (Territorial); and how the direction contained in a recent War Office Order that the Engineer unit is the company rather than the

  1195
  group can be prevented from affecting the control of group-commanders and their staffs appointed under Appendix 3 to the Territorial Force Regulations?
  Mr. HALDANE: The group-command and staff for Royal Engineers were provided for by Special Army Order of 18th March, 1908. Committees and sub-committees of county associations are to communicate on administrative and financial questions direct with the officers commanding companies of Royal Garrison Artillery and Royal Engineers. The officer commanding a group of companies is responsible for command and training, but is not directly concerned in administration and finance.

  Territorial Regiments (King's Presentation of Colours).
  Mr. ILLINGWORTHasked the Secretary of State for War if, in order to commemorate the occasion of the presentation of colours to the Territorial regiments at Windsor Castle by His Majesty the King on 19th June, he will consider the advisability of presenting some medal or badge to the selected men who will attend to receive the colours on behalf of their regiments?
  Mr. HALDANE: The proposal has been considered, but the Army Council do not regard it as practicable.

  Yeomanry Recruits Medical Examination.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is frequently the case that medical men are allowed only Is. per head for every Yeomanry recruit who is passed, and that they receive no payment for the examination of recruits who are not passed; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending this system, which offers a distinct inducement to medical men to pass recruits who on the outbreak of war might be found unfit for service?
  Mr. HALDANE: The fees paid for the medical examination are at the discretion of the county associations. They are not limited to a ls. rate when payment is made, nor are they precluded from paying for men examined but not passed.

  Pimlico Clothing Factory (Buttonholers' Wages).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware
  1196
  that the buttonholers at the Pimlico Clothing Factory have had their wages reduced from 3s. to 5s. per week without any help, assistance, improvement, or modification of operation; whether he can state the reason for such reduction; what is the average amount per week deducted; to what purpose is the money to be applied: whether the buttonholers are the only operatives whose wages have been reduced; whether he is aware that these prices have been in operation for 16 years; and whether, under the circumstances, after making allowances for the strain upon these women, and the many years that they have had this price, whether he can restore to them their old position?
  Mr. HALDANE: I answered at some length a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 11th inst., and stated the wages earned. The readjustment of piecework rates is an ordinary factory procedure. As stated by the hon. Member, the piecework rate for buttonholing was fixed very many years ago, and it has now been adjusted on a basis which enables the worker to earn wages which in the ordinary trade would be considered very good. Having been very thoroughly into the question, I must say I see no reason for increasing the rates now in force.

  Admiralty Private and Confidential Documents.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to insure that in future a register shall be kept showing when and to whom copies of private or confidential documents are issued from the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Thank you.

  Housing of Working Classes (London).
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the London County Council has determined to sell the land purchased for the housing of the working classes in Tottenham, he will press forward with the Housing and Town Planning Bill in order that a scheme for a garden city suburb may be submitted to him for his approval when that Bill becomes law?
  Mr. J. H. WHITLEY (for Mr. Burns): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister on Monday last, in which he stated that the Government hope to make provision for the

  1197
  further progress of the Housing and Town Planning Bill when the Finance Bill has been read a second time, and soon after Whitsuntide. I can assure him that I am quite as anxious as he is that the Bill should proceed with all practicable speed.

  Edinburgh School Board and Catholic Children.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether he is now in a position to state under what provision of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Edinburgh School Board has refused to grant free books to the children in Catholic schools within their district of parents in necessitous circumstances?
  Mr. URE: I am informed by the Edinburgh School Board that, in declining applications from seven parents of children attending Catholic schools, who stated that they were in necessitous circumstances, the board were acting under section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the passage of the Bill through Grand Committee the Government specially extended the area in that district in order to exactly cover these cases?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of that. The power which is given to the school board leaves the matter entirely within their discretion.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it was a fact that it was the intention of the Scottish Grand Committee that the children of all religious denominations should be treated alike?
  Mr. URE: Yes, Sir; and the school board, as I understood it, treat them all alike and consider each case on its own merits. They give a grant wherever they find the necessity arises.
  Mr. BOLAND: May I ask whether in this particular case any applications were made and refused on the ground that the parents were not in necessitous circumstances, or on what grounds?
  Mr. URE: Yes, Sir; I understand the Edinburgh School Board refused them on the ground that the parents, in their judgment, were not in necessitous circumstances.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I inquire whether a distinction was made by reason of religion, as in the case of the Swansea school?
  Mr. URE: So far as I am aware, none.

  Edinburgh Unemployed.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Edinburgh Distress Committee have been able to settle their difference with the Scottish Local Government Board?
  Mr. URE: There was never any difference between the Scottish Local Government Board and the Distress Committee relative to the allocation of the grant for the relief of the unemployed.
  Mr. PRICE: Then do I understand that the Edinburgh Distress Committee received the grants for which they applied?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir, the Distress Committee did not receive all the money for which they made application, but that was not due to the action of the Scottish Local Government Board.

  Finance and Development Grant Bills.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Development Bill will be introduced this evening, as well as the Finance Bill; or will it be introduced in any case before the second reading of the Finance Bill is taken?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Development Bill will not be drafted until the Resolution has been carried. Therefore it cannot possibly be introduced.
  Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether we shall be asked to vote for the second reading of the Bill that is to impose motor and petrol taxes without knowing what are the provisions by which the Government propose to put into their Bill as to the allotment of these taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The one Bill is to raise money; the other Bill is to expend it. They are two totally different propositions.

  Ladies' Gallery (New Regulations).
  Mr. H. MYER: May I raise a question, Sir, as to the rights and privileges of the Members of this House? In common with other Members I balloted for seats in the Ladies' Gallery. I was successful in obtaining two seats for to-day. I find that there is a notice printed on the ticket: "This ticket is only available for the

  1199
  relative of a Member to whom it is issued." Can you, Sir, define what is the degree of affinity which constitutes the relative of a Member? Is it consanguinity alone that is the qualification?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must decline altogether the task that the hon. Member imposes upon me. I must leave it to the conscience of every Member to say in what relationship the lady stands to him.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE.— [Thursday, 27th May.]
  Resolved: "That this House do meet Tomorrow, at Twelve of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
WAYS AND MEANS.
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS. REPORT.
  Resolution [12th May] reported,

  LAND VALUE DUTIES.
  That on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the following duties be charged in respect of land:—

  (i) A duty on any increment value accruing after the said date at the rate of one pound for every full. five pounds of that value, the duty to be taken on the occasion of the transfer, or the grant of a lease of the land, and on the occasion of the death of any person where the property passing on his death comprises any such land, and in the case of land belonging to a body corporate or unincorporate on such periodical occasions as Parliament may determine;

  (ii) A duty on the value of any benefit accruing to a lessor by reason of the determination of a lease at the rate of one pound for every ten pounds of that value;

  (iii) An annual duty in respect of the capital site value of land which has not been developed for building or other purposes, and the capital value of ungotten minerals, at the rate of one halfpenny- for every pound of that value.

  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I suppose that there is no part of the large and miscellaneous financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman which has excited more general interest than this proposal as to land value. The few remarks with which I mean to trouble the House I shall devote almost entirely to the effect of the contemplated taxes upon certain societies holding property under certain conditions. There is, however, one matter of general interest on which I should be glad to have the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted we should have in this Budget speech when we came to the discussion in Committee. I refer to the question of valuation. If these taxes are imposed without hardship and uncertainty or possible inequaliy they must be imposed upon a clear and satisfactory scheme of valuation. Now the right hon. Gentleman lin his Budget speech spoke as to the difficulty that stood in the way of framing any such scheme of valuation. He said:—
  "These proposals necessarily involve a Complete reconstruction of the methods of value in property…The intensely complex character of British land tenure introduces a further complication… The existing valuation lists on at animal value basis (even if they represented true annual values, which. in many cases. they do not) would be of little use to the purpose of determining capital values—the basis of the new duties—and it will therefore be necessary to pro-v de for a complete valuation on a capital basis of the whole of the land in the United Kingdom."
  He went on to say that he did not propose to deal with the latter in his Budget speech, but he would reserve it for discussion in Committee. The Question was raised in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman was asked to explain his scheme of valuation, and he said we should find it in the Finance Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Who asked that?
  Mr. YOUNGER: I asked it, for one.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: The Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk (Viscount Helmsley) asked it, and I feel pretty certain the right hon. Gentleman said he would not go into any discussion on that matter then, that it was perfectly simple and that the whole machinery would appear in the Finance Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Report he will find that it is very much as I say. What I am really anxious is that, having regard to the serious difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated in the scheme of valuation, we should at some early date know something of what he is going to do. It would not be very satisfactory, after taxes were imposed, that a

  1201
  scheme of valuation should follow afterwards. We have had some experience of similar procedure before. Last year there was a scheme of old age pensions, and during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman instituted an inquiry as to the proper machinery to be used, and this year—and only this year—we are raising the money. I think it would be very regrettable that taxation which excites a feeling and a good deal of interest and considerable hardship were to be imposed, and that a scheme of valuation which is to settle everything and to reassure everybody were not brought into existence until the taxes were imposed and levied. That is the one matter of general interest to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is another matter: any scheme of valuation or any system of valuation ought to proceed on some unit of valuation. The hon. Member for Chelmsford pressed, in the Debates in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman to state what was that valuation, was it to be the property taken as a whole, or was it the county in which a particular piece of property was, or was it the parish, or was it a plot of land which might be of one value at one end and another value at another? The reason I am anxious to be clear upon this point is that I am interested not merely in the whole subject, but on behalf of certain societies who hold property under certain conditions. The colleges and old universities cannot let land except on conditions rigorously defined by statute. They cannot sell land or use their capital without the permission of the Board of Agriculture, and, what is more, the income of their property is all appropriated by statutes passed by the University Commissioners and approved by the Crown and Parliament:, and the income is so appropriated that except in the case of a very limited number no one has any interests in any increase in the value of the property, it merely goes to advance the academic scientific educational purposes for which the statutes have been introduced. Now with regard to this new valuation, I should like to call the Chancellor's attention to a concrete case. It is the case of a society to which I belong. In the year 1878 the income of that college—so far as it was derived from land apart from dividends on invested money—was derived entirely from agricultural land. In the year 1878 agricultural land was flourishing. Rents were high, and the University Commissioners. having regard to the large pre-
  1202
  sent, and, as they thought, permanent. income, apportioned out their funds according to their requirements. Since 1878 this agricultural land has diminished by more than one-half, and probably that which was worth £21,000 in 1878 now brings in no more than £10,000.
  Mr. LIEF JONES: Where are these lands?
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I really do not think I need trouble the House with that. I shall be most happy to give the hon. Member all the particulars by and by, in the meantime about 20 years ago a college having property in Middlesex began to develop that property, and it has now come on to the point in the course of the last twenty years at which the total income from land amounts to three or four hundred pounds more than in 1878. I am speaking now on the Question of valuation and of what happened in the past. What happened in the past may very well happen again, and this is why:I want to be sure in regard to this question of valuation. Are you going to take the property which has increased in value and tax that without any reference to the property which has diminished in value? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that one of the reasons he gave why he was prepared to impose this tax was that the increased value was usually due to the enterprise of the community or the neighbouring landowner. I have a great regard for the local authorities of Middlesex, and in our case we have always lived on good terms with our neighbours, but I attribute this increase in value to a competent agent and to expenditure on road-making of over £70,000 in order to obtain access and frontage. To complete our plans we have bought land where it was necessary to the extent of £30,000, and we have spent over £100,000 in the development of this property, and have consequently lost income from interest, and have every year to provide a. considerable sum for the replacement of capital. Ought not losses upon agricultural value to be set off against the increment from other causes, more particularly when that increment is due not merely to good fortune or the enterprise of the community or the enterprise of the neighbouring landlord, but when it is clue to the careful and liberal expenditure of the owner of the property?
  I want to know will any allowance be made in this matter on account of this expenditure, and will the change in agricultural conditions which have depressed

  1203
  this property be taken into consideration? That is a fair question, I think, which turns upon what is the unit of valuation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take in estimating for this periodical charge. The energy expended in developing a certain portion of this property which has been purely our own energy has brought into possible building prospect a large and scattered property extending from Willesden to Edgware. About 1,500 acres of land are now let on tenancies from year to year, with a liability to be given up on short notice if required for building. Some of it may never be required for building, and it is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call undeveloped land, inasmuch as nowhere would the Board of Agriculture allow any part of it to be sold at less than £50 an acre, and they would probably insist upon a great deal more being asked for it. What I want to ask is, Why is it held that this land is not being used to the best advantage? I understand that one test in regard to undeveloped land is whether it is land which has not been used to the best advantage. We cannot use this land to any better advantage. The land is let for various agricultural purposes at the best rent we can get, and why should this land be taxed at £1, 30s., or £2 an acre when it cannot be devoted to any, better purpose?
  Why is this tax imposed? I have studied carefully the reasons stated in the Budget speech, and one reason was that a grasping landlord was keeping out of use land that was urgently wanted by the community For the health and comfort of the inhabitants. There is no question there of the land being kept out of reach. The reasonable thing to do if the community is injured by the retention of the land would be to give the community power to take it over. There has been no suggestion of that kind. As to the land not being put to the best use, we are developing it in the best way we can. We have held this land for 500 years, and we have suffered many things in times past, but no Tudor or Stuart ever ventured to treat us like the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am quite ready to make every acknowledgment to the Urban District Council of Willesden and the County Council of Middlesex for anything they have done in the matter, but I wish to point out that they are not going to be a penny richer for it, because the money will go into the Imperial Exchequer. I think if the community have done all this good they ought
  1204
  to get some benefit, but I deny that in this case the community has clone any good, or very little, at any rate, but I do not see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to confer any advantage whatever upon them.
  Let me take a concrete case which will show the way this proposal will work. I know of some land which is let for allotments belonging to my colleagues at Harlesden, and it is let at £4 6s. an acre. At the beginning of this year I was asked by persons interested in allotments whether they could not be bought at 25 years' purchase, or upon the agricultural value in order to retain them as allotments or open spaces. It so happens that a portion of this same land on which the allotments are let has been sold within the last 18 months for £1,000 an acre. But what would the Board of Agriculture have said if we had asked them to allow us to sell land at £110 an acre which any builder would give £1,000 an acre for? Here is land used for allotments which may at any moment come in for building, or be let at a building rent or sold for £1,000 an acre. We cannot develop it more than we have done, because the Board of Agriculture will not let us. and yet at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to impose a tax of £2 an acre upon it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why?
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: Because some of the land is worth £1,000 an acre.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: But is it worth that?
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: Well, if it is, I do not think it will be sold for much less. I will, however, put it at £500 an acre; then you charge £1 an acre, or tax us at the rate of 30s. or £2 an acre on land which is developed to the utmost of our power, and when it is developed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see, you will take 20 per cent. of the profit. He taxes this land because it is undeveloped, and directly it is developed he takes 20 per cent., and this in the case of a body who have not free control over the land, who cannot sell it without the consent of a Government Department, and cannot let it except on terms prescribed by statute. I point out these instances because I think they really show that even this form of taxation on undeveloped land—which it is almost impossible for anybody to define--will work very hardly on individuals and on society. It works

  1205
  particularly hard upon societies such as those which l have alluded to, who have not control over their land, and also upon individuals who will be at the mercy of some authority who will say that the land is capable of development, aria is therefore undeveloped at the present time.
  Whether it is or is not used to the best advantage, arid whether it is or is not worth more than £50 an acre, all these things are left absolutely uncertain. They may be set forth in the Bill, and if they are we shall have a considerable amount of reading to do during the Recess. If they are not we shall have considerable discussion during the Committee Stage of the Bill. What is this money taken from? The right hon. Gentleman may think that this is a mere trifle, and that this is a hardship which may occur to anybody and not worth consideration in so large a scheme as he is putting before the House and the country. It is, however, large enough to embarrass a society who can only use their money for the purpose of the advancement of learning and education. I do not wish to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with particular details, but I know the extreme disappointment to the society to which I belong when, after having at last, by the development of this society, which I have described, discharged their obligation to the university, and having obtained fresh powers to go further, having proposals before them which they conceived would be of great advantage to the university and education generally, they are told it is quite impossible to consider any of these matters because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the whole of the available surplus by his Budget proposals. At a time when new fields of inquiry are being constantly opened and new branches of study developed, when there is a new and keen desire for education in all branches of life, is it desirable under these circumstances to put this heavy burden upon the advancement of knowledge and the spread of education? I speak for one college and for one university only, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are other colleges and other universities which will suffer from similar treatment. There is something else that I would remind the right hon. Gentleman than the taxation of undeveloped land. There is an infinitude of ungotten wealth in the brain of your people—of your half-educated people. It is a poor record for a Liberal Government and a Free Trade Budget to put this heavy burden on the spring of the sources of intellectual wealth
  1206
  and on the extension and diffusion of knowledge, which ought to be the first business of any Government to foster and promote.
  Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: It must be in the mind of every Member of the House who is taking part in this Debate that, perhaps to an even greater degree than any other of the Budget Resolutions, the absence of any detailed information on Government proposals regarding land taxation reduces any well considered criticisms to necessarily very narrow limits. The little information which we necessarily possess with regard to details must limit the scope of our discussion. I admit that that is not the fault of the Government. It is rather due to the somewhat clumsy and obsolete system of procedure which for generations has characterised our method of dealing with the Finance Bill and our Budget proposal. I should have been glad if, under the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had extended his admirable innovation which he made in his Budget speech with regard to the more specific proposals in the future, and have circulated a second Memorandum explaining his proposals. We have had long discussions on this Question, especially from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I think that the whole tenor of their remarks has been focussed to the Question which is now under Debate. They have complained that land should be singled out for this taxation. In the remarks which I have to make I may have to express certain criticism in regard to this taxation. I cannot agree that land, under all conditions, at all times, and in all places, can be considered on the same footing as all other forms of investment. I do so for two reasons. In the first place, I think that I am the last person to say anything against the principle of the rights of property, but, at the same time, I must realise, as everybody else does, that you cannot divorce land from the social necessities of the population. Secondly, I think under certain conditions land offers at certain times great opportunities of making automatic profits than almost any other property. For these two reasons I should say that land is somewhat outside other forms of property, and should justify its inclusion in this year's scheme of taxation and at times of financial emergency. Let me come to the main proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the taxation of land. They are three in number, and I desire to approach them in an impersonal and unbiassed frame of

  1207
  mind. In the first place he proposes a tax of 10 per cent. on reversion; in the second place, 20 per cent. on the enhanced value on sale, death, or renewal of lease; and, thirdly, a halfpenny in the £ on undeveloped land and minerals. These are three distinct taxes, and deal with distinct kinds of land. As regards the reversion of 10 per cent. on the expiration of lease, I strongly support the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe it to be a perfectly equitable charge, and one which, as time proceeds, will be found to be exceedingly profitable to the Exchequer.
  As regards the tax on the expiration of lease, I may say it is in effect an extension of the principle of the Death Duties on this kind of property. The owner of ground rents on the expiry of a lease becomes possessed not only of the land, but of the house that has been erected on that land. The house probably has been erected in most cases through the enterprise or capital of somebody else, and has been maintained by somebody else, and yet at the expiration of the lease it is at present handed over to the owner of the land. In other words, an owner who has been the recipient of a ground rent, say, of £5 or £10 is, at the expiration of that period, entitled by the present law to become the recipient of something like £50 or £60 a year, or even a much larger sum. It is, therefore, only right that. there should be a charge of 10 per cent. on such an owner before he comes into the enhanced capital value. I should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few particulars which I have no doubt will be found in the provisions of the Bill. I should like him to take certain cases into serious account. I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in cases where the owner is only tenant for life under the Settled Lands Act due provision should be made to enable him to make a charge on the estate for such payment, and not be obliged to pay it himself out of his own income. I should like to point out a very important provision, which I hope will be taken into account, with reference to this proposed tax, and that is to protect the owner of such property who has bought the reversionary interest. There are many companies, many societies, and as many as 10,000 individuals, drawn from all classes of the community, who have bought the reversionary interest and have invested a large sum of money in the hope that in a few years' time they will come into the
  1208
  enhanced value. Let me take one case. as an illustration. A man has paid £800 for two houses with a ground rent of £8 15s. He has paid at the rate of 90 years' purchase. There are many such cases amongst the poorer classes of the community, wile. borrow money at 4 per cent. interest in order to pay for the property in a few years' time. In five years' time he hopes to come into a rack rent of £30 a house. If he had to pay on the whole tax he would have to pay 10 per cent. That would be he would have to pay in such a case—that is, if he had to pay on the whole—say, 10 per cent. on £1,300, say, £130. The only equitable way to treat such cases is merely to charge on the enhanced value that has accrued after he bought the ground rent at £400—merely charge him on the difference. With such provisions as I have outlined I believe this tax is a perfectly fair one. and that it will be found. when house property through the country has been properly registered, to be a reliable and profitable source of revenue to the State. I pass to the second tax, that. is, 20 per cent. on unearned increment, which is to take place either when property is sold or at death, or upon granting of a new lease. I hope that when this proposal comes for discussion in Committee, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be induced to reduce the 20 per cent. to 10 per cent., and thus make it coincide with the 10 per cent. charge on reversion. I do not see why 20 per cent. should be charged in this case and only 10 per cent. on reversion.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Why not make both charges 20 per cent.?
  Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: Let me say a word as to the proposal in regard to the duty on death. It seems to me very unfair that those who own property should pay twice over. I will take a concrete in -stance. A man whose property is worth £100,000 will, under the new proposal, have to pay in addition to 9 per cent. another 20 per cent. on increased value. It is unnecessary to make a double charge under that head. I come to the second point, that is the transfer and sale of the property. This appears to be an equitable charge, because there are many instances where owners of this class of property prefer to sell a few years before the property is actually ripe, and thereby escape the trouble of developing that property. The third point is that of a new lease. I hope that in this case it will he made quite clear in the Bill

  1209
  that this charge will be made on the ground of the lease only in cases where the land has undergone development, and that it will not apply to renewal of leases on agricultural property. I must say it is very difficult to get definite information as to the nature of the Budget proposals, and it is only by means of Debates of this character that we are able to elicit it. It appears to me that this tax applies to this class of property, and, on that assumption, I am pointing out that I think the limit of £50 per acre is too low. I should prefer to see it increased to £100.
  If you once enter into the particular region of agricultural land, you will find yourself entangled in all kinds of complications. Under the present law, full compensation is given by the outgoing tenant to the incoming tenant, and, under existing Agricultural Holdings Acts, provision is taken that where there are unexhausted improvements, they shall be fully paid for; if you attach an additional tax to land which has been improved by the occupying tenant and is going to be paid for under the existing law, it seems to me you will be imposing an undue burden on both tenant and landlord—on the landlord directly and on the tenant indirectly. I would venture to say there are only three occasions during a man's lifetime in dealing with urban and semi-urban land in which you can with equity impose an additional tax to that he hears as an owner. The first is one to which I have already alluded, namely, on the expiration of the lease when the owner comes into the enjoyment of the rack rent. The second occasion is when he sells the land at an enhanced value in view of its prospective value for building, and thereby escapes the trouble of developing the land himself. The third occasion is when he has undertaken and completed a successful operation in converting the land from agricultural conditions to urban conditions; in other words, when land, which has been rented for agricultural purposes at about £3 or £5 per acre, has been laid out in budding sites and has had 18 or 19 houses built on each acre, each house bringing to the owner a rental of £3 or £4. The result of that operation is that he is receiving £60 or £70 per year per acre where formerly he only got from £3 to £5 per acre. Of course, due consideration will be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all capital expenditure on roads, and in regard to the loss which accrues during the time of development. But, even taking that into account, it is a very profitable
  1210
  operation when successfully carried out — the conversion of land from rural to urban conditions, and if money is wanted for increased expenditure in the country it seems to me that those who are fortunate enough to own this particular type of property have sufficiently substantial shoulders to bear the additional burden.
  I come next to the last proposition, that for a. tax on undeveloped land and minerals. I do not propose to detain the House at any length this afternoon in dealing with the proposal to tax undeveloped minerals. It is a matter which will require full discussion, and I think it is probable that the result of such discussion will be to show that it is clearly an unworkable scheme. When we conic to this tax we, are leaving the realms of reality and entering the regions of fancy and imagination. A proposal to place ½d. tax on undeveloped land is, I respectfully submit, unworkable in practice. At any rate in my judgment it is so. I suppose it has been included among the proposals embodied in this year's Budget as a kind of sop to Cerberus, in the nature of a compromise with those who are known as ardent land taxers. Land taxers have advocated throughout the country 1d. all round on land, whether agricultural or urban, and I have no doubt the Government at a very early stage detected on close examination of these complicated proposals that to put Id. on agricultural land would be not only unworkable but extremely injudicious. So they have adopted a half measure by proposing to put ½d. on urban and semi-urban land. I venture to believe that whatever party tries to pass such a proposal will find it very injurious to its interests, and I would say with all the force I can command to my own friends on this side of the House that a halfpenny tax on the capital value of so-called undeveloped land would in many instances almost extinguish the present agricultural rental of that land. Secondly, the owners of such property are an extremely numerous body. They are drawn from all classes in the community. It was said by the late Prime Minister in a speech delivered some years ago that he wanted to see England less a pleasure ground of the rich. I do not quarrel with the phrase, but it is equally true to say that this kind of land forms one of the staple investments of the poor.
  One of the main objects of imposing this tax is, I believe, to free land more readily

  1211
  for building purposes, and to bring it into the market, and it is based on the hypothesis that at present land is being held up by recalcitrant owners in the neighbourhood of towns, and building is thereby discouraged and checked. I venture to assert such cases are not numerous, and that this hypothesis is fundamentally fallacious. I do not believe that, with possibly a few rare exceptions, there are many instances of this character either around London or in the neighbourhood of our provincial towns. If there are any, I should like to know where they are, and I venture to suggest that such cases could be, and ought to be, dealt with by existing compulsory powers of purchase, and if such powers are not sufficient, or if the procedure is too cumbrous, I should hope that in a measure which we are to be asked to pass this year adequate provisions will be inserted which will ensure that no landlord in the neighbourhood of a town shall obstinately or obdurately hold back land when wanted. I think that would be a fairer and far more effective way of dealing with this difficulty. It is my own experience that land - owners are found tumbling over each other in order to convert land from rural into urban conditions. It is obvious it should be so, human nature being what it is, because one can hardly conceive any owner who exists obstinately and obdurately contenting himself with an agricultural rental of £5 a year when by converting his land into urban conditions he could enjoy an enhanced rental of £50, £60, or £70 per year.
  The present proposal suggests that a valuer shall actually gauge what land is ripe and what is not ripe for building purposes, and it is intended to put the tax of ½d. on the capital value of the former. I would ask how on earth is any valuer in the country to be able to forecast accurately or gauge the value of such property? What better test can there be, looking at this matter from a practical point of view, than the test of the owner, realising that he may increase his rental, either by developing his land himself or selling or leasing it to a builder to carry out the operation? Surely that is the best and only test by which one can tell if land is ripe for development. I will take two instances to illustrate my point. I will take orchard land in the suburbs of London now let at a rental of £5 per year. As by degrees, and it is by very slow degrees, that land is absorbed for building purposes, that its rental
  1212
  value has correspondingly gone up, and the result of the full operation is that something like It 19 houses have been placed on each acre, these houses bringing an annual sum to the owner of £3 10s. a year, so that instead of receiving £5 per year per acre by the time the building operation is completed he is getting £60 per year for each acre of that land. But if building is checked in that district, and he cannot go on with the operation, how is the valuer to fix the price of that land Undoubtedly, the capital price when the land was built upon would range from £1,000 to £1,200. In a few years' time little by little the land would be absorbed,. with the result that land adjacent would become worth the same amount of money. But what would be the result to the unfortunate owner who is getting £5 per year rent if he is to pay ½d. on the capital value of land which he cannot develop. because the district is not ripe for development? He would have to pay this½d. on the capital value, and it would represent 58s., or rather more than one-half of the amount he is receiving as rent, without taking into consideration the outgoings for existing rates, land tax and income tax. The other illustration to which I would draw attention is that of land bordering on some small growing provincial town. There are thousands of these cases in which agricultural land is let at 30s. per acre. When it is ripe for building the capital value of that land for sale is something between £400 and £500—quite a reasonable sum. What is the tax proposed to be put on the unfortunate owner of that land for which he is now receiving only 30s. a year? It amounts, in addition to existing rates and taxes, to something like 20s. 6d. out of his 30s. It is manifestly unfair. This class of land is not merely owned by rich land-owners, who derive their incomes from other classes of property, but it is owned in many cases by small county gentlemen, who derive their whole income from this class of property, and it is also owned by thousands of small tradesmen in the provincial towns who, when they have made a little money in business, invariably select this as the. surest and most stable form of investment certain to prove profitable in the future. I think it is a form of investment which we should be very reluctant to diseourage in any way among that class of people. I may be told that this land, until it is ripe, will not be charged, but my answer is, How can a valuer decide and discriminate? Now let me sum up this halfpenny

  1213
  tax on land in conclusion. It is, in my judgment, a proposal based upon theory but quite devoid of practical experience. It can only be applied in one of two ways. It can either be applied by indiscriminately placing a tax upon all suburban property and taking that as the unit, and in that way it will bring about the grossest injustice and it will injure many people, a great many very humble people in this country, as well as being very disastrous to any party that attempts it. It will either take that form, or else it will take the form of being fenced round with a whole host of exceptions. reservations, and exemptions, such as that this class of land is not ripe for building, and that this class should be ruled out, and if that is to be done it will be found that the staff which will have to be established to undertake such a work will cost so much in salaries that it will exceed the comparatively small sum of money which will be raised from the land. I hope we shall in the course of the discussion which is to take place thoroughly thresh out the Question, and I am sure the more it is debated in this House, quite judicially and unprejudicially, it will be found that this particular proposal for the imposition of a tax is unworkable, and would, if it is put into operation, not carry out the purpose for which it was intended. I am quite sure that an adequate sum of revenue could be raised on the three bases I have suggested—expiration, sale, or conversion from rural to urban conditions. It is upon these three lines you can equitably tax land, and I hope it will be upon them that land taxation will be ultimately approved by the majority of this House and embodied in the Finance Bill.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: The operation of the tax to which I wish to direct attention for a few minutes is alluded to in the last lines of the Resolution, which has reference more particularly to the proposed tax on minerals. The importance of this proposal is to be. estimated, not by the measure of the amount necessarily to be obtained from the tax, but by the disturbance and uncertainty which will arise in connection with the raw material of our greatest industries. We depend as much on our raw materials being a known quantity, as regards the cost of their production, almost as on any one feature of the trade. If there is uncertainty as to the incidence of a tax, it means that there will be trouble for those engaged in the industry. It has two or three bearings. In his speech the hon. Member for Merthyr
  1214
  pointed out the other day that it might operate by forcing into the market coal to such a large extent that there will be a glut, and the workers of coal would be very prejudicially affected by such a development. That is one danger, but the danger which I wish to speak of has reference not to coal—though I recognise how great its importance is in regard to that commodity—but in reference to iron ore. If it were a tax upon royalties I could understand it. If it were an Income Tax on the sums that were raised from royaltie I could understand it, but a tax on ungotten minerals may mean much or little. Under the present Administration I think it would mean much, and we must treat it as if it would mean much. Take the case of a royalty granted in regard to minerals, with the condition that the mine should be worked with the greatest advantage to the propery. The effect of this condition would be probably this, that a large area of royalty which was being worked to a certain extent, and in which the discovery of further mineral ore was being made, gradually would be forced to be worked uneconomically. It would be forced to be worked uneconomically. If this condition arose that the royalty owner, speaking to his lessee, would say, "Unless you work that mineral and get that mineral I shall have to pay this increased tax of a halfpenny, if you fail to work that mineral as I wish it to be worked, and as you say it is uneconomical, you will have to pay the tax," then the incidence of the tax would not fall upon the owner, but it would come down on the industry itself. The iron and steel manufacturer is the man who would have to bear that burden. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to put a burden upon the iron and steel manufacturers of this country. If he does he means to put a burden upon one of our most hardly pressed industries,. and one which is the least able to bear, as the result of foreign competition, such an imposition. I should like, if we may, to have some of the points cleared up. In a speech the other day we were given to understand that about six pages of explanation in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech were omitted on this point. I wonder if we might have those six pages of his speech with reference to this point, as I think it would be to our advantage. If the tax that is proposed to be levied is intended for the manufacturer, for the worker of minerals, it should be very much more easily and satisfactorily expressed—

  1215
  he would not like it, he would object to and fight it, but he could understand it. But it is the unknown which is the dangerous element. We do not see what you mean when you say ungotten minerals. We know that a mining expert will go and say on some estates that there are so many hundreds of thousands and millions of tons of minerals, which he regards as being In sight; because he thinks he is justified in saying that, a certain area is proved.
  But it may be most disastrous to attempt to work on that ungotten mineral, at one time or another, in consequence of the ground and the faults and the geological strata, and it may be very well the case that by drifting you may get to the best place and work economically, but if you are going to put shafts clown, from known points to absolutely unknown ground, you are going to impose an enormous risk, which is not justified under the circumstances, and you are going to do work which is uneconomical, and which in certain cases may be disastrous, although on the other hand it may turn out all right. I may point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he puts a burden under his Income Tax on these ungotten minerals, and I drew his attention the other day by way of question to the point of his charging the Income Tax on bore holes, which you put down in order to search for the minerals, for the ungotten ore in particular. If a mine-owner has an area on royalty and he is working in that area in order to discover where he has to proceed with his operations, if he sinks a bore hole, which costs him £1,000 or £1,500, unless he charges that to capital account he is at present charged Income Tax on that expenditure. It is a tax upon the industry, but it is not a fair tax upon it, because without the knowledge and the information given by that bore hole, it is impossible to work the royalty. But we have this Income Tax here levied upon his search for minerals, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to put the additional burden of this ½d. not only on mines but ungotten minerals. In addition to paying Income Tax for searching for the minerals it is proposed to put on an unknown amount on an unknown supply of minerals, which, in the opinion of one expert, may be great and in that of another may be. small, and we are to have this burden and this uncertainty attached to a large industry which is in severe competition at the present time with other industries, and we
  1216
  have had very little information about it. It is very difficult to say what this tax means. The other night, when we were just on this very point, the closure was applied at the very moment when we were going to get to know something, and the consequence is that we know very little about it; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us these six pages which he omitted from his Budget speech. —if he will give us plenty of time and give us this information and make it clear. I am sure he will find a better means of raising money than by putting a vague tax upon industry, which will be more of a menace to that industry than any other blow which could be dealt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. R. L. EVERETT: I propose to say a few words as regards this proposed land tax from quite a different point of view from that of the hon. Member who preceded me. I wish to speak of the effect which that tax is likely to have upon the owners of land in the Eastern Counties, where I was born, have lived a long life. and with regard to the land of which possess a considerable amount of knowledge. As I understand from a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a special interview reported in the "Westminster Gazette" what he proposes in regard to land is this:
  " The firs: is au increment tax. All the land in the Kingdom will be valued at its present value. That is the first operation If it increases in value subsequently then either at transfer or at death the proposal is that the State should sacure.20 per cent. upon that increment."
  I am sorry to say that in the part of England where I live during the last 30 years we have had a very painful experience of the decrement of land, not at all of its increment. I ant old enough to remember when the value of agricultural land was steadily and continuously rising. and that state of things lasted from 1853 to 1878. During that happy period, as I look back upon it, I pleasantly remember how every re-let of a farm was at an increase, every sale of land was at a considerably enhanced price for the freehold. and we believed that that was a permanent state of things, and so confident was the feeling at. that time that those who had money to lend on mortgage to put in trust looked upon the security of the land as the most absolute security that it was in their power to attain. If a man bought. land who was known not to he likely to pay for it himself the lawyers would almost run after him for the trustees to lend money on that land at 4 per

  1217
  cent. up to very nearly the whole value of the price given for the land. But I am sorry to say that beginning with the year 1879 there set in a. process exactly the reverse of that which I have spoken of. During the next 25 years we saw a steady, continuous, increasing downfall in the value of our agricultural land, and I speak within moderate bounds when I say that on an average in the county of Suffolk the value of land went down more than half—considerably more than half in many cases. I know a farm not very far from me which was bought in good times by a man to occupy at £8,000, and he occupied it with advantage to himself for several years, but he lived a little too long, into the times of fall in valuation, and when that farm, on his death, had to be sold, to the great loss of his family, it only realised £4,000, instead of £8,000. Another person, attracted by the low price, bought the farm and farmed it for several more years, but the price of agricultural produce kept going down, and in a few years he became bankrupt, and the farm had to be sold again. This time it made £800, having fallen in some 20 years from £8,000 to £800. There are numbers of cases like that in the counties of Suffolk and Essex. I was on the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into agricultural depression by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1894. We reported in 1897 that, if the land in Ireland had been affected in the same way which land in Great Britain had, the capital value of the land of the United Kingdom had fallen to the extent of £1,000,000,000—an enormous sum. We all know that the rents which were fixed in Ireland, and which were supposed when they were fixed after the Act of 1880 to be as sure as income from Consols, could not be paid after a few years owing to the fall in prices of agricultural produce, and Parliament had to step in and allow a revaluation and a great reduction of rents.
  Now I look at how we are likely to be affected in the parts that I know by this proposed new legislation. I am thankful to say that in the last three or four years our land has begun to lift its head up a little. There has been some returning inclination to look at land as a thing fit to buy, and at the very low prices which it has sunk to there is some inclination now to buy it. Now comes this proposed blow from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to knock it down again, and to depress it as it has been so grievously depressed in the past. I have to do with several cases as an executor as well as on my own account
  1218
  where mortgaged land was left by the deceased, and the mortgage was a great deal more than the value of the land. In some of these cases I have been, as a trustee and executor, kindly considered by the mortgagees, and when it, became impossible for us to pay the amount of interest due they said, "Well, pay what you can," and I have been going on in regard to two cases that I have vividly in my memory like that where I have simply. taken the rent and paid the outgoings, repairs, insurance, and such like, and paid the balance to the mortgagees. A change in agriculture has taken place almost since this Government came into its power; it is a curious thing—a coincidence which I for one welcome, though I do not regard it as cause and effect at all. About the time this Government came into power agriculture began considerably to improve. We had better seasons, and we hoped that in a few years more under such improving circumstances the widows and the fatherless children with whom I am concerned in regard to these mortgaged farms would see their land come up to the value of the mortgage, and perhaps leave a surplus, so that there would be some income coming to them. It seems to me a most cruel thing, looking at the dreadful sufferings that we have endured during the 30 years of falling prices, that any legislation should be proposed to deprive us of any benefit of the rising values which there seems some prospect of our being able to obtain if legislation does not interfere with it.
  I can assure the chancellor of the Exchequer, if he would consult a lawyer of any standing in the Eastern counties, he would find his office full of the most frightful cases of loss and ruin, which had been brought upon agricultural families without the least fault of their own by that long fall in prices which began about 1879, and continued without interruption until a few years ago—such a fall in prices as there is no precedent for in modern history. To me it seems intensely cruel that, when there is some sign of recovery the Government should step in to deprive these parties who have suffered so much from the full benefit of such recovery as there is. The land I possess I bought or inherited about 40 years ago. In regard to three-quarters of that land it is worth now, I suppose, about half what I gave for it, but there is a little on the edge of a growing town which has not lost its value, and in the next few years would probably

  1219
  rise in value. Am I to have to suffer the awful distresses and difficulties that I have been wrestling with for 30 years by the great fall in the value of three-quarters of my land, and then to have the Government step in when some of it is rising in value and take away one-fifth of the rise? To value the land at its to-day's value and deny the full benefit of its increase is practically robbery. If is far below the value it bore 20 or 30 years ago, and I believe the very circumstances which pulled down the value of that land have now been reversed, and there is a chance of it going up again, and surely we who have suffered so much in the fall are entitled to the full benefit of the rise if it comes.
  Just a word as to the cause of that fall. Why was it that from 1853 to 1878 we had prices on the whole steadily rising? I can well remember when the Corn Laws were repealed, when Free Trade came in, everyone expected that agriculture was going to be ruined, but, as a matter of fact, instead of that—there were two or three very low years at the first—but beginning from 1853 in the next quarter of a century agriculture was looking up all the while, and that quarter of a century under Free Trade was a good deal more prosperous to agriculture than the 25 or 30 years during which the Corn Laws lasted. The explanation, I believe, is simple enough. Just at the very time the repeal of the Corn- Laws came into effect, which was in 1849, the great gold discoveries in California and Australia began, and in the next 20 or 25 years there was poured out from these new sources an amount of gold equal to the whole amount in the possession of mankind at the beginning of those years, and this raised the general level of prices, though not to the extent it would have done if gold alone had been the standard, raised them enough to more than make up for the decrease that the repeal of the recent Corn Laws had been bringing about. This fall was caused by an exactly reversed process. The fact that one nation after another has taken in hand to legislate against one of the two precious metals, throwing an increased burden upon the other—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how this arises.
  Mr. EVERETT: That has been the cause of the depressing process which for more than a quarter of a century has been
  1220
  forcing prices down. But now there have begun such extraordinary new finds of gold as have never been paralleled in the history of mankind, and as they proceed, as there is every prospect that they will proceed, there seems a fair probability that they will lift up prices again to their old height, if not above it. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that ha will not say to us that after the long agony with which we have wrestled for 30 years we shall be deprived of any accretion to that value which may come to us in the years which are now before us. It seems so hard that we should have to bear the whole of that decrement which we had nothing whatever to do in bringing about, and should be deprived of the value of any increment which may come to us. Anyone looking at it calmly, dispassionately, soberly and fairly must feel that it is an awfully hard thing that we should suffer all the loss and all the ruin from the falling prices, and be deprived of the full benefit of any rise which may come to pass. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will well consider the proposals which he makes, and will not try to deprive us of' any portion of such increment as may come to our agricultural land.
  Mr. REMNANT: With a great deal of what the hon. Member has said we can all agree. The speeches which have been made on the other side of the House, at all events, will show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that amongst his own followers. there are a good many who do not agree with all the suggestions which we have been allowed to see made in this House' in reference to this Budget. One of the remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Dickson-Poynder) very little can be said against. He said, in effect, that the interest of private owners of land will teach them the way to deal fairly with their property. He also said, towards the end of his speech, that the small man represents an enormous amount of the investment in the land of this country. He must have been thinking at that time of the London area which lie represented on the London County Council for some time, I am glad to say in his sane moments, when he was acting as a colleague of my own and representing the party on this side of the House. He must know that the London County Council, now 17 years ago, first of all suggested and voted a sum of £1,500 to prepare to map out a ground-plan of London. They did that, first of all, because it was the cry then—I am afraid it

  1221
  is the cry to-day—amongst a good many people that London was owned by five or six great ground landlords. We have had a circular postcard sent round by interested Leagues during the last few months which has repeated the fallacy that London is owned by only half-a-dozen great rich landlords, and that they draw enormous sums of money from the poor occupiers of the land in London. In 1892 we started this great ground plan for London. One would have thought that would not be a very difficult matter, and that it would easily and shortly have been completed for a small sum of money. We thought £1,500 would be sufficient to do it. Would the House be surprised to know that it is not finished to-day, 17 years afterwards, and that the £1,500 has grown into £15,000 Goodness knows what it will cost before it is finished. The four or five great landlords of London have grown into 31,000 holders of land, and there are 2,000 in regard to whom there are negotiations to-day. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out of the House. That is a matter which I hope he will consider when he proposes to this House the beggarly sum of £50,000 for valuing the whole of the land of this country—an amount which is almost too ridiculous to be seriously considered. Everybody sympathises with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to raise money, especially when he has to increase taxes to which we may have become accustomed, for the purpose of financing further expenditure. But these proposed land taxes differ from all normal forms of taxation, because they seek to impose exceptional burdens upon people who have chosen that form of investment while in no way attempting to impose correlative burdens upon others who choose to take different forms for their investments. In my opinion, it is economically unsound and practically inexpedient to place one. form of property, like land, under special disability. I may allude to what happened last night, because it forms a concrete illustration of what I am saying. The hon. Member for Dulwich drew attention to the fact that the petrol tax was going to handicap one particular form of locomotion as against other forms of locomotion in this country. The same is true with regard to land. Why should land be treated exceptionally and selected for this taxation, thereby reducing its capital value and its attractiveness as an investment?
  Land bears an absolutely disproportionate amount of local taxation when you
  1222
  come to compare it with personal property. It is extremely difficult on such an occasion as this to enter into the subject in any detail. We must confine ourselves to generalities. That being so, I would like to ask the House to remember how strongly all the authorities that can be enumerated have protested against this assessment of the capital value of land which is the basis of the three proposed taxes. Not only has this method of taxation been condemned by our greatest economic authorities, such as Sir Robert Giffen, and by the only economists of note of whom the Progressive party in the London County Council can boast, Lord Farrer and Lord Hobhouse, but it has been condemned by practically all the expert authorities, such as the Surveyors' Institute and other similar bodies. The findings of official inquiries have been dead against this proposal. The findings of the Select Committee on Town Holdings which reported in 1891, and of the Royal Commision on Local Taxation which reported in 1901, were emphatically against this suggestion. On the other side I think it would be very hard to find any authority who would support the present proposal, and I say so in the face of the Lord Advocate, who, after all, has done more to mislead the country—I do not say it in a disagreeable or offensive sense—on this Question than anyone on the Front Bench opposite, and there have been a good many competitors for the honour. The Committee over which the Lord Advocate presided, and he did so with great fairness to everybody, dealt with the question of the taxation of land values. I was a member of that Committee, and perhaps I ought not to give my own opinion, because it may be considered in some way is biassed. But I may quote what was said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson). He said:—
  "This Bill was introduced on the recommendation of a Select Committee, and before he joined this House he always thought that a Select Committee was a Committee selected of open-minded men who would bring judicial minds to hear upon the evidence submitted to them, and according to that state of mind they would weigh the evidence submitted to them and so give their Report to the House. Since he had joined the House, however, he had learned something very different. This Committee consisted of fifteen members, one of whom retired and took no part in the proceedings. That reduced the number to fourteen, and of that fourteen eight were pledged up to their very eyes in support of this principle. Three of these included his Hon. friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Hon. Member for South Edinburgh, both of whom are honorary vice-presidents of the League for the Taxation of Lund Values. That league was promoted for the promulgation of the doctrine of Henry George… What this Bill therefore was going to lead up to was nothing less than the carrying out of that doctrine of Henry George. Before that Committee they heal the

  1223
  evidence of the best surveyors and assessors from Edinburgh and Glasgow and from all over Scotland—men of the highest eminence, who gave them the most important evidence. He was hound to say that the whole weight of that evidence was against this principle, but the whole of it was brushed aside, and he assured the House that the Report was a condensed form of the evidence which was given by the present president, the late president, and another ex-president of this very league."
  That, I think I may say, is the only official inquiry that can he produced in support. of the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to refer to the proposed assessment of capital value in relation to increment. In my opinion, if you are going to allow a tax on increment you are going to do a very unfair thing. You are going to cripple the work of numerous companies now engaged in the trade of developing land for building. It must be admitted that all interests in land, just as much as in Stock Exchange securities, are liable to fluctuations in value, and if you subject them to special taxation when there is a flow in value, and do not give them compensation when there is an ebb in value, although that ebb may be due in one place to the flow in another, it is hardly to be expected that any business man will accept that theory for a moment, especially when it is not suggested that that system should be applied to other forms of investment. Take the proposed taxation on reversions. What is that proposed tax? It must be a tax on freehold ground rents. Ground rents have been sold and purchased at prices to cover the whole value of the reversion, whether in the near future or in the distant future. The tax will make future ground rents not only unsaleable, but will strike, in my opinion, a very heavy blow at the whole class of persons belonging to the middle class and the working class who have invested in ground rents either directly or indirectly through insurance companies or other kindred institutions. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he were here, for a full explanation in justification of such a tax as this in view of what he said on 10th July, 1907, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:—
  " The present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on 10th July, 1907, at the opening of new offices of the United Kingdom- Provident Institution, said: 'He believed that insurance companies both here and in Scotland were largely interested as investors in ground values, or what were called in Scotland fen duties or ground annuals, and securities of that type, and he imagined that there was a certain amount of apprehension among investors of that class of security as to the possible effects on their investments of prospective or projected legislation. He thought that they need be under no apprehension whatever on the subject. So far as he was acquainted with
  1224
  the facts—and he supposed he ought to know—in any legislation which was likely to be proposed in regard to matters of that kind they might be certain that existing contracts would be rigidly respected as sacred. There was no intention under any pretext of public policy or otherwise to rip up obligations which had been incurred in good faith and for value. Legislation must proceed with that for its starting-point and underlying assumption.'"
  I venture to say in view of that statement, and various other statements made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the feeling of apprehension is growing as to the insecurity which will be meted out to those who invest in a form of property which is popular, and which will always remain popular, in this country. If these proposals are carried out they will do an injustice to a vast number of people in this country. As regards the last point in this Resolution, namely, the tax on undeveloped land and ungotton minerals, I venture to say with respect to undeveloped land that any practical man who has had experience in the management of land will tell the Government that it will have just the opposite effect to what the Government expect. Instead of assisting the development of land it will check it, and you will drive away by this new taxation those who have hitherto undertaken to lay out suburban areas. As soon as the tax is imposed land will cease to be laid out for building. Those who still buy land for building purposes will demand and expect naturally that they should get higher interest for the greater risks run. Certainly the change will not tend to carry out what the Government profess to be the main object of the legislation. Of all the fallacies that ever entered into the minds of men there are none perhaps more ridiculous than this idea, that in the case of land, and land alone, you can assist progress by clapping on heavy taxes, by driving away the prudent investor, and by subjecting such person as may still be willing to develop into exceptional risks and disabilities. I would appeal even at this late hour, before the Budget Bill is brought in, to the Chancellor of the Ex,- chequer to reconsider this idea of his. He has fairly and squarely asked all through that if we have any appeal to make to him and any points to bring before him to do so, and he has said that he has still an open mind. All I ask him is to show that he still has an open mind, and what has been said to-day may influence him to drop this proposed taxation of land, which will have, in my opinion, very different effects from those which he thinks will result.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was a double-barrelled one. On the one hand he asked that I should preserve an open mind, and on the other that I should drop this part of the Bill. These two things are by no means the same, and I think he will find that what has been said will have the effect of strengthening my conviction that the proposals of the Bill are sound. However, I promise that as far as I am concerned I shall certainly preserve an open mind for full discussion with regard to any grievance that may be submitted for my consideration. I only get up now to clear up one or two misconceptions, and in doing so I can partly anticipate the introduction of the Bill, which cannot now be delayed beyond a day or two. Before the end of this week the Bill will be in the hands of Members. [Cries of "To-morrow."] Today is one day, to-morrow is another. When the Bill is examined it will clear up a great many misconceptions that seem to have arisen in the minds of Members, of which I do not, complain. They are inevitable from a discussion under such conditions as are imposed on us by the rules of the House. I could not possibly have outlined every proposition of the Bill within any kind of compass that would have been tolerable by the House of Commons. I made great demands on the patience of hon. Members, and could not have trespassed at greater length in order to explain details which will be perfectly clear when the Bill is produced. I think when the Bill is produced it will enable hon. Members to enjoy their holidays without, any of the anxieties which seem to worry some of my hon. Friends. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, these things are not nearly so terrible when we examine them closely as when we appeal to our imaginations to see what will be included in them. Naturally hon. Members opposite exaggerate every prospective change brought in by a Liberal Government, but when they see the machine itself they will find it a very workable one, and it is not so very dangerous as they seem to anticipate. My hon. Friend (Mr. Remnant) was very gloomy as to the prospect of land development. What he forgets is this: Land is increasing in value, and the prospect of an increase is an element in the present valuation or market value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That would be equally an element in future valuation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course, the tax will diminish the increment accordingly, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know the basis of the valuation, and I want my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) to remember what the money is for. He, I believe, lives in the East of England, and I want the money to protect him from the Continental invasion. To a certain extent the value of any land is something worse than it was before that, and we must take it into account when we remember that every penny of the increase of tax makes his home and his land more secure. I will now come to deal with the point referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson), and he raised two or three questions of very considerable practical moment. I think he will find them cleared up in the Bill. But I can anticipate the production of the Bill in order to relieve his anxieties on the spot. He was rather troubled about the money that was spent by his college on the development of land in the Willesden district, and he was afraid that by the proposals of the Finance Bill the college would be taxed on the money which had been spent on developments. He will find that all the money spent on development will be deducted before the valuation has been arrived at. If the college sent £70,000 or £100,000 on improvement, I think it would be a monstrous thing if a tax were imposed on the money spent by it on the improvement of its property. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there any limit of time?"] There is no limit of time. Credit is given for all the money spent on the improvement of the property. The hon. Member seems to think that I have been rather too liberal there. That is exactly what I thought. Once he becomes acquainted with the real conditions of my Bill he will be rather disposed to agree with me. Then, I think, hon. Members opposite have an exaggerated idea of the effect of the valuation. Take this case: Here is a plot of ground which will be sold for £1,000. Therefore the hon. Member thinks that all the other land we have got in the immediate vicinity of that will be valued at £1,000. I have not said that that would be justified by anything in the Valuation Bill. I know the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has had some experience of valuation under the Land Clauses

  1227
  Act. I should hope those are not exactly the principles that will be applied here, though those are the principles that are applied by land-owners selling land. They are not the principles which the Government apply in valuing land for taxation.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Why not?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Because I think it is an exaggerated valuation. We propose to proceed on principles of stricter equity. What has to be taken into account is this—the whole of the land available in the neighbourhood. We cannot pick out a piece of land, and say that is sold for £2,000, and therefore all the land in that neighbourhood is worth £2,000. That is not the way land is valued either here or in any other part of the world for valuation purposes. I should be very much surprised that land in that neighbourhood would be worth more than £200 or £300. I am not for one expressing any opinion on that, but the whole of the land should be taken and the number of years it would take to liquidate. All that has got to be taken into account.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Over what area?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a question which the valuer must take into account. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) had some experience of valuation, and I can assure him that his method, the Rosyth method of valuation, is not the method that we propose to apply. We shall simply take into account, not the fact that one piece of ground fetches so much, but the real market value, taking into account the number of years which must pass by before you can convert the whole of that land into building land. That is the way it is applied in every country in the world, and there will be no exception in this country. Take this particular Willesden property. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. Anson) said they were receiving something like £4 7s. 6d. per acre for this property, under allotments. Of course, there is an element there of value which is attributable to the act that it is near an aggregation of people, but we do not propose to tax any value which is agricultural. The tax is only in respect of the value over and above its agricultural value. What would that amount to? Suppose it fetched about £200 to £300 an acre, the college on Which the hon. and learned Gentleman is
  1228
  interested would pay about 6s. an acre. They are receiving £4 6s. an acre. That is not due to the particular quality of the soil. If it. were far removed from town I do not suppose they would get more than about £1 an acre or 30s. an acre, if it were fairly good land. So they are getting £2 or £3 an acre more than its real agricultural value because they are near a town. They are only called on to pay 6s. an acre for the building value over and above the agricultural value. The hon. Gentleman compared us very unfavourably with the Stuarts and the Tudors, with their rapacity and their greed. I do not recognise Tudor principles there. I cannot imagine any Tudor, when he started on his confiscation, taking 6s. and leaving £4 to the college. I can scarcely even imagine him leaving the Os. But if he did leave anything, I think he would leave the 6s. and take the £4. That is much more like Tudor principles. But all that is now proposed is that whatever value there is over and above the agricultural value should be taxed at the rate of ½d. for its capital value. That is not a very rapacious proposal. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I do not think that his college will suffer very seriously in the Willesden district. I agree with him in thinking that it would be a pity to impose any great burden on great educational institutions; but he would not contend for a moment that because his college owns property therefore it should escape taxation altogether. He has not contended that. Property tax is paid at the present moment, and I only propose in the present case that of this very moderate property tax, which in the aggregate does not amount to very much in the whole Kingdom, the college should bear a fair share, and I think he will recognise when he sees the Bill that it is not a very extravagant or very aggressive charge which is made upon him. I think that deals with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Now I come to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder). I do not think he can have followed very closely the discussions which have taken place, otherwise he would not have reached the conclusion which he seems to have formed. For instance, he is under the impression that the proposal is that there may be a charge of 29 per cent. on the land and any increment of land in the event of death, and that the scale of Death Duties may be raised from 9 per cent. to 29 per cent. in respect of the value. That depends purely on the incre-

  1229
  merit, and not on the whole property. It is not to be 29 per cent. on the whole property, apart from the increment of value.
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Will not the valuation of the Death Duty be based on the full value at death, taking into consideration any increment that has occurred?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The 20 per cent. will not be on the full valuation, but purely on the increment, and therefore it will not be 29 per cent. on the whole value.
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: It will be 29 per cent. on the particular portion of the land.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What my hon. Friend put before the Committee was that there was a 29 per cent. charge on a £100,000 estate. The charge will be purely a charge on the increment, and on the increment alone. Another point which was raised by my hon. Friend should be made clear. He took the agricultural land of the value of £50, but whatever is the value of agricultural land it is not taxed at all. We only tax the value over and above the agricultural value.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the agricultural value in the first place deducted from all land?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The agricultural value is deducted.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: What about accommodation land?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Whatever the agricultural value may be, it is deducted as it would be in the case put by the hon. and learned Gentleman where the agricultural value is £4 Os. Then there comes the question of ungotten minerals. My hon. Friend says that you cannot value ungotten minerals. Does he realise chat they are being valued at the present moment, even for purposes of taxation? I ventured to make that statement in the course of the Debate a week ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University contradicted me. I thought that being an old Law Officer of the Crown he would not have contradicted me without having some authority. I have since looked into the matter, and I find that in every case where you have got the land upon a coal seam, the ungotten minerals are invariably valued for the purpose of the Death Duties. I have looked into two or three special cases, and
  1230
  I find that there is always a value placed on ungotten minerals on a seam.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: When unopened?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: When that seam is not being worked?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I say when the land is known to be on a seam.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On a seam that is being worked?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. That was not the point. The point made was that you cannot value ungotten minerals.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In defence of my right hon. Friend I may say that I happened to notice very carefully what he said, and the point he made, as I recollect it, was clearly this, that the valuation was not made except in cases where the mineral scam in question was being worked not necessarily on the particular property, but in the immediate vicinity.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not depending on my memory at all; I have looked the matter up. The right hon. Gentleman simply contradicted me point blank when I said there was a valuation of undeveloped minerals for the purpose of the Death Duties. He said it was not done. I have looked it up since. It is of no use wrangling as to what was said. The question is what are the real facts? The real facts are these, that in any coalfield there can be a valuation of ungotten minerals on the seam. If you are in any part where there is no coal and where there is no coal being worked, when you present your accounts for the Death Duties no value is put upon it, even if it is suspected there is coal. But if you are in a coalfield, say, in South Wales, in Yorkshire or in Lancashire, known to have coal seams—because you can always follow the seams, you can make maps of them—In that case there is always a value put on the ungotten minerals. An hon. Friend of mine, who is a solicitor, told me that he had been passing accounts within the last few weeks somewhere within the coalfield area, where it was known that there must be coal under the property, and he put a value on the ungotten minerals there. We propose that the same rule should apply in the taxation of ungotten minerals as already applies in the case of the Death Duties. I

  1231
  do not think my hon. Friend would have any difficulty at all in valuing the ungotten minerals. He can easily find valuers who would tell him the value of the property. There is really no difficulty at all in valuing whether for the purposes of taxation or for the purpose of barter and sale. It is very well known that valuations are conducted in every coalfield throughout Great Britain, and to say that they cannot be done is to contradict the experience of every man who has carried on that business in particular parts of the country. I think I have dealt with all the points of detail which have been put to me during the discussion. In the course of the next 48 hours I hope the Bill will be in the hands of Members, and that all these matters will be cleared up, and that the misconceptions which I am afraid are in the minds of several hon. Members will also be cleared and their anxieties allayed. Agricultural land, for the purpose of taxation, is to be treated as undeveloped land. It will only be taxed when it has got a building value over and above its agricultural value. Then when it comes to a question of increment and a question of ungotten minerals the machinery of the Bill I think is perfectly simple. I fully assent to the proposition with which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University opened his remarks when he said that it was most important that we should not impose taxes first, leaving the scheme of valuation to follow. I agree it is essential that a scheme of valuation should be incorporated in the Bill. In fact, it would be impossible to value fairly unless you got the method of valuation and not merely the proposition for the tax, and for that reason we so completely assent to that proposition that we have got the machinery for valuation incorporated in the Bill itself.
  Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: I still feel very much in the dark as to the effect of the undeveloped land tax upon the property of colleges and universities. It seems to me that in two ways this tax will hurt the universities. In the first place, this applies to universities more than to schools. It will hurt them as regards the land in Cambridge, and, I presume, in Oxford also, which is at present not built upon, and which has not been built upon in order that a space may be left clear for University extension and other purposes. Take Cambridge, for instance. There you have the Botanic Gardens; and there is a
  1232
  considerable amount of land which is adjoining building land, and now let in allotments, which has been reserved in order that the University may expand and extend itself in those directions. There are also the college gardens. There are the various fields for cricket, lawn tennis, and other forms of athletics, and all these undoubtedly would be valued as building land if they were not wanted for University or college purposes. I believe there are several great schools in the country which would be hit in precisely the same way. I will not go into the details, but I take the case of a school like Harrow. I believe in recent years no less than £80,000 was contributed by old Harrovians for the express purpose of preventing buildings being erected up to the walls of the school, and in order to preserve an open space. Similarly in regard to Dulwich College, of which we shall hear a great deal more during the Committee stage. The case of Dulwich, it seems to me, is a strong one. Here are schools which have been attempting in the interests, not of the schools themselves, but of the whole community around, to keep certain open spaces, and surely for a Government that professes to have as its object the retention of open spaces in the neighbourhood of great cities, and to have recreation grounds for the poorer persons of the community to preserve health, and to afford Longs or breathing spaces, it is an inconsistency to put on land a tax which would have this damaging effect upon others who do not happen to belong to the very poorest classes of the towns. That is one of the ways in which this tax will effect the colleges and universities. There is the other case, which, I believe, was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. It is the case of undeveloped land, not at Oxford or Cambridge itself, but in the neighbourhood of some large town. I was much relieved to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that it is not proposed that the capital expended in developing land should be subject to taxation. That I understand is to be exempted from taxation. But I do not in the least know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means when he says, on the one hand, that agricultural land is not t' be taxed at all as agricultural land, but that agricultural land in the neighbourhood of large tow ns, which has a prospective value as building land, is to be taxed. Do I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such land is to be subject to a tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where the value is over and above its agricultural value.
  Mr. BUTCHER: It will depend on the basis of valuation, and it will be extremely difficult to take any other basis of valuation than what has been the average price paid for the adjoining land which has been already bought for building purposes. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that in other countries where this principle has been adopted—I am told, at least--that in practice the value placed upon such land is the average value that the land has fetched in the open market for building purposes. I think we may assume that unless there is some exception in the Bill on account of this particular difficulty that the same practice will be provided for in the Bill. Let me take an illustration from a college in Cambridge. In this particular case there is an estate of 1,100 acres belonging to a Cambridge college which is in the neighbourhood of a large town. Portions of this estate have been already sold, and the remainder of the estate let at an average for agricultural purposes of 28s. per acre. Supposing the average price obtained for those portions of the estate is to be taken as the basis for the valuation of the whole estate, the result would be a tax of over £400 on an actual gross rental of under £1,600. That is the way in which at first sight it looks as if it must work out. I do not know how far the valuers will be able to devise some more equitable scheme. I confess it seems to me that it will impose an extremely onerous burden upon learning and education.
  I am taking this not as an extreme case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has throughout this Debate charged us with bringing forward only the extreme cases. This is one of the most moderate cases, and I believe it will be found to be the same in the cases of other colleges or universities established in the neighbourhood of large towns. Another fact to be remembered is that colleges and universities not stand in the same position as ordinary private land-owners do to their estates. It has been the policy of the Legislature to put them under a rather strict state of control. They cannot sell except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture, and when they do sell the purchase money has to be paid to the Board and invested in the name of the Beard until it can be laid out again for the purchase of land. The leasing powers of those corporations are also limited by
  1234
  taxes in the same way as those of tenants for life. Since the Legislature has adopted a certain definite policy as regards the lands of those corporations and has required them in disposing of their land to have regard not to the interests of the moment, but to the interests of posterity, they have often sacrificed an immediate increase in the value of their property in order to secure that future increment. If the Legislature now decides that on all future increment a heavy tax shall be raised we should object to it; but, still, it would be part of a conceivable policy. If the Government imposed a present tax in respect of future increment it will be simply fining present members of the corporation for having performed their public duties and for having carried out the policy of the State.
  Mr. JOHN HENDERSON (Aberdeen,. W.): In discussing these questions we are always told to wait for the Bill, and when we get the Bill I expect we will be told we are only discussing details. With regard to the principle of the Increment Tax, I would remind the House that in February of last year I quoted John Stuart Mill upon this very question, and pointed out where he recommended this Increment Tax more than 50 years ago. I then said that I had no doubt those were the proper lines upon which ultimate legislation would be founded, and so it has now appeared. With regard to the Increment Tax, I have not the slightest doubt that if John Stuart Mill's proposal had been adopted 50 years ago we would have realised an enormous sum of money for the Exchequer. It may not be too late now, but I do not think that we will get so much money from town advances. Subject to a reasonable and careful and just administration, I think there is nothing wrong about the Increment Tax; but the Increment Tax is the policy of John Stuart Mill, and what I want to know is whose policy the halfpenny tax is. What economist has ever recommended such a taxi I know of no economist except the "Daily Chronicle" and the "Daily News" and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. J. C. Wedgwood). The folly of this tax is that it lies athwart the Increment Tax, as it is on developable land the increment is to be raised. The increment may not come for 10 or 12 or 20 years, but all the time you are biting away at it, taking so much of taxes until the increment comes, and then you must allow them to be deducted. The fatal objection to this tax is this, that it is the

  1235
  first annual tax which has ever been proposed in this country on capital value. The capital value on the Death Duties is, as the Chancellor admitted, once in a generation.
  The evil of a capital tax is this: that the first holder pays the whole of that tax in capitalised form. I will give an example. Suppose the Chancellor and I had arranged a deal for £1,000 worth of land. This tax is put on, and I go to him and say, "I cannot give you £1,000 because the Government has stepped in and they have become one-part owner, and therefore I must capitalise this tax, and I shall only give you £900." I have got the property for £900 and I have got the tax for 25 years in my pocket, and I am free of the tax. Thus the original owner has to pay the whole of it. We are talking a good deal at disadvantage, I admit, without the Bill, but in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of an acre of land for a pleasure garden. An acre where? In the City of London? In Kingston? In Richmond? In Guildford? Or at the seaside? Why, in those instances there will be no comparison in value. You are going to say to a man: "You shall have an acre, and no more." I will illustrate it with a personal case, because there is nothing interests us so much as the misfortunes of our friends. I have bought, we will say, a piece of land two acres in extent in the neighbourhood of London. I build a house on it, and it is laid out. I may be paying on those two acres, with a valuation of £1,000 an acre, 8s. or 9s. rates and taxes upon that value. Now, is the Government going to come and say on the additional acre which you ought not to have you are going to pay another five per cent., which is equal to another]s. 0?,d. in the pound. Is that just?
  I will take a case say in Kingston Hill. Here you have beautiful houses abutting on Richmond Park. Is that development land? There are say three acres or two acres, or sometimes four. It is land that cannot possibly be built on, unless a man pulls down his house. You cannot say to a man in that position, "You shall pay taxes and rates on the whole lot, and, in addition, on your extra two or three acres you have got to pay five per cent, because you might possibly build upon this land." The only way he could possibly do so would be to destroy a house worth probably five or six thousand pounds. Take another instance, where you have land in juxtaposi
  1236
  tion to a road, and which can be built upon. Are you to say to one man, because he has a wall and cannot get access, he is not to pay, and to another man, because there is a road passing he is free to build, and must pay? The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Butcher) spoke of a case of 1,100 acres which he said was in the vicinity of a town. When a valuer comes to value that land—we will assume it is all prospectively possible building land—he has got to take into account that that city or town might develop at the rate of three acres, or five or ten a year. Therefore it might take a hundred years before any particular spot the valuer might pick out would be worth the money. That is another evil of the tax; you are going to tax a man on a contingent reversion. You are going to say to him—" Here is a piece of land for which you are getting £3 an acre just now, and you know very well that in five or 10 or 20 years' time that possibly may be worth £1,000 per acre." That is a contingent reversion for which he might come in; but that land, I maintain, is not worth one penny piece more than the rent which it at present yields. I know that a speculator may say, "I will give you £200 for it on the chance of keeping it for all these years;" but are we prepared to pass a Bill which will tax a man upon a speculative value which he may never receive simply because somebody will speculate? I know what lies at the back of the mind of some of those men who have been strongly urging this tax upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proposal originates from the League for the Taxation of Land Values. These people have had a wonderful and chequered existence. They did not pay any attention to John Stuart Mill 50 years ago; they did not exist. But when another economist, or a caricaturist of economy, called Henry George came along, in Glasgow they founded a sect. There was a baillie here and a provost there; they called themselves land restorationists, single taxers, and one name after another; and at last they got one or two respectable men to join them. They have had Bill after Bill, every one of which was directed at getting at the feu duties and ground rents. The one great feature about this proposal is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shut down the door upon that. He says that in reckoning your increment you shall be entitled to take the full value, and only on the increment shall you get a tax. That

  1237
  is quite right; but these people have tried to achieve their object for 20 years, viz., to get the feu duties. They have never failed to bring in a Bill, and so keen have they been that, when defeated in one place, they rushed to another. In their despair they had a meeting here before the adjournment, when they made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "For Heaven's sake put a tax on land values. If we cannot get it in any other way put it in your Budget. Let us get it somehow—anyhow." That is the genesis of this halfpenny tax. It is thrown as a sop to the Lord Advocate.
  The underlying idea is that land is held up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the Royal Commission. I wish he would read very thoroughly the evidence there given. He would find that the principal witnesses stated that the difficulty was not to prevent land being held up, but to keep it out of the market. That is quite true. Any man who walks round London or the outskirts of any town cannot fail to be impressed by the enormous waste of money in making roads and streets. The case of Willesden has been cited. Forty years ago some land there was laid out in streets at large cost, but nobody took r he property. There was a house built here and a house built there, but they appeared horribly derelict, and the property looked so awful that the adjacent owners could not sell their land. It was not until 20 years afterwards that people began to build. The President of the Board of Trade has taken up this idea somehow or other. Of course we are not surprised at that. But what he says is this—and the House should note that this is the stock argument, and I want to blow it to pieces: "How can there be so many vacant houses when we know that there are 120.009 men in Glasgow living in single rooms?" You might just as well say that, there are 120,000 men who have not champagne every day for dinner. What is the reason? Insufficiency of means. Let me put it in a nutshell. I have not got it to offer, but if I had it, and I were to offer the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Lord Advocate, or any Leaguer, 10 acres of land in the vicinity of London for nothing on condition that they expended the necessary capital to build houses to house these people—houses built according to the specification of the district surveyor and the requirements of the sanitary inspector —and took such rents as these people could give, would he do it? There is no housing
  1238
  question with the rich, or the middle classes, or the men who can afford to pay £20 a year in rent. There are thousands of houses in every town in England and Scotland ranging from £10 rental, or even lower, vacant. The meaning of it is that these poor men do not earn enough to pay for a decent shelter to cover them. Certain trustees have built a house in the East End, and have had no less than a thousand applications for rooms at 2s. 6d. for one room and 5s. for two rooms. But the land has been given as a charity, they have built the house, and what do they expect? They expect a return of 1½ per cent., which they are to put aside for reparation. It is idle, stupid, and foolish to instance that fact as a proof that land is held up. The evidence given by Mr. Harper, the Statistical Officer of the County Council, is that there are hundreds of houses in every suburb round London which could be bought for less than the mortgage money, thus wiping out the value of the land.
  To return to the tax of a halfpenny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he tries to get that tax, will have trouble and difficulty. As a practical man, I assure him that it is absolutely impossible without doing rank injustice. You take your model from Germany. Germany has adopted the increment tax, but she has not adopted such a stupid tax as this. It will be found to be absolutely unworkable. More than that, it is grossly unjust to single out any particular class of property to fix a tax upon it and leave out all other classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he is not going to put agricultural land under the same tax. I am not at all sure that he is right. I take a long view of things, and I believe firmly that 20 years hence agricultural land will be very much increased in value as compared with to-day. We have wheat and other produce rising as other countries absorb more of their own produce, and I should not be at all surprised to find that agricultural land will rise considerably more proportionately and in volume than town land. However, be that as it may, the objection I take is that this proposal throws the whole cost of the tax capitalised upon the first owner, and if he is a poor man he will have to bear the whole brunt. I think it is a most unjust tax. John Stuart Mill, whose policy you are following in regard to the increment tax, in the very same chapter uses these words in regard to this particular tax:—
  " Future buyers would acquire land and securities at a reduction. of price equivalent to the peculiar tax,

  1239
  which tax they would therefore escape from paying, while the original possessors would remain hurthened with it even after parting with the property, since they would have sold their land at a loss of value equivalent to the fee simple of the tax."
  He adds this, with which I am entirely in sympathy:—
  " Its imposition would thus be tantamount to the confiscation for public uses of a percentage of their property equal to the percentage laid on their income by the tax. That such a proposition should find any favour is a striking instance of the want of conscience in matters of taxation resulting from the absence of any fixed principles in the public mind, and of any indication of a sense of justice on the subject in the general conduct of the Governments. Should the scheme ever enlist a large party in its support, the fact would indicate a laxity of pecuniary integrity in national affairs scarcely inferior to repudiation."
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Robson): We have reached so late a stage in the discussion of these Resolutions that I am sure the House will desire that every speaker now should be as brief as possible. I think, however, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) who, on all questions, and particularly on the land question, never speaks without assisting the Debate and instructing the House, is worthy of some immediate observations by way of reply. I do not like to tell my hon. Friend, because it has been said so often, that he might wait a little longer for the Bill before he discusses the Chancellor of the Exchequer's references to two acres attached to a house: [" One acre."] One acre for present purposes. No doubt when land comes to be treated as undeveloped, it is desirable that we should not bring within the area of taxation small plots of land round houses. If, however, you have land round a house, which my hon. Friend supposes would have no value at all, and would be incapable of further development unless the house were pulled down, a valuer is not likely to charge a very considerable undeveloped land tax under such circumstances. A valuer has to take into account everything which affects the value. All these extreme cases are really put forward on the supposition that a valuer is not going to exercise ordinary sense, and that he is going to put on a value without having regard to all the things which he ought to take into account. I venture to say that if a valuer so acted he would very soon cease to be employed, either by private persons or by public authorities.
  Allowance will have to be made in every ease for the judgment, experience, and discretion of the valuer. If fair reliance
  1240
  is placed upon that, a great many of the hard cases will disappear. Once the valuer sets to work they will never be heard of again. There has never been; as my right hon. Friend pointed out the other day in the speech which he delivered on the introduction of the Death Duties, any tax, particularly any new tax, introduced without the most alarming apprehensions being felt as to how it would work. Yet, taxes have worked easily enough. We know quite well in the case of these land taxes that we are under a disadvantage both in introducing the Bill and in predicting its precise effect. We have not got in the case of these three taxes that body of practical experience which is possessed by the great civil servants after many years' working of taxes. In dealing with the Death Duties, the Stamp Duties, and the Licence Duty, we have got civil servants who are without party feeling, who desire only to carry out fairly, loyally, and practically; the wishes and the commands of their superiors, and who are of enormous assistance to those who are engaged in devising machinery. We recognise frankly and freely in these three taxes we do not possess that valued assistance.
  Therefore, to be perfectly frank about it—we anticipate that some difficulty must attend the introduction of the new taxes. But we have taken one precaution, which, we think, will minimise, if not prevent anything like substantial injustice. Some degree of inequality you must have. We have made the tax in each case a very small amount. I know that in the one case. it is said: "Oh, but you are taking a 20 per cent. tax." That is a very inaccurate, and very misleading, description. Who can say that this tax is not a fit subject-matter for taxation'? What better subject-matter can you have for a tax than property which a man comes into possession of without having earned it; and, what is more, without having expected it ! I say that you will not anywhere in the whole range of taxation find a tax which is in principle more just. You may say there are difficulties in the machinery. These are matters for adjustment. But on the question of principle, the case for this tax is unanswerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) referred to undeveloped land. There, again, you have a tax which according to expert testimony is not likely to yield much.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Have you any estimate?
  Sir W. ROBSON: We have the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the estimate of the total of the three taxes. I think the right hon. Gentleman will know that my tight hon. Friend has indicated the estimate when dealing with these taxes.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Only for one year.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Well, I cannot read my right hon. Friend's Budget speech over again. I do not think it will ever yield any great amount at all. It will yield a useful amount. But, whether it be much or little, there never was a tax proposed in any Budget more just—more essentially just. My hon. Friend has spoken of 120,000 people in Glasgow who are compelled to:inhabit single-roomed tenements. Does anybody suppose that that number of persons are living under such conditions unless it be that houses are more difficult to procure—
  Mr. REMNANT: There are 40,000 unoccupied tenements to-day.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We also hear that land is not held up, yet it is rising from a value of £100 per acre to a value of £1,000 per acre. We are continually assured that it is not held up, that there is a perfectly open market for it. Of course there is—.at the price ! Is there nothing in the nature of holding-up in a state of things where you have a rise in the value of land of 100 times its capital value? Does not that show a most urgent need by the community for one of the vital necessities of life? Does not that by itself show the facts of the case? It needs no argument. You only want the simple fact. It is quite unnecessary with such a fact to argue at any great length whether you have that enormous increment of value or not. You have evidence about which there can be no dispute—that one of the most essential needs of the community has reached a famine price. I venture to say that a tax upon that condition of things—upon the holding-up which admits of that enormous increase of value—is a just tax. Where do you find any subject-matter which may more properly bear some deduction for the sake of the public necessity? You will not find anything in the whole range of schemes of taxation put forward by the opposite sides of this House, either in Tariff Reform or in Free Trade taxation, which may be more fairly made a source of revenue for the public service than this particular kind of property.
  1242
  I have heard slavery described by a great orator as "The sum of all the villainies." I venture to say that overcrowding might be described as "the sum of all social evils." There is no one who knows anything of work in the crowded quarters of our great cities that does not feel that this tax—fiscal questions apart—is absolutely essential.
  Mr. REMNANT: There is 50 per cent. less than in America.
  Sir W. ROBSON: If we have less overcrowding than in America all I can say is that it is very bad for America.
  Mr. REMNANT: They have the system that you propose.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We have too much overcrowding in England. I wonder how anyone can seriously suggest—whether amateur or other kind of economist—that the price of land is not an important element in the cost of a house, that the cost of a house is not an important element in the rent, and that the rent is not a very strong reason why you should have scores of thousands of people living in our great cities under conditions which are too horrible to describe. One talks about 120,000 people living in single-room tenements. It is a figure, a statistic, a sort of phrase which rolls easily off the tongue. What does it mean to the people who are living under it; to the growing boys and girls in those districts? I venture to say that anything we can do, whether by fiscal or other means, that will bring land more rapidly and more cheaply into the market, and will lessen the cost of producing houses will be a public benefit, all these questions apart.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman when he got up told us that late as the hour was he thought it was necessary to reply to the speech—the very able speech—delivered by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I therefore listened with profound and respectful attention to see the reply he gave. But the right hon. Gentleman, overcome with unexpected modesty, sat down before he came to that part of his speech. He never attempted to reply. For instance, there was, I would remind him, one argument—an argument I do not mean to develop—put with great lucidity and force by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who backed it up with arguments from that amateur economist, John Stuart Mill ! The hon. Member for Aberdeen pointed out the peculiarity of the tax, to which he was

  1243
  alluding, was that it fell upon the owner for the moment, and that succeeding owners escaped. That is a very simple argument. What had the right hon. Gentleman to say upon that point? He got up to reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen. Why did he not reply to that? The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with overcrowding in the towns, and extracted from all the perorations that had reference to that difficult subject, the quintessence of vapid declamation. Observe what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument drives us to. It has been alleged—the old allegation was—that in some of our great towns there were selfish land-owners who held up the land and forced prices up beyond their natural and market value. [An HON. MEMBER: "True." It was pointed out that such cases, though they might exist, had not been actually brought before us; and that though there are probably some, that there are not a great many of them. It was not said that it was this landlord or that who had illegitimately held up the land. It was every landlord who sells land 'near a town for £1,000 an acre; because the hon. and learned Gentleman said: "Is not that a proof that land is being held up, is not that a fact, is not that evidence? We do not need argument." Certainly no argument was given. The right hon. Gentleman said no argument was needed to show that if land went for a much larger price for building than for agricultural purposes that that resulted, and could only result, from illegitimate action on the part of the holder. That brings under his condemnation every single owner of land in the country. It brings under condemnation the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge; Dulwich College—of which we have heard so much lately—the Crown; Woods and Forests; the Corporations; the London County Council—every single owner of land, public or private.
  Every single owner of land, public or private, collies under the condemnation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says they are all holding up this land illegitimately and the existing owners require to he robbed in order to put things right. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] How does the hon. and learned Gentleman meet the argument put forward, not for the first time by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), and put forward by him with great force, when the hon. Member pointed out that in every big town at this moment there were a large
  1244
  number of houses waiting for occupants? Are they illegitimately held up by the owners? Is that a greedy landlord exacting rent to which he has no right? The hon. and learned Gentleman really, when he comes down here, should try to deal with things in a business spirit. How does he deal with them. With a proposal which is going to affect gigantic interests, a proposal which is going to affect rich and poor, corporation and private individual, educational establishments and national property itself, the hon. and learned Gentleman when he comes to deal with these matters can only give us these platitudes and exaggerations which will not bear an. instant's examination.
  I have only one other observation to. make, and it is this. One great evil—and I think it will be admitted to be an evil by those who rely upon the tax—one great evil in these proposals of the Government is that they spread a serious want of confidence over the whole of one great class of property and security. That is obvious. No human being doubts it, even the Socialists themselves do not doubt that these particular proposals of the Government, however much they may be modified in the course of our Committee by discussion, have created that insecurity. That being the evil which the Government has got to face, and being inherent in the very nature of their proposals and following from them), what does the hon. and learned Gentleman do to diminish it? He tells us this is a very small tax, so insignificant that whatever injustices may be done are almost negligible. This, in the yin, of the Government, is to be the beginning of the way in which they are going to deal with present owners of this particular kind of property, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman and his successors want more money they will say: "In 1909 we started this new and admirable system. We put on a perfectly trifling tax at first —29 per cent. or so "—no, it was not as much as 29 per cent., it was something less than 29 per cent.—" and now when the State is really in want of money we may tax the existing owners of this particular kind of property in some more reasonable fashion." Is that the way to deal with all that vast interest which has legitimately grown up under the shadow of our law? Is that the way to deal with the vast number of people and associations and insurance companies and provident and friendly societies and building societies? Is that the way to deal with the property in land which was bought

  1245
  by money on mortgage for the purpose of development? Is that the way to deal with the people who have purchased reversions? A more reckless method of dealing with great interests I have never seen in this country, and, while I am bound to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speeches tries to minimise as far as possible the effects of his Budget, and by kindly expressions endeavours to make us forget what the Budget really contains, his hon. and learned Friend, who is going to support him in all future discussions, takes care not merely to remind us what the Budget contains but what other Budgets brought forward by himself and his friends are likely to contain in the future.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: I would like to remind the House that there have been speeches made from this side of the House in particular assailing the policy contained in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly perfectly well able to take care of himself, but, seeing that there have been amongst his supporters some who have offered some criticism upon his proposals, I should like to assure him and the House that in me he has, at any rate, one whole-hearted and encouraging supporter. I am quite certain there are a great many more who have not spoken as yet. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Randles) opposite made a particular attack upon this proposal, as also, I think, did the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) of ½d. duty on undeveloped land. The hon. Baronet said this was a sop to the land-taxer, and the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire put the same view. Therefore I wish to say whether it is a sop or not we are very glad to get it, for we regard it as a recognition of patient, laborious, and prolonged agitation in favour of an element of justice in our taxation. To my mind, of all the proposals made this one is the most just. I cannot follow the reasoning of those Gentlemen who have opposed it. It appears to me that if one individual member of the community takes away from the use and from the profit of the community for his own use and profit say 100 acres of land, it is a very reasonable thing indeed to ask him to pay to the community an acknowledgment of 4s. 2d. a year for that. That is all we do. All these supposed entanglements and difficulties I believe will vanish like the morning mist when we come to discuss the Question in Committee. The hon.
  1246
  Baronet was also very anxious about the Death Duties upon those who leave land. I have been astonished at the tenderness shown in this House for the dead man. I do not see that a man who has enjoyed his. property all his life is forced by death to lay it down without any further interest in it--why we should be very careful to protect the interests of those who come after him. If we are to pay our taxes after we are dead surely that will be the most agreeable way to pay our contribution.
  There is one other point on which I want to dwell for a moment. The hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant) asked why land should be exceptionally treated. We have been told over and over again that land differs from other forms of property. It was asked why a man who put his money in land should have a further tax put upon him while his brother who invested his money in some other enterprise should be free from that tax. I will give two reasons which I think are absolutely. conclusive why land differs entirely and essentially from every other kind of property whatsoever. The first is because it is rigidly and absolutely limited in quantity. You cannot make it any more and you cannot make it any less. 'Taxation cannot do it. That is riot so with anything else except land. If you tax houses you will have fewer houses, if you tax whisky the temperance people rejoice because less whisky will be drunk. If you put on a Tariff Reform tax, as the Tariff Reformers-will when they come in, and tax bread, the poor will have less bread. If it is proposed to put a tax on bachelors, that is in order to make them marry and remain bachelors no longer. If you propose to relieve a man from Income Tax for every child under 16, that is in order that the birth-rate may be stimulated, and so on with everything in existence except land. You cannot make it less, you cannot make it more, however much you may tax it. It is free from that one drawback common to all other taxation, and more than that, while the taxation of everything else but land makes it dearer, the taxation of land makes it cheaper. That is why the possessors of land protest against this taxation, because it will cheapen land, and that is why we approve of it, because it will bring land into the market. You will then have all the more land available for the labourer who is waiting to be employed.
  One other instance, equally sufficient, and, perhaps, more important, why land stands out from every form of property is that it is absolutely necessary to the life

  1247
  of man. I think myself the Chancellor of the Exchequer is too little like a Tudor. I am sorry he exempted agricultural land, because all classes of land are the same in principle. We all live upon the land and must work upon it. A few thousands hold land as landlords, but there are many landless millions who would be glad to have some, but these landless millions are absolutely at the mercy of the few favoured who own land. The other day there was a corner in wheat in Chicago, and public opinion condemned the speculator who had been husbanding the precious grain and keeping it from the people. That was because it was alleged to be a necessary of life, but it is only in a very limited sense that wheat is a necessary of life. There are large populations who live upon rice, and others live on chestnuts and bananas. On the other hand land is an absolute necessity because no man can live without it, and it is as necessary to human life as water is to the life of a fish. Land is the parent of all monopolies, and I hail this Budget as an historic Budget. A year ago we were laboriously trying to recover for the State a very small part of an important monopoly, and now we are endeavouring for the first time to recover the monopoly of the land. I promise an ungrudging support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, which contains for the first time a reform of the Land Laws.
  Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: I want to say a word or two as one who is not a landlord, and as one who has no interest in land revenue. I am one of the unfortunate millions who do not possess any land owing to the legislation of this House many years ago. I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the departure he is making, which I think is in the right direction, namely, that of restoring an interest which was taken away from the people by Parliament many many years ago. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) said there were thousands of people in Glasgow living in one-room tenements, and that the same thing could be found in other large towns in the country. That is due to two reasons, and one of them is the economic one. The economic one is due to the fact that the land was taken away from the people by Parliament centuries ago. In the next place you have the land lying idle, and a tax upon it will force it into the market,
  1248
  and this will create a healthy competition in regard to building sites, and will bring down rents. The hon. Member (Mr. Remnant) stated that few people in London were receiving much money from ground rents. I was very much surprised at the statement, because here I have the figures which prove that the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Bedford, Earl Cadogan, Duke of Norfolk, Lord Northampton, the Duke of Portland. and others are getting £20,000,000 every year in the shape of rent from the users of land. We are told that the prices are going up as the leases fall in, and to tell us that we have no right to tap this increment, whch is not created by the landowner, is to make a statement which I hope will not carry weight in this House.
  Everybody knows that the benefit of muuicipal expenditure, whether in regard to trams or anything else, is always pocketed by the landowner. I notice in this House that whenever we get discussing the land question we have a keen Debate. I have been reading up this subject, and I find that for the past 50 years:n these Debates it has been the same story year in and year out, namely, that the land of the country is not paying, and hon. Members have been everlastingly appealing to the House to give additional relief to the landlords. When the Agricultural Rates Bill was made permanent it saddled £2,000,000 a year more upon the people in the towns, and in every attempt that has been made in this direction I find that the landlords got relief. If you go back to the year 1817 you will find the land has been relieved of taxation bit by bit, and the burden of taxation has been gradually transferred from the shoulders of the landowner through the assistance of Parliament to the people in towns, who are now paying 84 per cent. of the taxes, as against land 66.66 per cent., and other property:33.33 per cent. about 90 years ago. I think it is time that an attempt was made to make the landowners pay more in the future than they have done in the past. With regard to increment, it has been said that the landlord should also be relieved in regard to decrement. I think I have already proved that it has been relief for decrement for the past 100 years, and the land-owners have been getting relief all that time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way, but will adhere to this tax. I agree that land has gone out of cultivation,. but the excuse

  1249
  given has always been that the landowners could not make it pay, and they have frequently appealed for relief, and they got relief year after year, yet land is still going out of cultivation. To my mind the policy now proposed is a just one, and will be most beneficial in its. effect.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD (Liverpool): I want to put three very short questions. My first is in regard to the valuation. The whole bases of these taxes are to depend upon some valuation. We have been told that all improvements are to be excluded which have been made by the owner during the whole time and then the agricultural value is to be deducted. I want to know what is left. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to assuage our anxiety by saying that this valuation is going to he a very small one. That is just what will make the tax a large one, because the increment is what is going to be paid upon, and that is the difference between a low valuation now made and the price which is subsequently realised.
  My second question is in regard to the lease involved in the second part of this Resolution which has scarcely been referred to up to the present. If a man wakes a favourable lease to a tenant on the expiration of that lease the benefit to him is greater than if he had made a rack-rented lease because he is resuming a larger value in consequence of the dropping of the lease. If that is correct no landlord will make a favourable lease on any terms to a tenant because the only effect would be that on the dropping of that lease he would have a larger tax to pay. The third question is with regard to the carrying out of this tax from a practi-
  cal point of view. I think I am justified is asking this question, because I have had 25 years' experience in the kind of business involved in a question of this sort. No tax on land can be collected in this country, or in any other country, unless it is constituted a blot on the title. If you do that every person is bound to see that the tax has been duly paid. Unless that is carried out in the Bill which we are going to get later on it will be impossible to collect this tax on land.
  To-day, we know that when valuations have to be taken in regard to ungotterr minerals when questions of this kind are involved it takes on the average a year to get those matters through Somerset House, and I have known cases which have taken over two years. It does not matter whether the duty is 5s. or £500 the difficulty is just the same. If these taxes are made a blot on the title, and if it is going to he all this trouble to find out the exact amount to be paid in the case of every bit of land considerable delay will be the result. There are only two alternatives, and one is that these taxes will not be paid, but will be evaded in every turn under this system. If they are made blots on the title, the burden on the community, and the difficulty of transferring and ascertaining the amount will be practically insuperable, and the cost will be out of all proportion to the sum of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to indicate would result from these taxes. I am obliged to the House for allowing me to put these three short points.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 135.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork. N.E.)

  Bennett. E N.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Adkins. W. Ryland D.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Clough, William

  Alden, Percy

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bramsdon, T A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Alien. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Branch, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Armitage, R.

  Brigq, John

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Armstrong. W. C. Heaton

  Brooke, Stopford

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Astbury, John Meir.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crooks, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crossley, William J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burt. Rt. Hon Thomas

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dickinson. W. R. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bell Richard

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scarisbrick, T. T L.

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Maclean, Donald

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Falconer, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Seely, Colonel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Firench, Peter

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maddison, Frederick

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gill A. H.

  Mallet, Charles E

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Snowden, P.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Walter

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Summerbell, T.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Aiport

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mond, A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Tomkinson, James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Helene, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Verney, F. W.

  Henderson, J. McD. (A'deen, W.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Vivian, Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Walton, Joseph

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wardle, George J.

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C. J (Walworth)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Partington, Oswald

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pointer, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Williamson, A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Robinson, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Lamont, Norman

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy, (Essex, Harwich)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lend.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Chance, Frederick William

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clark, George Smith

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Forster, Henry William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clyde, J. A.

  Foster, P. S.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Gooch, Henry Cubltt (Peckham)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cox, Harold

  Gordon, J.

  1252

  1253

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Gretton, John

  Meysey Thompson, E. C

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Hamilton, Marquis of

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newdegate, F A.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Oddy, John James

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Kerry. Earl of

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Keswick, William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Younger, George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  MacCaw, Wm J MacGeagh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  M`Calmont, Col. James

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Resolution [10th May] reported,

  EXCISE LIQUOR LICENCES.
  "That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, in lieu of the duties of Excise now payable in respect of

  TABLE A.—MANUFACTURERS' LICENCES.

  Licence to he taken out annually.

  Duty.

  1. Spirits:—

  (a) By a distiller of spirits

  Duty specified in scale 1.

  (b) By a rectifier of spirits

  £15 15s.

  2. Beer:—

  By a brewer of beer for sale

  Duty specified in scale 2.

  By brewer of beer not being a brewer for sale

  If he is the occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding ten pounds and not exceeding fifteen pounds and brews solely for his own domestic use, 9s.

  In any other case, 4s.

  3. Cider:—

  By a maker for sale of cider

  £5 5s.

  4. Sweets:-

  By a maker for sale of sweets

  £5 5s.

  SCALE 1.—SPIRIT DISTILLER'S LICENCE.

  Number of proof gallons of spirits distilled—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 50,000

  10

  0

  0

  SCALE 2.—LICENCE TO BREWER FOR SALE.

  Number of bulk barrels brewed—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 100

  1

  0

  0

  B.—WHOLESALE DEALERS' LICENCES.

  Licence to he taken out annually by a wholesale dealer in—

  £

  s.

  d.

  1. Spirits

  15

  15

  0

  2. Beer

  10

  10

  0

  the licences for the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor, there shall be charged throughout the United Kingdom on the licences specified in the following Table the duties of Excise specified in that Table."

  Exceeding 50,000—

  For every 25,000 proof gallons or fraction of 25,000

  £

  s.

  d.

  proof gallons

  10

  0

  0

  Exceeding 100 barrels—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every 50 barrels or fraction of 50 barrels

  0

  12

  0

  £

  s.

  d.

  3. Cider

  5

  5

  0

  4. Wine

  10

  10

  0

  5. Sweets

  5

  5

  0

  C. RETAILERS' LICENCES

  I.—On-Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a retailer of—

  Duty.

  1. Spirits (Publican's licence)

  A duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3.

  2. Beer (Beerhouse licence)

  A duty equal to a third of the annual value of the licensed premises subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3.

  3 Cider

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4.

  4. Wine

  Duty specified in Scale 4.

  5. Sweets

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4.

  SCALE 3.
  Minimum duty payable for Publican's and Beerhouse Licence.
  There shall be a minimum duty payable on the publican's licence and the beer-house licence respectively, as shown in the following scale:—

  Minimum Duty.

  Population.

  Publican licence.

  Beerhouse licence.

  £

  £

  s.

  In urban areas with a populalion of less than 2,000 and elsewhere than in urban areas

  5

  3

  10

  In urban areas with a population of—

  2,000 and less than 5,000

  10

  6

  10

  5,000 and less than 10,000

  15

  10

  0

  10,000 and less than 50,000

  20

  13

  0

  50,000 and less than 100,00

  30

  20

  0

  100,000 or above

  35

  23

  10

  II.—Off-Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a retailer of —

  1. Spirits

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Duty specified in scale 5.

  2.

  Beer

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Duty specified in scale 6.

  3. Cider

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  £2.

  4.

  Wine

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Duty specified in scale 6.

  5. Sweets

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  £2.

  SCALE 5.
  Spirit Retailer's Off-Licence.

  Annual value of licensed premises—

  DUTY

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  14

  0

  0

  £30 and under £50

  20

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  30

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  50

  0

  0

  For the purposes of this scale an urban area means any county borough, borough, or other urban district, and the administrative county of London shall be deemed to be a single urban area.

  SCALE 4.
  Wine Retailer's On-Licence.

  Annual value of licensed premises—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  4

  10

  0

  £30 and under £50

  6

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  9

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  12

  0

  0

  The duty on a cider retailer's on-licence and a sweets retailer's on-licence is to be half the duty under the above scale.

  SCALE 6.
  Beer Retailer's or Wine Retailer's Off-Licence.

  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  3

  10

  0

  £30 and under £50

  5

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  7

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  10

  0

  0

  D.—PASSENGER VESSEL LICENCES.
  1. Licence to be taken out annually in respect of a passenger vessel by the master or other person belonging to the vessel nominated by the owner of the vessel—
  Duty of £10.
  2. Licence to be taken out in respect of a passenger vessel by the master or other person belonging to the vessel nominated by the owner of the vessel, and to be in force for one day only—
  Duty of £2.

  E.—RAILWAY RESTAURANT CAR LICENCES.
  Licence to be taken out annually in respect of a railway restaurant car by the railway company or other person owning the car—
  Duty of £1.

  F.—OCCASIONAL LICENCES.
  Occasional licences granted under section 13 of The Revenue Act, 1862 (25 and
  26 Vic, c. 22), section 20 of The Revenue Act, 1863 (26 and 27 Vic., c. 33), and section 5 of The Revenue Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vic., c. 18).
  Duties:—
  (a) Sale of any intoxicating liquor—per day, 10s.
  (b) Sale of beer or wine only—per day, 5s.
  The enactments specified to have effect throughout the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 112.

  Division No: 136.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Acland,Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hawortn,Arthur A.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (st. Fancras, W.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Aiden Peracy

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Alien, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cotton Sir H. J. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Armitage, R.

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Asquan Rt. Hon Herbet Henry

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hodge, John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Beale, W. P.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Beaumont, H on. Hubert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bell, Richard

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Isaacs, Rutus Daniel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jenkins, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jonnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Malden)

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bowerman, C W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Branen, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Faber. G. H. (Boston)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Brooke, Stanford

  Falconer, J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

  Bryce. J Annan

  Ferens, T. R

  Lamont, Norman

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. Jonn

  Gill, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cameron, Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood. C. (Peterbnrough)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Chance Frederick William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. sir Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cherry Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-sh.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harwood, George

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tennant, H. J (Berwickshire)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Richards, Thomas, W. (Monmouth)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Massle, J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Menzies, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson Sir William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roch, Walter F (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mond, A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wardie, George J.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wason, RI. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rowlands, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry A

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Myer, Horatio

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Napier, T. B

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholls, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wiikie. Alexander

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Partington, Oswald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Phillpps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Snowden, P.

  Winfrey, R.

  Pointer, J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Joseph Pease arid the Master of Elibank.

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Ftrench, Peter

  Oddy, John James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ranales, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquis of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peet

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant James Farquharson

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Beckett Hon Gervase

  Hazleton, Richard

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edwin Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.).

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clark, George Smith

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Percy Archer

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Middlemere, John Throgmorton

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Dickson Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate, F A.

  A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Resolutions [18th May] reported,

  STAMP DUTIES.—TRANSIERS ON SALE OF PROPERTY.
  1. "That the stamp duties charged on conveyances or transfers on sale of property or leases shall be double those now chargeable."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 112.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES.

  [7.35 p. m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Alden, Percy

  Erskine, David C.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Essex, R. W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Falconer, J.

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gill, A. H.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marnham, F. J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Massie, J.

  Bell, Richard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Menzies, Walter

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bennett, E N

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mond, A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rumford)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Morse, L. L.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-sh.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Branch, James

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Napier, T. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Newries, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholls, George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, C J. (Walworth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hodge, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Safe Wald.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pointer, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Clough, William

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Clynes, J. R

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crooks, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Daiziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lembert, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Dlike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Dunn, A. Coward (Camborne)

  Lloyd-George, Rt Hon. David

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Sears, J. E

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Seaveras, J. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, J. Duncas (Dumbartonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Shaw, Sir Charier E. (Stafford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Woverhampton)

  Wlikie, Alexander

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillps

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Snowden, P.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Word, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Winfrey, R.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, R. M Kinnon

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Summerbell, T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Captain Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Firench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, P. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  ArkwrIght, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Handles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bariag, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  BignoId, Sir Arthur

  Hazleton, Richard

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Clark, George Smith

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clyde, J. Avon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Meysey-Thomason, E. C.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Middlemen, John Throgmorton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  VOLUNTARY DISPOSITIONS INTER VIVOS.
  2. "That conveyances or transfers operating as voluntary dispositions inter vivos shall he charged with stamp duties, calculated on the value of the property conveyed or transferred, at the like rates as those chargeable on conveyances or transfers on sale."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 104.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle at Wight)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Alden, Percy

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romfard)

  Armitage, R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Branch, James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Rees, J. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geohrey

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hudson, Walter

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jardine., Sir J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robinson, S.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lambert, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Sears, J. E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

  Cowan. W. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cox. Harold

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crooks, William

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crossley, William J.

  Luttrell, H ugh Fownes

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Snowden, P

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Maclean. Donald

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Elibank, Master of

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Erskine, David C

  Markham,Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marks, G. Greydon (Launceston)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Markham, F. J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Evans, Sir S T.

  Massie, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tomkinson. James

  Falconer, J.

  Menzies, Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Verney, F. W.

  Ferens, T. R

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morse, L. L.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waring, Walter

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Napier, T. B.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Nicholls, George

  Watt, Henry A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whiitaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Harmsworth, R L. (Caithness-sh.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Harwood, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, J.

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Pollard, Dr. G. H

  Weed, T. M'Kinnon

  Henry, Charles S

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Hodge, John

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  1266

  1267

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Bandies, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley. H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hazleton, Richard

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brothertan, Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clark, George Smith

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Williamson, A.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Crack, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  BEAKER BOND ISSUES.
  3. "That the stamp duties charged on marketable securities transferable by delivery and share warrants or stock certificates to bearer shall be double those now chargeable."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 102.

  Division No. 139.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

  Abraham, W (Cork, N.E.)

  Barns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Alden, Percy

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York. Otley)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Armitage, R.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, R. Hon. R. R.

  Ellbank, Master of

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Erskine, David C.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Clough, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beale, W. P.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Eeck, A. Cecil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Bell, Richard

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Falconer, J.

  Bellairs, Carlyen

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Firench, Peter

  Berridge, T. H. D

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cox, Harold

  Gill, A. H.

  Bowerman, C W.

  Crooks, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Branch, James

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol. S.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sears, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvii)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Seely, Colonel

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Massie, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harwood, George

  Masterman, C F. G.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Walter

  Slicock, Thomas Ball

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Abort

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, A.

  Snowden, P.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyutph (Chesbireb

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Napier, T. B.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Hussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Partington, Oswald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tomkinson, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Staffs, Leek.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Phillipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Verney, F. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Jenkins, J.

  Pointer, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Walton, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wardle, George J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Waring, Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rees, J. D.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ridsdale, E A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mackarriess, Frederic C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Winfrey, R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowlands, J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Captain Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginalo

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  NOES.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gretton, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clark, George Smith

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ashley, W. W.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harrison-Brondley, H. B.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farehamp)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Foster, P. S.

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

  Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  1270

  1271

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Oddy, John James

  Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Younger, George

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Starkey. John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Resolution reported.

  CONTRACT NOTES.
  4. "That in lieu of the Stamp Duties now chargeable on contract notes for or relating to the sale or purchase of any stock or marketable security there shall be charged the following Stamp Duties, that is to say:—
  Where the value of the stock or marketable security—
  Is £5 and does not exceed £100, sixpence;
  Exceeds £100 and does not exceed £500, one shilling;
  Exceeds £500 and does not, exceed £1,000, two shillings;
  And for each additional £1,000 or fraction of £1,000, two shillings."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 93.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Abraham. William (Rhondda)

  Cobboid, Felix Thornley

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Alden, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Marine, J. Keir (Merthyr Idyvil)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cox, Harold

  Harwood, George

  Bering, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crossley, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duziel, Sir James Henry

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Helene, Norval Watson

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Davies, Hmotny (Fulham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Henry, Charics S.

  Bellairs. Carlyon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hodge, John

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dunn, A. Edwards (Camborne)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bewerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Branch, James

  Erskine, David C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brooke, Stoptord

  Essex, R. W.

  Hudson, Waiter

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

  Esslemont, George Bernie

  Holland, Alfred Eddison

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Iningworth, Percy H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Falconer, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cawley. Sir Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jones. William (Carnarvonshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gill, A. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cheetham. John Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lambert, George

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lamont, Norman

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summerbell, T.

  Lever, W. H. (chesnire, Wirral)

  Pointer, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Verney, F. W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Vivian, Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walton, Joseph

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Waring, Walter

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robinson S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marks. G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Massie, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  Menzies. Walter

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Mond, A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Fit. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morgan, G. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Nicholls. George

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Winfrey, R.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nuttall. Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Connor. John (Kildare. N.)

  Snowden. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Parker. James (Halifax)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Brldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pretyman. E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randies. Sir John Scurrah

  Baring. Capt. Hon G. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerstgn)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blgnold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renwick. George

  Brotherton. Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Burdett-Coutts. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter. Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Mildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil. Evelyn (Aston, Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberilain. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clark, George Smith

  Lyttelton. Rt. Hon Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Percy Archer

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wilson. A Stanley (York. E R.)

  Cochrane. Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmav, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Sir

  Dalrymple. Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  A. Acland-Hood and Lord Edmund Talbot.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate. F. A.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  OPTION TRANSACTIONS.
  5. "That the like obligation to execute a contract note shall have effect, and the like stamp duty shall be charged—
  (a) In the case of a contract under which an option is given to purchase or sell any stock or marketable security at a future tune at a certain price; and
  (b) In the case of the sale or purchase of any stock or marketable security by a person who, by way of business, deals or
  holds himself out as dealing as a principal in stocks or marketable security; as in the case of the sale or purchase of any stock or marketable security by a broker or agent."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 84.

  Division No. 141.]

  AYES.

  [8.13 p. m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lewis. John Herbert

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Alden, Percy

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Aetbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Maclean, Donald

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Falconer, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macpherson, J. T

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gill, A. H.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bell, Richard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Manfield. Harry (Northants)

  Bellairs, Canyon

  Glen-Coates, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bens, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceatacon)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Berridge T. H. D.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Massie, J.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Grey, Rt Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

  Menzies, Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Mold, A.

  Brooke, Stanford

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

  Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Myer, Horatio

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Napier, T. B.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholls, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Cnnnon, John (Kildare, N.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, C J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Partington, Oswald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek;

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Staff. Wald.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Corrpton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, J.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jardine, Sir J

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cox, Harold

  Jenkins, J.

  Radford, G H.

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Ridsdale, E. A,

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Linco'n)

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

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Laylard-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duncan, C(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Summerbell, T.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rowlands. J

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Scars, J. E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Seely, Colonel

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Winfrey, R.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Snowden, P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—The

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Weterlow, D S.

  Mastar of Elibank and Captain Norton.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Anson, Sir William Reyneil

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Oddy, John James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brotherton Edward Allen

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggersten)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Clark, George Smith

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Col. James

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dalrymple. Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Dickson, Rt. Hon C. Scott-

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NAVAL DEFENCE (TWO-POWER STANDARD).
  Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG rose "to call attention to the divergent and contradictory opinions expressed by various Members of His Majesty's Government on the subject of Naval Defence," and formally moved: "That this House would view with alarm any modification of the two-power standard as defined by the Prime Minister on the 12th and 23rd November, 1908, viz., a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strengths in capital ships of the two next strongest Powers, whatever those Powers may be and wherever they may be situated."
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG:I think I should explain to the House the reason why my hon. Friend formally moved the Resolu
  1278
  tion this evening. The House may remember that earlier in the Session I had actually given notice of a Resolution in practically the same terms as the one. which my hon. Friend has now moved, and when, a few days later, he was fortunate enough to get first place in the ballot he thought this was the most important matter which could be brought before the House, and, having put it on the Paper, he has been good enough to ask me to present it to the House. I bring forward the Motion to-night in the confident hope that the Prime Minister, or whatever Minister may reply on this Debate, will be able to reassure us, and to give the House of Commons a specific and definite statement on the question of the two-Power standard, as the Prime Minister did on so many occasions last

  1279
  Session. I has e read and re-read all the speeches made by the Prime Minister last Session, and all the answers to the numerous questions put to him on this specific point, and I am bound to say, and, indeed, I am glad to say that I can find nothing in any of all those speeches which the most sceptical and suspicious member of the school which holds that we should maintain the two-Power standard without any qualification could find fault with. I say that with all the greatest pleasure, because it has been our lot on this side of the House earlier in the Session to express our disapproval of the Government's action, or rather want of action, in another branch of naval policy by bringing, forward a vote of censure. We had to do that because under our Parliamentary system there was no other way in which we could show our disapproval of their action in that particular matter. We knew that when we did so we would be met with the taunt of dragging the Navy into party politics. We rebutted that taunt then, and we do so now, and we do not regret having taken the course we did. Having said that, I am glad to say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that nothing will give the Opposition to-night greater pleasure, and nothing will give, I believe, to millions of cur fellow country men outside the House greater pleasure than to hear to-night from whoever replies on behalf of the Government that the Prime Minister and the Government have made up their minds, if they ever departed from the position taken up last Session, to adhere absolutely and fearlessly to the declaration they made on this point last Session.
  In the few quotations I desire to lay before the House I propose to go only so far back as the beginning of last Session. The House will remember that the hen. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. J. A. M. Macdonald) moved an Amendment to the Address, asking for a reduction in the expenditure on armaments, and the House will remember that he urged that Resolution on a variety of grounds. These grounds did not find favour with the House as a whole, but they had the result of detaching some 70, or perhaps 75, Members into the opposite Lobby in favour of a reduction of our armaments, and inferentially in favour of the abandonment of the two-Power standard. That Debate was a very interesting Debate. To my mind, by far the most interesting feature in the Debate was the statement made by the Prime
  1280
  Minister with reference to our requirements in the way of national defence. I shall have several quotations to read to the House, but none of them will take very long, and therefore I will not apologise for reading them more or less in full. The Prime Minister on that occasion made use, among others, of these words. He said:—
  " The command of the sea, however important and however desirable it may be to other Powers, is to us a matter of life and death. We joust safeguard it not against imaginary dangers, not against bogies, spectres, and ghosts, bin we must safeguard it against all contingencies that can reasonably enter into the calculations of statesmen. For that impose we believe it to. be our duty to maintain our standard of relative naval strength. Both my hon. friends "
  (referring to the hon. Members for Falkirk Burghs and Northwich)
  "have said something as to the historical origin of what is called the two-Power standard. and I daresay they are correct in their statements which they made on that point, but I do not think that the historical origin of the standard matters very Much. The combinations of Powers and the relations between Powers necessarily shift from time to time The standard which is necessary for this country you may express it by any formula you please, though I believe it to be a convenient and practical formula - the standard it hid, we have to maintain is one which would give us complete and absolute command of the sea against any reasonable-possible combination of Powers."
  And then he goes on to say it is undesirable to speculate as to what these combinations may be.
  That seemed to me to be a perfectly plain straightforward declaration of the Government conception of the meaning of the expression, "two-Power standard," and I think I may speak for my Friends on these Benches when I say that we were quite satisfied with that description of it, and we thought that, having given that very straightforward interpretation of the phrase, we had probably heard the last of it Bat that was not the view of the 73 Members opposite who went into the Lobby on that Division, and whom, for want of a better name, I am going to call to-night—without meaning any disrespect to them--the "Little Navy party." It soon appeared to us that these Gentlemen did not take our view that this was a description of the two-Power standard at which, once for all, cleared away all difficulty. They professed to find in the statement which I have just read by no means the negative of their proposal for a reduction of armament, which we thought it was. They found salvetion in two sentences of the extracts which I have just read. First of all in the sentence: "We roust safeguard it "— that is, our command of the sea—" not against imaginary dangers, but against all contingencies that can reasonably enter into the calcu-

  1281
  lations of Statesmen," and also in the other phrase which occurs later in the quotation:—
  " The standard which we have to maintain is one which would give us complete and absolute command of the sea against any reasonably possible combination of Powers."
  I understand, so far as I have been able to follow what I have seen in the papers and what I have heard, that it was on those two sentences of the extracts from the Prime Minister's speech that I have read that hon. Members opposite in the Small Navy party relied.
  These hon. Members, and the newspapers which support their views, argue that the words which I have just read put a completely different complexion on the meaning of the two-Power standard from anything they had ever heard before. Under the reservations contained in these words they maintained, I understand, 'that such powers, for instance, as Japan might be quite easily left out of our calculation in deciding what Powers we will have to take into account in making up cur two-Power standard. They said:—
  " We are bound to Japan by a defensive and offensive alliance, and to use the words of the Prime Minister, it is not a contingency which can reasonably enter into the calculations of Statesmen that we should go to war with a Power which is hound to us by a solemn Treaty."
  In the same way with the United States of America, they have always maintained that it is beyond the bounds of probability, and they even go so far as to say that it is even beyond the bounds of probability that this country should ever be at war with the United States of America, and that on those grounds it would be manifestly absurd that we should take that Fewer into consideration in calculating our two-Power standard. I am not sure but that by a somewhat similar method of reasoning they have not ruled out France from their calculations, because they say that owing to the agreement, which happily has been come to between the two countries within the last few years, and the cordial relations which exists between the two countries, there is practically no possibility or no probability of war between us. I can only say, with reference to those three nations, that I have the very highest respect for the Japanese Alliance and also for the Japanese, and that I look to a very great advantage accruing both to this country and to Japan for that alliance; I also agree with them to a certain extent, in fact I go long way with them in the matter of the improbability of our
  1282
  ever being at war with the United States, but I do not go as far as they appear to go in stating that such a war is impossible.
  An HON. MEMBER: Nothing is impossible.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Yes It is highly improbable but not impossible that we should go to war with the United States. With regard to France no one rejoices more than I do that, after all these years, I might also say centuries, of misunderstanding, we should at last, very much too late in my judgment, have settled all these minor differences, and that we now enjoy cordial relations with them. I sincerely trust that those relations may last for all time, but having said that I do not mean to say for one moment that these facts have any bearing on the two-Power standard. The way I look at it, and the way, I believe my hon. Friends around me, and also I hope the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me, look at it is, that if any one of these three Powers was under some unfortunate set of circumstances which it is impossible for us to foresee at some future time to be drawn into a war against us—and I am prepared to admit, of course, that such a contingency is very remote, and in the case of the United States extremely remote — each of these three nations have a navy, and so long as that navy is capable of being used against U3 for offensive purposes we must take that navy into consideration, and we must treat that navy or that nation as a potential enemy. It may be a very, remotely potential enemy; but, still, it is a potential enemy, and if we are always to feel safe in command of the sea, no matter how closely you may be bound to any one of these Powers by treaties or by ties of blood or by other means, I would say that we must treat the navies of each of these countries as our potential enemies, and must make our disposition accordingly. The second extract from the Prime Minister's speech—a speech which he made last Session—seems to have been specially designed by the right hon. Gentleman to dispel what I am sure he realised at that time, and I hope still realises, were idle hopes on the part of the Little Navy party. I would commend this extract very strongly to the attention of the House. It was made on 10th March. last on the Naval Estimates in reply to the

  1283
  Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister on that occasion said
  " I proceed to answer the right hon. Gentleman, and let me repeat what I said more than a week ago, that I do not think there is the faintest difference between-us on the two points, one of which may be said to involve the other. The first is that we must maintain the unassailable supremacy of this country on the sea. and for that purpose the two-Power standard, as it is the only one, whether an unscientific formula or not, is a good, practicable and workable one. There is no difference of opinion between successive Administrations on this point."
  I think anyone on this side of the House will regard that statement as absolutely unexceptionable, and as distinct and as clear as anyone could wish for. It came at a very opportune moment from our point of view, at any rate, and it damped down the joy of the Little Navy party. What I now propose to lay down to the House is this, that you should have a power in naval strength—I will not say in naval ships, but in naval strength generally—greater than that of any two other Powers in the world, no matter where those Powers may be, and no matter whether one or two of those Powers be either Japan, the United States of America, or France. I desire to emphasise those three nations. Hon. Members opposite will not deny that this has always been the view which we on this side, at any rate, have held in regard to the two-Power standard. I will draw the attention of the House particularly to the fact that the Prime Minister, in the extract which I have just read from his speech, emphasises the fact that there is not the faintest difference between his conception of the two-Power standard and ours, which is that which I have just laid down. After that very clear statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought it probable that we had heard the last about the policy of the two-Power standard. Indeed, for some time we did not hear anything more about it, and I think it was not until the resumption of the House in the Autumn Session that the matter was again brought up. It was brought up on that occasion by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Lee). He asked a question which was the outcome of reports and rumours of which everybody had heard, that an attempt was being made by hon. Members, who desire a reduction of our armaments, to obtain a declaration from the Prime Minister, or from the Government, that at any rate the United States could be left out of the calculation in working out the two-Power standard. They did not, however, get very much satisfaction on that
  1284
  occasion from the Prime Minister, who simply reasserted the principle that all we had to do in deciding on the two-Power standard was to find out the two next strongest Powers in the world and make our Navy 30 per cent. stronger. The question put on 12th November is the question on which, with the answer, my hon. Friend has framed the Resolution on the Paper. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Lee) asked the Prime Minister:—
  "Whether the Government accepts the two-Power statulard of naval strength;is meaning a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strengths in capital ships of the nest strongest Powers; and if not, can he state the definition of the two-power standard accepted by the Government."

  The right hon Gentleman's answer was:
  "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative."
  Again I say nothing can be more clear and more satisfactory than that, though it might not be so to those Gentlemen who belong to the Little Navy party. In using that description I do not wish to give offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. MADDISON: Call it the "Sufficient. Navy party."
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I have no desire to hurt the feelings of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I will call it the Smaller Naval party. These gentlemen, quite contrary to expectation, were apparently quite undismayed by the series of excellent specific' and clear answers to questions made front this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk asked whether the. definition given by the Prime Minister earlier, and to which I referred by reading the first extract, meant the maintenance of the command of the sea against any reasonable and possible combination of Powers. The Prime Minister very properly said:—
  " The statement in my hon. Friend's question, and the-statement in ray own Speech were identical. There is not the slightest doubt on the subject."
  My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Arthur Lee) put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister whether by the next two strongest Powers he meant the two, strongest Powers wherever they might be situated and whoever they might be. It was perfectly well known at the time—at any rate, I certainly took it to be the object of the question—that the desire was to elicit the fact categorically from the Prime Minister that America was not to left out of our calculations in this matter. After that answer, I think it will require an extraordinary amount of jugglery, either on the part of the Smaller Navy

  1285
  Party or the President of the Board of Trade, who may take the task in hand, to prove that last year it was the policy of the Government to eliminate any Power whatever from their calculations when making up our two-Power standard. I will read one more abstract, and that chiefly to show the pertinacity of hon. Members opposite in following up this matter and endeavouring to get the modification which they desired; and also to show, as late as 17th December of last year, the position of the Government was, from our point of view, absolutely correct on this matter. This a question which was addressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Lee) to the Prime Minister, and was prompted by the fact that reports appeared in some newspapers and reports were current that the Smaller Navy Party were still endeavouring to get modifications of the two-Power standard from the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Arthur Lee) asked this question:—
  " I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the report of a resolution, recently passed by the signatories to the Memorial on Reduction of Armaments, in which, apparently as the result of private communications with the Prime Minister, the signatories profess to have obtained justification for the hope that he will shortly make a public announcement modifying the statements which he recently made in this House on the subject of the two-Power Standard; to ask him, further, whether the report in question has been published with his authority, and whether there is any justification for the suggestion that the views of the Government have undergone a change since his public announcements on 13th and 23rd November."
  The Prime Minister replied to that:—
  " The views of the Government have not undergone any change, nor have I any intention of modifiying the statements which I have made. My answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers did not announce any change of policy, but the intention of the Government to continue to pursue a policy which has now been followed for a number of years. I indicated to some of my hon. Friends my unwillingness to make a fuller statement on the whole subject than is possible within the limits of an answer to a question, and I rather deprecate these important matters being discussed in the form of question and answer. When the proper opportunity comes I shall hope to make a fuller statement."
  No opportunity could come because that question was asked and answered two days before the House rose. Therefore, so far as 1908 is concerned, no longer or more definite statement came, and the approach of the end of last year left us in a position which I and hon. Friends around me agree was, so far as our wishes with regard to a. two-Power standard were concerned, of an eminently satisfactory character. The Prime Minister had made statement after statement, and, if I may say so, each statement was more explicit and more satisfactory than the one which had preceded it, and showing
  1286
  that there was no difference between his conception of the expression "two-Power standard "and ours, and showing further that he would not permit of any weakening of the standard or suggestion that any Power might. under any circumstances be left out in case that Power happened to be one of the two strongest Powers.
  We come to this year, and we all remember that during the early months of the year the whole controversy that raged —perhaps that is too strong a word—was swamped by a very much greater controversy which raged around what we considered an inadequate naval programme for this year. I do not want to go into that question to-night, because it is a totally different question. I desire tonight to avoid as far as possible anything of a controversial nature. Owing to the fact that the House and the country has its attention, so far as naval matters were concerned, entirely given up to what I admit is a much greater question than the one we are discussing, namely, the ships necessary for our position in the near future, owing to that the question of the two-Power standard was not heard of until the middle of the Easter holidays, when it was revived as the House will remember in the sudden dramatic way so clear to the heart of the President of the Board of Trade. We were all in the middle of holidays, trying, most of us, not to think of the Navy, not to think of wha'6 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to do to us in the Budget which was then impending, trying to enjoy our very short holiday, when one morning, on taking up the paper, we found a letter, a column and a half in length, from the President of the Board of Trade. This letter consisted of an effusion on the Navy, and this dissertation dealt with many branches of the Navy. He proved to his own satisfaction, no doubt, that the view that we held of the Navy was fallacious from almost every point of view. The greater portion of the letter I do not propose to deal with tonight, and only with that portion which deals with the two-Power standard. I will read the paragraph in the letter headed "Two-Power Standard ":—
  " The third fallacy to which I should refer is concerned with the two-Power standard. The two-Power standard is not a standard of numbers; it is a standard of strength, and only, as the Prime Minister has stated, of strength available for agressive purposes against this Island. It is not a natural principle.- it is a rule-of-thumb formula which sometimes has a meaning. It has had in the past, it may have again in the future, a very precise and definite meaning. At the present moment it has no meaning. and for this reason that no reasonably probable combination against this country

  1287
  of any two existing naval powers can be discerned. That happy state of things may not continue, and it would be the duty of any British Government —not in the name of a formula, but of national security— to maintain an effective superiority over any reasonable probable combination of European Powers, the probability of the combination rather than the number of the Powers being the test. Meanwhile, however, in point of fact the Admiralty are prepared to prove that the British Fleet is now and will be in 1912 effectively superior not only to any reasonably probable combination of two Powers, but to the two next strongest Powers in Europe without regard to the probability of their combination. But you will observe that I say European Powers. It would be absurd for us to build ships against the United States. It may be true that ships built for European contingencies possess no doubt incidentally a universal protective power."
  These are the words to which I particularly desire to draw the attention of the House:—
  "But it is not the policy of his Majesty's Government to take the navy of the United States into consideration when framing their naval Estimates, because we do not believe that there is any `reasonably probable '—nay, humanly conceivable—combination against the peace and freedom of the British people which would include the navy of the United States."
  The House will observe that that letter contains at least three novel and unorthodox theories or ideas; but the most striking point in the part of the letter which I have read is that it absolutely contradicts and nullifies the Prime Minister's statements. As I have said, the combined effect of the Prime Minister's statements, mostly made in answer to questions designed to draw an answer on this particular point, was to convince everybody that in calculating the two-Power standard the United States of America, if they happened to be one of the two next strongest Powers, would be included in our calculation in precisely the same way as Germany, Austria, Italy, or any other country. I think that that statement is incontestable after the statement of the Prime Minister, and if any doubts were expressed I would reread the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee). I say that it is absurd, or worse than absurd, it is almost an insult to the Prime Minister to say that he meant to leave out the United States from his calculation. When he knew, as he knew perfectly well, that these questions were being asked for the purpose of drawing from him a direct statement on that subject, if he had intended to leave the United States out of his calculation he would have stated so, but he did not do so. Without actually mentioning that country by name, he said as explicitly and as firmly as anybody could expect that the United States was in this respect to be the
  1288
  same as all other countries. I may say further that you may search the Prime Minister's speeches and contributions to naval debates, but you will not find a single passage to lend colour to the statement, if such a statement is made, that he was in favour of the proposition that the United States should be left out of account. The statement which I have read from the letter of the President of the Board of Trade is at direct variance with the statements made by the Prime-Minister. They are utterly irreconcilable, and I shall refuse to believe that the President of the Board of Trade was speaking with the authority of the Government, unless and until I hear distinctly from the Prime Minister or some other right hon. Gentleman opposite that that is so. But I confidently believe that I shall hear nothing of the sort.
  That is really the most important point in the right hon. Gentleman's letter, but there are two other points upon which I should like to address the House. The right hon. Gentleman said
  " the two-Power standard is not a standard of numbers."
  That is perfectly true.
  "It is a standard of strength. and only, as the Prime Minister stated, of strength available for aggressive purposes against this island."
  These words are at first sight a little obscure. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Prime Minister himself had stated that the two-Power standard is only one of strength available for aggressive purposes against this island. I do not know to what speech the President of the Board of Trade referred when he made that statement, but I am led to believe that he was referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister on the Navy Estimates on 16th March of this year. The only part of the speech, however, in which I can find even the most remote resemblance -.4§0 anything of the sort is this passage. The Prime Minister said:—
  " Before I pass from that I will only say that, in dealing with the two-Power standard, with the question whether or not we in this country have a naval force which is adequate to satisfy that requirement, you must. of course, not take into account merely what the right hon. Gentleman did, namely, the number of your ' Dreadnorights ' and Invincibles,' but you must take the total effective strength for defensive purposes as compared with the combined effective strength of any two other fleets for aggressive piurposes."
  I think that is perfectly right. I cannot find any fault with that statement myself, but I think that is a totally different thing from what the President of the Board of Trade says. He says:—
  " As the Prime Minister stated. of strength available for aggressive purposes against this island."

  1289
  Possibly he meant the strength available for defensive purposes in connection with these islands. According to him, if Germany has a number of battleships located in the China Sea, for example, we are not to take those battleships into our calculation in making up our two-Power standard. In the same way, if America has ships cruising off Australia, and if by an unfortunate set of circumstances we should find ourselves at war with her, because those ships are at the far end of the world at the moment, and for some time are not actually available for aggressive purposes against this island, we are therefore to leave them out of account. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to give some other explanation of what he meant, but that is the only explanation I can put upon his words, and if it is the correct one I say that it is a ridiculous contention.
  The President of the Board of Trade goes even further than that, because in connection with the third point, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, he shows himself in the light of an apt pupil of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. J. Murray Macdonald). He is prepared not only to exclude America, but he is ready in normal times to give up the two-Power standard altogether. That seems a large statement to make, but I think the House will agree that it is not far from the truth when I read the following extract from his letter. The right hon. Gentleman says:—
  "It is not a natural principle; it is a rule-of-thumb formula which sometimes has a meaning; it has had in the past, and may have again in the future, a very precise and definite meaning. At the present moment it has no meaning, and for this reason, that no reasonably probable combination against this country of any two existing naval Powers can be discerned. That happy state of things may not continue—"
  This is what I desire particularly to bring to the attention of the House. He means that at some time or other there may be in view or on the horizon a reasonably probable combination of other countries against this country, and in that case he says:—
  " It would be the duty of any British Government to maintain an effective superiority over any reasonably probable combination of European Powers."
  I ask, then, is he going to wait until he sees that reasonably probable combination of European powers? That seems to me to be the whole crux of the question, the whole difference between the Member for Falkirk and his followers, and us. They apparently ask us to wait until
  1290
  we are on the outbreak of war before we do anything to get our Navy into a proper state of efficiency, whereas we say that it is absolutely necessary that even in the piping times of peace we should always have our fleet in such a state of readiness that if, as often happens, war came upon us with much greater suddenness than anybody anticipated, we should be ready to meet it. But, as i say, the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of no standard at all. I say that that letter, which has been read all over the country, must have given great grounds for uneasiness to anyone who studies the naval position, and who is mindful and anxious of our supremacy at sea.
  But what we want to-night is a perfectly clear statement from the Prime Minister, that once and for all will show that he adheres—and I am perfectly sure he will give us that statement—to his statement made last year. We should like to have a specific clearing up of this particular point about America. It seems to us that it is impossible to take one country and treat it differently to the others, though there is the possibility—I do not say probability —and I hope not—that we may at some time or another find ourselves at war with the United States of America. Foreign complications might lead us in that position whether we like it or not.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Craig) has made a very temperate and reasonable speech, and I have certainly nothing to complain of in his reference to myself. I could have wished, if for a moment I may be critical, that in framing his Motion and in attributing to me and basing his Motion upon an alleged definition of the two-Power standard given by me, he had chosen by preference the definition given in my own language, and not in the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee). The hon. Gentleman has done me perfect justice in the matter, because he has read to the House, although they do not appear in the forefront of his Motion, I think the two expositions, if I may so call them, that I have in the course of the last twelve or thirteen months attempted to give of this matter. I should like, if I may once more, just to read the salient sentences of these two definitions.
  The first was in a speech which I delivered on the Motion for the Reduction

  1291
  of Armaments in March of last year. I said then:—
  " But I do not think the historical origin of the two-Power standard matters very much. The combinations of Powers and the relations between Powers necessarily shift from time to time. The standard which is necessary for this country—though you may express it by say formula you please, though I believe it to be a convenient and practical formula—"

  That is the two-Power standard—
  " The standard which we have to maintain is one which would give us complete and absolute command of the sea against any reasonably-possible combination of Powers."
  That was my first definition. The other definition, which I gave two or three weeks ago in the course of a Debate on the Navy Estimates to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which I venture to think is perhaps more complete than the former definition is:—
  "In dealing with the two-Power standard and the question as to whether or not we in this country have a naval force which is adequate to satisfy that requirement, yon must of course not merely take into account the number of Dreadnonghts' and 'Invincibles,' but you must take the total effective strength for defensive purposes as compared with the combined effective strength of any two other fleets for aggressive purposes."
  I believe that represents clearly and fairly the two-Power standard as it has been understood and acted upon by successive Administrations in this country.
  Let me say at once—for I do not want to detain the House—I have very little to add to what I have previously said on the subject—but let me say at once, so far as the Government is concerned, we have made no new departure. We have not in any way changed the policy which was followed by Administrations that preceded whether Conservative or Liberal. There has been no change of any sort whatever. We have continued strictly on the lines laid down for us, not by one party or the other, hut by the common consent of administrators belonging to both parties in the State. Let me add—the hon. Member will, I think, agree with me—that at the moment, for the purposes of the moment, the Question is an academic one. [Cries of dissent, and an Hex. MEMBER "It is important."] I am not saying it is not important,. I am pointing out that for the practical purposes of the moment it is an academic Question. Because anyone who looks at the Dilke Return will see that whatever two Powers you like to take, in any part of the world, that their combined effective strength for aggressive purposes against this country is very far below the defensive strength of this country. I think no one will doubt that.
  1292
  I should like, without any intention of disparaging this formula of the two-Power standard, to which homage has been done by so many eminent statesmen in the past, to add that I think there has been a great deal of nonsense talked about it. It is spoken of sometimes as if it were like the law of gravitation or the precepts of the Decalogue—a sort of immutable truth dictated to us by Nature or Providence, which it is absolutely profane to criticise, and which under no circumstances can be questioned. It is nothing of the kind. As I have pointed out over and over again — as I am sure the hon. Member will agree—the two-Power standard is nothing more than a purely empirical generalisation; it is a convenient working rule of thumb under existing conditions—conditions which have prevailed for a considerable number of years. We do not know how much longer they are going to prevail. for my part, would be very sorry—speaking with a full sense of responsibility—to dive with a full sense and to predict that the formula of the two-Power standard will necessarily be an adequate or a satisfactory one some years hence. I do not think it will. I think it would be a very hazardous thing to pin your future—I am not speaking of the immediate future, but of the remoter future—to a belief in that or any other formula. All these rules ought to be servants and not masters; they are means to an end, and it is that end we should keep in view, and that end I believe is one on which there is absolutely no difference of opinion between both sides of the House, and that end is to ensure for this country, in any conceivable condition, and against all possible hazards. unassailable naval superiority which will give us complete command of the sea, and make, I will not say invasion of these islands, but make any attempt to interfere with any part of our Empire, or sea-borne commerce, an impossibility. I much prefer to state our purpose and our naval policy in terms of means, and I say you must adapt your means from time to time, having regard to the ever-shifting exigencies of the shipbuilding policies and ambitions of other countries; those shifting exigencies you must ever keep in view; you must never lose sight of them, and you must always be prepared to make any sacrifice for its attainment. Having said so much without, I think, any disparagement of the two-Power formula, let me say one or two words in regard to this Motion. I am going to quote from two or three of our

  1293
  most, eminent statesmen, language in which in days gone by they have described this formula and its purpose. I will take first Lord Salisbury. Speaking as far back as 1889, he says:—
  " It has been laid down as a sort of general rule or maxim for the guidance of this country as a. great maritime nation that we ought always to have at our command a fleet which would he equal to a combination of any two great Powers that may be brought against us"
  Then, again, the Leader of the Opposition, some years later, in March, 1896, I think, speaking in this House, used langauge which I shall also quote, as it seems to me to be very pertinent. He said:—
  "You must not examine or contemplate an extreme case. If every country tried to base its armaments on extreme cases no country in the world could possibly be safe. I think, therefore, with all deference, we must content ourselves with a general standard which has been quite sufficient in the past, and without taking vast though not absolutely impossible combinations simply to bring up our fleet to a strength which would enable us to contend on satisfactory terms with the two largest fleets that could be brought against us."
  That was said on 10th March, 1896. The right hon. Gentleman again—I am not quoting these passages polemically, because I quite agree with him, and I am quite sure he would repeat them if he was here to-night—said on 2nd August, 1906:—
  " The two-Power standard of naval strength as I understand it is that we ought to have a. Navy to deal effectively with any two Powers that can he brought against us."
  The House will observe in both these authoritative statements the same phrase occurs. That is what I am contending, and that is what I mean when in slightly expanded language in the spring of this year, only a month ago, I said we must take our total effective strength for defensive purposes, as compared with the combined effective strength of any other two fleets. Let us see how that works out in practice. In the first place, it was pointed out years ago by Mr. Goschen, and I think it has been repeated by almost every distinguished naval administrator, when you are measuring the combined effective strength of two hostile fleets you must have regard to the fact that the two fleets are not the same; that they are not equally effective for aggressive or, indeed, for defensive purposes as one homogeneous fleet belonging to the same nation, and under the same command. That is a consideration you must always have in view, the practical consideration, when you are applying this rule for practical purposes. Further, it has been established—not very clearly, I think, at first—what this rule was originally intended to apply, and was deemed to apply—it used to be stated to
  1294
  battleships. The phrase has recently crept in--I think it was on a question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Arthur Lee) put to me the phrase crept in of "capital ships." I do not know what a "capital ship" is, or I do not think anybody else knows, but I think we mean the same thing, and so long as we mean the same thing I do riot think it matters much. At any rate, it was used in regard to ships to be put in the line of battle. In other words, it does not include the great bulk of your cruisers and other vessels engaged in the protection of commerce and looking after the outlying parts of the Empire. It applies to battleships who, as the lawyers would say, were ejusdeni ye neris. That is a further qualification which has to be-regarded when you are considering the practical application of the rule. Then there is another point, and here comes in a question which the hon. Member raised with regard to the United States. I think I was right in saying—although I rather deprecated supplementary questions put on matters as grave and delicate as these, because, however one answers, however guarded they are, they are often liable to misconception—that under existing conditions, or conditions that we cannot at present foresee, you ought not to limit your vision when you are contemplating the two-Power standard to Europe alone. It was said three or four years ago by Earl Cawdor that the standard only applied to European Powers. [An HON. MEMBER: "He explained that."] We all have to explain our speeches sometimes. Blessed is the Parliamentary speaker who has least to explain—I myself am engaged in the task of explaining, though I do not think it needed explanation, but it required some further exposition than I was able to give it in the course of an answer to a question—I agree that you ought not to limit the range of your vision simply to what is going on in Europe. On the other hand, when you are considering the combined effective strength of any other two Powers in the world, for aggressive purposes against this country, you must have regard to geographical conditions. Let me give an illustration, to make the point clear, leaving the United States out of the case. Take the case of China. Suppose China built a fleet of "Dreadnoughts "—say, six, eight, or ten—that would become part of the navies of the world. No rational man or Minister would treat those six or eight Chinese "Dreadnoughts" as standing on the same footing

  1295
  for the purposes of the two-Power standard and the potentialities of combined aggression against this country as if they belonged to Germany or France, because China is a country whose base might be 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 miles away. I am not saying that your attack will always be in home waters, but that is the first thing we have got to look after. That is the far most important thing we have to look after—to maintain the integrity of these shores—and when you are dealing with a naval power whose base is 3,000, 6,000, or 10,000 miles away, who has no intervening coaling stations, which would have to transport their vessels the whole of that disrance before they became effective in our home waters, it seems to be elementary common-sense that you should not treat that fleet in accordance with the ordinary rules of business, that you should not treat it as if, for the purposes of this standard, it had the same effective value as a fleet which has its base 300 or 400 males away. Certainly no person practically cognisant with naval administration will quarrel with that statement. Therefore, it is perfectly true, as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said the other day, that as regards the United States they would not count under existing conditions as one of the two Powers which you have to take into account. It is true for the reason that I have given. The United States bas a powerful fleet, and if you count vessels by noses, and noses alone, no doubt she would at present come second amongst the navies of the world, our own fleet would come first. She would come second, because she has actually more battleships at this moment than Germany, though we ourselves have a great deal more than the two combined. You cannot, in my view, and I think in the view of every responable authority, treat for effective aggressive purposes those ships as if they were in the same category as the ships of Germany, France, or Austria, if Austria were to take to building "Dreadnoughts." I do not think there is anything novel in that proposition, and I believe it will be found that the Board of Admiralty has always acted upon it in framing their programme. and it seems to me to be a proposition based upon the most elementary, rules of common-sense. That is really all I have to say. I have withdrawn absolutely nothing from any of the statements I have made either in the speeches to which the hon. Member
  1296
  opposite (Mr. Craig) referred, or in the answers given to the questions put to me, because those answers were most carefully drafted. I agree with the Mover that the two-Power standard, as I have defined it and as he has defined it to-night. I have nothing to quarrel with in anything he has said on the subject, but the two-Power standard does afford under existing conditions a rational interpretation and a useful practical formula for the naval policy of this country. I should deprecate very strongly the two-Power standard being treated here or hereafter as though it had a sort of sacred sacro-sanctity and immutable authority which sheltered it from all possible criticism. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite would claim for it any such authority as that, and that being so, I do not think that any serious or substantial difference exists between the two sides of the House on this matter. and it would be a very great satisfaction to all of us if this part at any rate of the area of naval administration could be removed altogether from the domain of conflict. I do not believe there is any real difference of opinion between us, and I hope the House will be of that opinion.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that owing to the unavoidable absence of the Leader of the Opposition he is not able to reply to his speech, and I hope he will not think it any slight upon him if I attempt to reply. Under ordinary circumstances, and if we had only the right hon. Gentleman himself to consider, the general statement. which he has made in support of our naval position would, I think, satisfy hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House_ But I am sorry to say that, taking his remarks altogether to-night, I do not now understand how he stands with regard to. this Question of the two-Power standard. The right hon. Gentleman has told us just now that he withdraws nothing of what he has said before on this subject. He said it is true that he preferred his own definition and his own language to the language contained in the questions which I put to him last autumn. But he accepted that language as stated in those questions on three different occasions, and he now tells us that he withdraws nothing. It is really the fact, if we consider the speech to which we have just listened, that the Prime Minister withdraws nothing.
  He told us last November that the two-Power standard applied to the two next strongest Powers, whatever they might be

  1297
  and wherever they might be situated. Those words were very carefully chosen when the question was framed, and they were intended to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman that plain question whether he did or did not make any exception in regard to any Power whatsoever in the whole world in his definition of the two-Power standard. His answer was that he did not except any Power whatever. I think his words were, "under existing or any foreseeable circumstances." Listening to his remarks I gather now that he does except the United States. That is the effect of the speech he has just delivered. It really is very difficult for us to know where we stand, and it seems to me by introducing an exception—I do not care what Power he refers to as the exception --of any sort of kind he is knocking the bottom and justification out of the two-Power standard. Sooner than accept that it seems to me the two-Power standard should be abandoned altogether, and we should have sonic other standard. As T gather that is not altogether satisfactory, at any rate the Prime Minister says he is not enamoured of it as a formula, and therefore I think it is better we should abandon the whole thing and have something which is more precise in its place en which the nation can rely.
  It seems to me that the formula of the Government is really useless as a national standard, and is, indeed, a dangerous sham, because it presumes a sense of security when in fact no security exists. If the Government intend to interfere with that rule which has hitherto been our national bulwark, it is better that it should be razed to the ground altogether in order that we should no longer cherish the dangerous illusion that it is of any value. The right lion. Gentleman said the language in his previous speeches before his answers were given to my questions was really more precise, and that he would prefer to base his definition of the two-Power standard upon them. Surely he must be aware that it was that very language which was so misunderstood by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, and it was owing to misrepresentations of that language that the hon. Member for Falkirk and his Friends challenged the meaning Of the right hon. Gentleman's definition.
  Mr. J. A. M. MACDONALD: I did not challenge the language of the Prime Minister either before or after the hon. Member put his question.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: It is quite true the hon. Member did not challenge it publicly, but he gave his own interpretation, and he. also gave it to the Press.
  Mr. J. A. M. MACDONALD: That was after the hon. Member had put his question.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: My question was put to elucidate the position which was brought about as the result of statements made by the hon. Member opposite and his Friends. We have regarded the two-Power standard hitherto as being a fixed standard on which the nation could rely, but the Prime Minister tells us to-night something which is inconsistent with that idea. We want a standard which is applicable at all times, and under all conditions, and' not one which is dependent on the political considerations of the moment. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman wishes in any way to modify the answers which he gave last autumn, although he remembers the answers were. not received altogether with rapture by some of his hon. Friends, but he was overwhelmed with praise by others for the strong and determined stand which he had taken, and he accepted that almost universal interpretation of his language without protest. He gave no suggestion that he would withdraw from the position which. he had taken up. That is, I am afraid, what he has done to-night. Let us consider for a moment the actual terms of the assurances which he gave to the country last November and December. I do not think it is possible to find language more. precise, or more plain, or more comprehensible than that which he used. I do not think there were any doubts as-to the obvious meaning of the language he used except those expressed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who tried to twist a new meaning into a plain statement. But what I wish to refer to is the last portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not believe in any attempt to exclude any particular Power or Powers from the operation of a formula which has hitherto been considered of universal application. It seems to me that a formula in which you introduce an exception has no virtue at all. It may become actually vicious. If it is assumed that America is excluded because—thank Heaven !—we may never have to fight her, then we make the formula a sham. But the right hon. Gentleman said that

  1299
  America under the present circumstances was to be excluded. May I ask the Prime Minister this plain question—does he in-elude America in the two-Power standard, or does he exclude it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to what I said. I thought that I had made my meaning clear. I said it is not applicable to America more than to any other remote Power. I instanced China. I said that every Power which, when you come to a practical application of this standard, requires geographical consideration.
  Mr. LEE: It is exceedingly difficult to understand what the Prime Minister really means. It only shows that we are on a slippery slope when any question of exception is taken into account. The two-Power standard is a perfectly plain and straightforward rule. As to geographical considerations, I do not want to go at any length into the strategetical possibilities with a Power like America, because I believe that this country will never be led or goaded into a war with America. Therefore, from a purely military point of view, it is unprofitable to discuss the strategetical possibilities of such a conflict. But as he has raised the question we can, only as an academic problem, hardly exclude America from our consideration. It must he remembered that America sent 16 first-class battleships and maintained them as a fighting entity throughout a voyage of 40,000 miles, in the course of which they circumnavigated the globe and visited many parts of the British Empire. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pin himself down to geographical remoteness surely the question of the Russian Navy should have come in when Russia was at war with Japan. I only refer to that point because I was drawn into it by the Prime Minister, but my whole argument is that it shows the highest unwisdom and folly on international and political grounds to introduce an exception to a rule which, if it possesses any virtue at all, lies in the fact of its being of universal application. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman only excluded America on account of geographical considerations.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not use the word exclude, and it does not accurately represent ray meaning.
  Mr. A. LEE: To include America is a proof of the unobjectionable character of
  1300
  the two-Power standard. It shows that we have no arrière pensáe. We define it as a general rule on the very ground put forward by the Prime Minister, as being a convenient rule of thumb which shall at all times be deemed capable of insuring to us that supremacy at sea upon which the continued existence of the British Empire and the safety of our homes depends. I do not wish to take up time, but I must refer to the wording of the reply given by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not know whether it was on behalf of the Prime Minister—in which he laid great stress on the use of the two words "defensive" and "aggressive" ! Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that we should exclude the United States as an aggressive force, while we are to include Powers which are also extremely friendly to us and absolutely allied to us—such as France and Japan? When the Prime Minister uses the word "aggressive" as being of such great importance, I would ask: Does he accept the words of the President of the Board of Trade, who said we only had to consider navies which might be used for aggressive purposes against it?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): Never.
  Mr. A. LEE: Oh, yes. I have the right lion. Gentleman's speech here, if he will allow me to read it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said we only had to consider the navies from the point of view of aggression, but I said the two-Power standard must be regarded from the point of view of aggressive effectiveness.
  Mr. A. LEE: "Against this island." That was the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used. Are we only considering the defence of this island? Are we inviting the British Colonies to send representatives here next month in order to discuss, not the defence of the British Empire, but only the defence of this island? I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman's sojourn at the Colonial Office did not give him a somewhat wider horizon. What we have to consider in all these questions are not the intentions of this or that Power, but their capabilities, and we can never allow our supremacy at sea, and with it our national security, to rest upon the goodwill, present or future, of this, that, or any Power, wheresoever that Power may be. I began by saying I really do not now know, after the Prime Minister's speech, how we stand with regard to this question of the two-

  1301
  Power standard. I do not believe anyone in this House understands whether it is to be considered as of universal application or not, or whether there are, at the will of the Government, to be certain exceptions introduced into it for geographical or other reasons. There is one other point with which I may deal which is even more important than the Prime Minister's or the Government's adherence—verbal adherence—to the two-Power standard, and that is the question whether they are or are not maintaining it at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said he felt sure I should not challenge or even raise that question, but I am afraid that, in spite of his statement, I am bound to do so, because it does not follow in the least that because the two-Power standard may exist at the present moment, therefore the Government are maintaining it. I believe the Government have stated—I think the President of the Board of Trade stated only a short time ago—that, as a matter of fact, we have a three-Power standard.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I never said-that; it may be true, but I never said it.
  Mr. A. LEE: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten some of the passages in the letter which he addressed to his constituents. I attach the less importance to his obiter dicta, because I recognise. that it is merely an incident of that vendetta, which he continues to wage against all reasonable expenditure on our national defences. But the real question is whether the future of the two-Power standard is safeguarded and insured by the action of the Government to-day. That is, after all, the only reasonable test of their professions of devotion to the two-Power standard. It is obvious to everyone that this year's naval programme cannot have any effect whatsoever, for the purposes of war, until at least two years from the present time, and as by universal admission it is the period which commences about two years from now about which we have most reason to feel anxiety, it is necessary we should examine into what the Government is doing in order to find out whether the two - Power standard, for which they will still be responsible, will be maintained in the year 1911–12. It is very difficult, of course, to make an accurate forecast, and I do not wish on this occasion to weary the House with details, but I think the indications are by no means encouraging. I will give two illustrations. To-day we have, ac-
  1302
  cepting the Government's own Return—and I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will challenge the figures, although they do not precisely agree with the Dilke Return—we have to-day 46 modern battleships completed, as compared with 41 of the two next strongest Powers—Germany and the United States. That is just over the two-Power standard, plus 10 per cent. But if we include ships under construction—and the Prime Minister stated on 25th March we must take them into account—then we have only 52 modern ships built and under construction, as compared with 60 of the two next strongest Powers combined. That is 14 ships under the two-Power standard. Then I come to the question of money. I do not want to go into extraneous matters, but I will take the money for new construction alone. Approximately the amount being spent in this country and in each of the two next strongest Powers is the same at the present time, or, putting it in a slightly different way, in the present. year, 1910, on new construction and armaments we are proposing to spend 111 millions sterling, as compared with nearly 21 millions of the two next strongest Powers —Germany and the United States. I do not say that these facts are absolutely conclusive, but they are highly symptomatic, and, coupled with the fact admitted by the Government that there is one foreign Power at least which can build as quickly as we can, these figures go to show that the Government, as regards their own responsibility for the future, are not maintaining the two-Power standard. If that is the case, what value are we to place upon these vague verbal endorsements of the national formula? One definition of a formula is a confession of faith. This is a case of preaching without practising, as it seems to me, in the matter of naval armaments. There is only one last point to which I will refer before I sit down, and that is as to the statement—I do not think it was used by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but it is used freely by his friends—that we cannot afford to continue the maintenance of the two-Power standard if the two strongest Powers set a pace, as some may think, we cannot follow.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.
  Mr. A. LEE: No, the right hon. Gentleman did not say so; but then he introduced an explanation of the two-Power standard which deprived it, as far as we

  1303
  are concerned of nearly its whole value. I think it is rather premature for us to say we cannot afford to maintain what after all has been our main security up to now, for although we may be hard pressed in this country, the resources of the Empire as a whole in connection with naval defence have been scarcely tapped. I rejoice that the Prime Minister has called a Conference of the Colonies to consider this great Question, and I certainly hope that that Conference will not separate without arriving at some solution of what has been considered hitherto an almost insoluble problem. Meanwhile the whole of the responsibility rests upon us at the present time, whatever the Colonies may do, and the country does look to the Government to discharge that responsibility, and to discharge it without hesitation and without shrinking from any sacrifices which may be necessary, and I venture to say when the right hon. Gentleman's speech is read to-morrow in the country, and it is found that he has introduced now, after six months, this new element of uncertainty, of indefiniteness, and of not knowing where we are, of not knowing whether one Power is or is not excluded from the two-Power standard, there will be a general feeling—I will not say of consternation, but, at any rate, of extremely strong desire, that the Government shall state plainly what is the standard upon which the country can rely in future, because it is not sufficient for this country to have to rely upon large, vague and comfortable assurances with regard to such a matter as this, and I think the country is entitled to have in the future, as it has had up to now, a plain arithmetical formula. I think it was the First Lord of the Admiralty who stated in his speech at the Guildhall that all the country had to do in order to understand the two-Power standard was to make some small arithmetical calculation.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): No.
  Mr. A. LEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of explaining what he did say, but at any rate, in the mind of the average man of this country, he has understood the two-Power standard as meaning the standard of the two next strongest Powers, with a margin of decent safety. What is the plain arithmetical formula which the Government is going to substitute for that? The right hon. Gentleman has not
  1304
  told us. I think we are entitled to have something definite to go upon and something which cannot be misunderstood in this country, and which cannot be misunderstood or misrepresented abroad. I frankly say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and the weakening which it shows from his previous statement, came not only as a great surprise, but as a great disappointment to those who sat on these Benches, and I hope that before this Debate closes we may receive from some other Member of the Government a statement on this subject. We have had statements with regard to the two-Power standard from many Members of the Government, and I hope we may, on this occasion, have a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty of that plain, simple formula which the country will be able to understand.
  Mr. C. BELLAIRS: I do not think any impartial critic who has heard the speech of the Prime Minister, or who reads it tomorrow morning, can come to any other conclusion than that it is a complete abandonment of the two-Power standard. That standard has been the Monro doctrine of the British Empire, and it is undoubtedly abandoned and surrendered in deference to the agitation carried on by the President of the Board of Trade. At any rate, the President of the Board of Trade has attempted to justify one of his past speeches, in which he said, at Plymouth, when he belonged to the party opposite, that the Liberal party could not be trusted to maintain the fighting forces of this country. We have now adopted what was never heard of in the past definition of the two-Power standard, a geographical standard. We have got clown to the world as bounded by European waters, and we have practically got down, if we adopt the definition of the President of the Board of Trade's letter, to Little England at last. I think it was Frederick the Great who said that but for the cursed science of geography he might have been an honest man, and it seems to me, with reference to the definition we have had of this two-Power standard, last autumn and now, that but for this two-Power standard the Government might have been an honest broker. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Question is academic, because of our strength to-day. Do we ever consider in shipbuilding our strength to-day? We have to consider our strength in 1912. Nobody supposes that this Question is

  1305
  academic in regard to the strength of Germany and the United States in 1912. The two-Power standard has never been anything else but a minimum standard. I can give quotation after quotation from every great statesman in the past since 1889 showing that they meant the two next strongest Powers in the world, and showing that they regarded the standard as a minimum one. It has been the load- line of the ship of State, and now, when the captain of the ship of State, in the person of the Prime Minister, claims the right to adjust it just as he likes, perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us, if we have a two-Power standard, what are the two Powers we build against. In former days we kept up a two to one standard against France, and it would be in- finitely better than having a two-Power standard, which the Government possess and do not explain to the House, to revert to a two-Power standard against Germany. When the Prime Minister talks of a reason- able probable combination of Powers I would refer him back to the definition given by Lord Tweedmouth when he wrote to Lord Cawdor and said he regarded a reasonable probable combination of Powers as an extension of the two-Power 'standard. He wrote on March 19th, 1908:—
  "In view of what you said in your reply to-night, and the line of criticism taken in some of the news- papers this morning, I wish to say that my words. `any reasonable combination of foreigh Powers,' were intended as an extension and not a restriction of the definition of the two-Power standard."
  If, then, the Government mean the same thing, why should they object to the two- Power standard as meaning the two next strongest Powers in the world—Germany and the United States'? The Prime Minister gave us sundry quotations, but there is not one of them which conflicts with the definition of the two next strongest Powers in the world, and, if challenged, I have quotations from every single one of the First Lords of the Admiralty, of the past Prime Ministers, and many great states- men, and nearly all of them use the words "the two next strongest Powers in the world." As matters stand now, we appear to be dependent on forecasts. The Government arrogate to themselves the position of prophets. They know what is a reasonable probable combination, say, three, four, or five years hence. Nothing in the history of forecasts is more clear than this—that statesmen have been wrong in attempting to forecast the grouping of the Powers in the future. To take a single instance, I do not think there is a single hon. Member in the House who in 1894
  1306
  could have forecasted that France, Russia, and Germany would join forces together in order to coerce Japan, and it is for that very reason that it is impossible to forecast the future that Parliament in its wisdom has always adopted the two-Power standard as a minimum standard.
  In connection with this attempt at a geographical standard, I should like to take an instance in the year 1796. It is pertinent to the point, and I think history has a distinct bearing on this question. During all that period we always had two to one at least against France, and very often much more, right away from 1788 to 1870. We had then nominally 160 battleships to 136 for France, Holland, and Spain. That was exactly a proportion of 20 to 17. Thirty-four of our ships were unavailable, leaving us 126 to 136. Although we had a less number, we did not think it necessary to abandon the Colonies. We had no fewer than 38 ships in Colonial waters, apart from the Mediterranean, to 25 of the three allies. That left us in Home waters 88 to 111. The result was this, that we had to abandon the Mediterranean, with 31 battleships taken away, in order to save the situation in Home waters, and a most disastrous financial crisis broke out in London—such a financial crisis as would undoubtedly spell absolute ruin to this country if it occurred to-day. In addition the French invaded Egypt in the absence of the British Fleet, and Nelson was sent out afterwards to fight the battle of the Nile. That was simply due to the standard being insufficient in those days, and all I can say is that if we propose to leave the United States to roam over the whole Pacific, and to interfere with our trade as she likes on the ground that New York is 3,000 miles from London, there will be a very much worse financial crisis in this country when the war comes.
  I believe this new definition of a two-Power standard is the outcome of those many Cabinet councils of which we have heard so much when the whole world was let into the secrets of the Cabinet and we all heard about the various dissensions. It is a surrender to the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, neither of whom during all this naval alarm in the country has ventured to address a single audience on the question of the Navy. It has been a case of the speeches all on one side. You might as well be fighting with cotton wool. Their chief employment has been to describe my opinion as belonging to the blue funk school.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never referred to the hon. Gentleman in any speech I ever made.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: I never for a moment said the right hon. Gentleman had so honoured me. I said "people who belonged to the school of opinion to which I belong," as being of the blue funk school, and talking about mythical armadas. That phrase I believe belongs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when he talks about mythical armadas I would remind him that the word "mythical" was precisely the word used by the French Prime Minister in 1869 when he talked of the mythical battalions of Germany. When phrases like that are used, and such phrases as "Navies to resist nightmares," I feel inclined to become superstitious and to touch wood, having regard to the precedent of the French Prime Minister in 1869. What is at the back of the minds of the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is simply that the ruling consideration, as was stated by the hon. Member for the Fareham Division (Mr. Arthur Lee) is finance. The President of the Board of Trade has a standing vendetta on the question of cutting down the expenditure of the country, and, looking at the arguments by which they justify this abandonment of the two-Power standard, I remember that in his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that whenever you build a "Dreadnought" you put a penny on the Income Tax. I do not think he can know what a "Dreadnought" costs or what a penny on the Income Tax produces. A penny on the Income Tax produces £2,900,000. A "Dreadnought" costs, if you take into consideration the interest on the first cost, depreciation over a life of 20 years, the cost of the crew, stores, repairs, and every single consideration, such as the provision of docks, not more than a quarter of a million a year. Therefore a penny on the Income Tax represents an addition of 11 "Dreadnoughts to the strength of the country. I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will attempt to deny my figures—that the cost of a "Dreadnought" is £250,000 a year, and if you borrow a sum of money representing that interest it will work out right. Therefore a penny on the Income Tax represents an addition of 11 "Dreadnoughts" to the strength of the country and not one as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says. Perhaps, therefore,
  1308
  he will revise his opinion to our definition of a two-Power standard.
  I am perfectly certain that the country will never tolerate a state of affairs in which it is absolutely in the dark as to what standard the Government are building to. The country will demand that the standard shall be clear, so that the man in the street can do that simple sum in arithmetic which the First Lord invited us to do the other day, and personally, now that the two-Power standard is abandoned, for it is abandoned, I strongly advocate that we should carry out a campaign throughout the country to revert to the old standard of two to one—two "Dreadnoughts" whenever Germany lays down one.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: I desire to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "accepts with confidence the statement with regard to the two-Power standard made by the Prime Minister." [An HON. MEMBER: "Which statement? "] I listened with great attention to the very able opening speech made by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, and I have sat through the whole of this De-.bate listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Fareham and of the Prime Minister. I have taken an interest, though a silent interest, in the great question of the two-Power standard, and I well remember the Debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs on an Amendment moved to the Address last Session. At that time an Amendment was moved to his Motion by the Prime Minister. I was unable to follow my hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs into the Lobby on that occasion, and I accepted the view then put forward by the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as expressed in the Amendment which he moved, that the House "will support His Majesty's Ministers in such economies of naval and military expenditure as are consistent with the adequate defence of His Majesty's Dominions." I am bound to say that I was apprehensive and perturbed by the answers given across the floor of the House in reply to questions put by the hon. Member for Fareham, and I felt that something was to be desired in the shape of a fuller statement by the Prime Minister in regard to his interpretation of the two-Power standard which he had ex-

  1309
  pressed on more than one occasion. At the close of last year I understood it was fully the intention of the Prime Minister on some subsequent occasion more fully to explain his meaning than was possible by question and answer across the floor of the House. I could not detect any verbal inconsistency, although I thought that the reply to the hon. Member for Fareham left something to be desired. I venture to say that the reply given by the Prime Minister to-night has put his original view in a somewhat clearer form, and while cordially agreeing with the Prime Minister's view that it is the end rather than any formula as to the means that this House ought to hold in view—that is to say, the maintenance of the unassailable supremacy of this country in the matter of naval defence—I feel that the interpretation given by the Prime Minister to-night is one that will command the unanimous confidence, or the almost unanimous confidence, of those who sit on this side of the House. It has considerably cleared up some. doubts and difficulties which were felt by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House in regard to previous Debates, and it has also somewhat elucidated the condensed reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Fareham last year. In those circumstances, for my own part, I feel that the Debate to-night has certainly not been in vain. It has served to elucidate and to clarify the statements formerly made by the Prime Minister, and I have every pleasure in moving the Amendment I have read.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry that I have to speak in a Debate in which I have not heard the principal speech; but the House will understand that it never occurred to me that at nine o'clock in the evening of a day on which the House has been hard at work the Prime. Minister would give a statement which, I gather, befogged and beclouded a perfectly clear and unmistakable utterance which, on more than one occasion, he has already made to the House. The hon. Gentleman (Sir William Collins) in the Amendment which he has just moved asked this House to express its confidence in the statement which I understand has been made by the Prime Minister. Confidence has a technical meaning in this Chamber. Confidence means that followers of the Government
  1310
  are prepared to support it without committing themselves individually and severally to the policy of the Government, whose general lines of policy they are, in a general way,' prepared to act upon. Of course, with this majority in the House., I presume that it will always be proper for a Member to receive the statement of a Prime Minister with confidence. Let us put aside "confidence "and use words of rather less technical signification. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he perfectly understands the Prime Minister now, though he did not understand him before Does confidence mean perfect comprehension? Does it mean a clear view of the various statements of the Government at various times with regard to what is, after all, the vital interest of this country? For-instance, take a concrete case. I think I heard the lion. Gentleman observe that in the speech of the Prime Minister to-night the Prime Minister had given a much clearer view of his policy than could be gathered from the condensed replies which he had given in answer to questions. It is perfectly true that the answers to questions are condensed, but they are also considered. In this House, where we often have to speak without preparation or premeditation, phrases may escape us occasionally which do not fully and adequately express the meaning we desire to convey; but a written answer to a question is a considered answer, and if the language of the answer is perfectly unmistakable and explicit it is absurd to tell us that the Prime Minister, who is. himself a master of condensed, clear expression is under the smallest misapprehension as to the meaning of the words he used. Let me remind the House once more of what the. hon. Gentleman called the condensed replies of the Prime Minister on this all-important topic. He was asked by my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Arthur Lee) last November "whether the Government accepts the two-Power standard as meaning a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strength in battleships of the two next strongest Powers." "Mr. Asquith:- The reply is in the affirmative." Is that precisely the statement made by the Prime Minister to-night? I mean, does anybody on that side of the House maintain that it is precisely the same? On November 23rd, ten days afterwards, my hon. Friend repeated his question, in consequence of certain organs in the Press having taken precisely the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and argued that because

  1311
  the Prime Minister's statement was very condensed it was therefore required to make it clear. Let us therefore make clear what the answer was. That, mind you, was after a discussion had been going on in the country and the Press, in which a large number of Gentlemen opposite tried to read into the Prime Minister's speech on 12th November something which no human being could find there. Therefore it was with a full consciousness of the exact controversy, the exact point in the controversy with which he had to deal, that the Prime Minister answered the question which I am now going to read. It was as follows:—
  Mr. Lee: "May I ask, in order to dispel any doubts, whether by the worth `the two next strongest Powers' the right hon. Gentleman means the two next strongest Powers whatever they may be and wherever they may be situated?"
  Mr. Asquith: "Under existing conditions, and under all foreseeable circumstances I think that is so."
  Mr. McKENNA: That was a supplementary question that was asked. I do not wish to make a point of it,. The right hon. Gentleman stated those are written answers given" by a master of language;" it was in fact a spoken answer.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the interruption is legitimate, but it requires me to press the matter a little further. When the Prime Minister considered in cold blood the answer which I have just read out, and which he gave as a supplementary answer to a question by my right hon. Friend, did he see anything in it to correct? Remember that this was no trifling and insignificant subject which might be passed over, and, if passed over, would be forgotten within a week. This was a matter on which the whole interest of the country was profoundly concentrated. It was a subject on which the Government must have been acting at the very moment, and must have had under its consideration, because it was at that very moment apparently that it first realised that the Germans had advanced their programme in 1909, and it was also the moment at which the Government were considering the Navy Estimates. Therefore it is evident that if the Prime Minister was of opinion that in his answer to the supplementary question by my hon. Friend he had varied from his perfectly accurate and explicit statement, either to the right hand or to the left. I am quite confident—I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here—I am absolutely confident that he would have felt it his duty
  1312
  to come down next day and tell us that the answer which he gave on the spur of the moment to my hon. Friend did not exactly and precisely represent his thoughts, but that the policy of the Government differed by some shade of meaning from that which he had with such admirable lucidity laid before the House.
  Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse my interrupting. I think he is making a false point. The Prime Minister, in his speech this evening, said he considered that in that brief reply he had accurately defined his meaning on the subject, and withdrew nothing from those words.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I entirely agree; and I am afraid I have expended five or six minutes of Parliamentary time on a false point, but the House will recognise that if I did make a false point it was due to the earlier interruption of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McK ENNA: I will not interrupt again.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I like interruptions.
  Mr. McKENNA: I was only correcting an error in the statement of fact by the right hon. Gentleman. I wished to do no more. He had stated it was a written answer, and I merely interrupted to say it was a verbal answer. I did not wish to draw any inference.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am obliged for correction of any errors in the statements I make. Now that it is admitted that the error was quite irrelevant to the argument I was developing before the House, I may perhaps proceed with the argument. At all events we now have it, and it is not disputed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna) or by that Bench, any more than they could dispute it in any quarter of the House. In November last the opinion of the Prime Minister was quite explicit that the naval power of this country should be equal to the next two Powers with 10 per cent. over, no matter where those Powers were situated or whom they might be. I gather from my hon. and right hon. Friends, to whom I am indebted for my information, that unless they have strangely mistaken the speech of the Prime Minister, I understand to-night he has made a speech which really does not bear out that explicit statement which I have quoted in the House and the meaning of which is not disputed

  1313
  by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman's (the Prime Minister) original statement was that the two-Power standard was to be maintained, no matter what the country or where situate. I understand now that at least two, and I think three, great modifications are, for the first time, introduced into that statement. In the first place, it is not every country which is to be included. I understand that any country which is not likely to be able to bring a fleet for offensive purposes into British waters is excluded. Is that the new statement? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then let me put it rather differently. The House will forgive me; I agree it is a very great inconveniencz' to reply to a speech you have not heard. It is no fault of mine that I was not here any more than I presume it is any fault of the Prime Minister he is not here. Am I not right that the Prime Minister dwelt on the fact that geographical position of countries ought to be taken into account That is quite an explicit statement. Then does the Government think geographical position should be taken into account?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then they have altered their opinion?
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then I am bound to reread the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Lee):—
  " May I ask," said my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Lee) "whether by the words the two next strongest Powers' the right bon. Gentleman means the two next. strongest Powers, whatever they may be and wherever they may be situated?"
  Mr. McKENNA: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the question which preceded that question?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is not on this Paper. It would greatly help me if you would read it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read, read," and "Divide "]
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman apparently wants me to read it, and is afraid to read it himself. At all events he prefers to read it, if he reads it at all, when I am not in a position to reply to any gloss he chooses to put upon it, which may be a wise policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read."] I can honestly say I wish to take no advantage, I am too heartily anxious about this question to take any advantage. At all events, as far as the
  1314
  question and answer which I have read are concerned, they are quite unmistakable in their terms. No ingenuity can put upon them any interpretation, except that which everybody put at the time, and which I put now. I say that that answer distinctly excluded the geographical considerations which we are now told qualify it.
  Then, as I understand the matter, the Prime Minister is not content in qualifying his answer in regard to the two-Power standard merely as far as geographical considerations are concerned; he introduced another qualification. He said or implied that all that was required was that there should be a two-Power standard in home waters for defensive purposes of these islands. That certainly is the impression conveyed to my hon. Friends near rue, and I believe it is the impression conveyed to the House at large. If that was so, it is the most dangerous qualification that could well be conceived. Do let us remember that this country is a naval base not merely for the defence of these shores, but for the defence of the Empire, and that it must be powerful enough to defend the Empire not merely in the North Sea, or in the English Channel, or in the Bay of Biscay; it must be prepared to defend the Empire wherever it is attacked. Are we really to be told that we are to be content with a two-Power standard which may be, from the nature of the ships, restricted in its action to the North Sea, and that we are to abandon the two-Power standard where the Mediterranean is concerned, where our distant Colonies are concerned, where the West Indies are concerned? Are we really to he told that? If so, it is an entire change of policy. It is a new policy. If the Prime Minister had come down and said that in the changing circumstances of this changing world this old formula was, in his opinion, inapt; if he had told us quite frankly and candidly to-night that he had altered the opinion which he expressed in these unambiguous terms no farther back than six or seven months ago, then, for my part, I should have been glad to give a perfectly impartial hearing to any new formula which he had to present in its place. I can imagine a new formula. I can imagine its being proper to say that this country should be twice as strong as the next Power. I think that that might be a very good formula. But to abandon the old formula without adopting a new one, to leave the whole question of our naval

  1315
  position obscure in outline, blurred in contents, obscure and vague, is to do the greatest possible disservice you can do to the defence of this country.
  There was one other point which I understand the Prime Minister made, one other qualification which he introduced of this time-honoured formula, and that was that we have to consider purposes of defence and not purposes of aggression. Nobody in this country ever considered the British fleet as an instrument of aggression; it is always an instrument for defence—not for the defence of these islands alone, but for the defence of the very farthest elements in the British Empire, the most distant of our Colonies. Very well. Then I am afraid the only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the Prime Minister has withdrawn the old formula. He has so commented upon it, glossed over it, and obscured it, that the old formula has vanished, and he has given us no new formula in its place. That is the greatest disservice you can do to the defence of this country. We have heard a great many accusations from hon. Members opposite that we have tried to turn the Navy to party purposes. The statement is both unamiable and untrue. But may I ask if there could be a better way of keeping the Navy out of party politics than by having some formula on which both sides were agreed; some ideal to which both sides could work up to; some general formula accepted by the party in power, and accepted by the party not in power, to secure continuity in our naval policy, and make it certain that all would strive together—at whatever sacrifice—to keep the Navy up to its necessary strength. That was the enormous advantage of the two-Power standard, so long as it was loyally accepted by both sides of the House. I understand the Government have abandoned it. [Cries of "No, no."' They have abandoned it at all events in the sense in which the Prime Minister used the words six months ago.
  Mr. W. B. BYLES: He said lie withdrew nothing.
  Mr. BALFOUR: He said a great many things that qualified their meaning. Really does the hon. Gentleman say that the Prime Minister now holds—now holds—that the two-Power standard means "the two next strongest Powers whatever they may be, or wherever they may be situated." [Cries of
  1316
  " Yes" and "No."] Well, then, it is quite evident that the Prime Minister, whom everybody thought they understood, nobody thinks they understand. We do not understand him on this side of the House. That is our stupidity. They do not understand him on the other. There is no agreement as to what he did mean. He was not content with expressing the explicit formula, which he did twice in November and once in December, but he makes a new formula—a more obscure and a more vague formula.
  My appeal to the Government is this, and really I am most anxious if possible that the matter should be kept out of controversy—that having abandoned the old formula they should have a new policy that is absolutely clear and explicit, which we can discuss as meaning something quite unmistakable, and that will satisfy the country. If they will not have the old two-Power standard with a margin, let us have a new standard, twice—let us say--the naval strength of any other large, or the next largest Power. Let us have something quite clear, because so long as we wander in these rhetorical mists and shadows; so long as we are required to accept the policy of the Government, who were perfectly lucid in their statements in November and December, and now obscure and qualify, "withdraw nothing" and explain everything—then, Sir, I confess that the anxiety of the country, already great, whatever their views may be about "Dreadnoughts," will be greatly aggravated. And I think that the Prime Minister could not have done a worse service if he wishes to allay what the hon. Gentlemen opposite call "panics," than he has done, by setting himself, in a thin House at a difficult hour of the evening, to explain away a statement which he so clearly and so publicly made six or seven months ago.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Leader of the Opposition began his observations by observing that he gathered that the Prime Minister had befogged and beclouded a subject which he had left perfectly clear by his answers to questions. I do net complain of the right hon. Gentleman having made that observation about the Prime Minister, for the simple reason that the right hon. Gentleman had not heard the Prime Minister, and only received a report of what he said from the hon. Gentleman sitting near him, and I am bound to say from the speech which that hon. Gentleman made

  1317
  to the House I understood him to have completely misapprehended both the main substance and the details of the Prime Minister's speech. I will explain as fully as I can, certainly not in as excellent language as the Prime Minister used, what the Prime Minister said and his precise meanings At any rate, I will Make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that there is some one person in this House who thoroughly understood the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that the two-Power standard contained, and still at this moment was, a useful rule-of-thumb measure. He explained that in calculating the combined strengths of any two Powers for the purposes of the two-Power standard you have got to take certain qualifications into account. It was not a question with him to select:is between Powers. You might take any two Powers, whether the Powers were European Powers like Germany or France., or an American Power like the United States, or an Asiatic Power like China. It was not a question of the Powers, but you have to take three qualifications into account. The first was that the two-Power standard—I 'am not putting it in the same order—applied only to ships which lie in the line—he did not use the words "capital ships" or" battleships," he used the words "ships which could lie in the line." That is a qualification everyone will agree with. The second qualification was in measuring the strength of the two Powers you are going to combine for the two-Power standard, and the third was you have to take into account the condition of the single Power, its homogeneity of construction and unity of command. That is no new principle. It was the doctrine laid down long ago by a First Lord of the Admiralty in a Government when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was Leader of this House. Lord Goschen, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, observed with perfect truth:—
  " One Power having an equal number of ships as two allied Powers has got that margin of advantage to which I have alluded. I think history has shown over and over again that the fleets of two allies have never been considered equal to one homogeneous fleet of a single Power, provided the single fleet was relatively as large as the allied fleets. I stand by the principle we have followed and intend to follow, that we must be equal in numbers to the combined strength of two other Powers "
  This margin of strength over the two Powers lay in the advantage obtained from homogeneity of construction and unity of command. That was the second consideration which the Prime Minister said had to be borne in mind rather than
  1318
  the consideration which has been laid down by a First Lord of the Admiralty sitting in this House when the Leader of the Opposition was leading the House.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman make me responsible for that'? What Lord Goschen apparently said was that the margin of strength for the two-Power standard was given by homogeneity, but since then the formula has been 10 per cent. for the strength. That has nothing to do with the unity of command, but it has got to do with numbers, and it is that amended formula that the Prime Minister gave us this evening.
  Mr. McK ENNA: The right hon. Gentleman has explained away one First Lord of the Admiralty, and he shall now have an opportunity of explaining away another. The third calculation the Prime Minister gave was that you must also take into account the fact that distance handicaps any fleet which has to combine with another fleet. Supposing you are going to combine a European fleet and an American or Asiatic fleet, one or the other has to travel a great distance before it can combine with the other, and consequently when you are speaking of the combined strength of any two fleets you must mean such a strength as those two fleets could combine in. He referred to this particular modification in relation to the United States, because it is in regard to the United States that it has a direct bearing. With regard to any two European Powers, such a consideration has no similar bearing at all, because two European Powers would both have their base within a reasonable distance. But if you have two remotely situated Powers they could not combine except at a direct sacrifice of power by one or the other. I promised the Leader of the Opposition that he should have an opportunity of explaining away another First Lord of the Admiralty. In August, 1904, when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, Lord Selborne explained the two-Power standard, and, speaking in the House of Lords, he said:—
  " What Lord George Hamilton really meant, and what. the House of Commons meant, was that we should be prepared to face any two naval Powers with a reasonable probability of success."
  Will the House mark those words?
  " That was what the standard meant 1111d what followed. In those days the next two Powers were France and Italy, twit as Italy was very friendly disposed towards us no one was anxious about the naval programme of Italy."

  1319
  I do not emphasise that point because the Prime Minister did not agree with that modification of the two-Power standard which Lord Selborne laid upon it, but I will go to the next passage:—
  "The standard was defined so far as battleships meant, and it was possible to work to it, always bearing in mind that the strength should offer a reasonable probability of victory, and that it should not be a mere arithmetical figure."
  We had that laid down in a nutshell, and in a form which the Admiralty of 1904 approved and which the Admiralty of 1909 approved. Any Admiralty will tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is a very different task if you had to meet two European Powers with contiguous naval bases and if you had to meet an Asiatic and a European Power. They could not combine with anything like the strength which two
  European Powers would possess. Although the right hon. Gentleman may laugh in the year 1909, he was a party to this statement by Lord Selborne in the year 1904, when the mere arithmetical comparison was excluded in the most explicit manner. If we adopt the two-Power standard we adopt it for some warlike purpose, in order to win a victory. We estimated what the two-Power standard would mean under varying circumstances. We have to look to a naval strength which will secure us victory under any possible combination of any two Powers. That is the policy which we have to do, and the present Government mean to maintain it.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 270.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretten, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt, Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Harrison-Broadley. H. B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.).

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clark, George Smith

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Percy Archer

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E F. (Lewisham)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Cochrane, Hon Thomas H. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred. Dixon

  Napier, T. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hen. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  H. W. Forster.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Oddy, John James

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beale, W. P.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Armitage. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bertram, Julius

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Branch, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Robinson, S.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jenkins, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brantford)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H (Rochester)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyre)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lambert, George

  Sears, J. E.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Seely, Colonel

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thorniey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Snowden, P.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cornett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Steadman, W. C.

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Maclean, Donald

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tomkinson, James

  Durcan, C. (Barrow-in-Fulness)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Massie, J.

  Ure, Rt Hon. Alexander

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Menzies, Walter

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Vivian, Henry

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walters, John Tudor

  Essiement, George Birnie

  Mond, A.

  Walton, Joseph

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wardle, George J.

  Falconer, J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Waring, Waiter

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Hussey, Thomas Willans

  Witley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Car'th'n)

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Williamson, A

  Harwood, Georga

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pointer, J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, J McD. (Aberdeen. W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Winfrey, R.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Joseph Pease and the Master of Ellbank.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Hodge, John

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Resolved, "That this House accepts with confidence the statement with regard to the two-Power standard made by the Prime Minister."
  Main Question put as amended.
  The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes. 106.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Falconer, J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Armitage, R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marnham, F. J.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Ferens, T. R.

  Massie, J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Findlay, Alexander

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Menzies, Walter

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mond, A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barnard, E. B.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morse, L. L.

  Beale, W. P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Myer, Horatio

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Harwood, George

  Nicholls, George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brooke, Stanford

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Henderson, J. McD. (Ab'deen, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pointer, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hooper, A. G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chance, Frederick W.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

  Chaining, Sir Francis Allston

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Radford, G. H.

  Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jenkins, J.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.).

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lament, Norman

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Colonel

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Cambarne)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur Jones

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, John Allesbrook

  Elibank, Master of

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Snowden, P.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Verney, F. W.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Car'th'n)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walton, Joseph

  Williamson, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Waring, Walter

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Joseph Pease and Mr. J. H. Lewis.

  Tomkinson, James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, P. S.

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckam)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Bellairs, Canyon

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carlile, E. Mildred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-H ill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, J. A. (Worc'r.)

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clark, George Smith

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  M'Calmont, Col. James

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson. Rt. Hon C Scott-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Oddy, John James

  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  Resolutions [5th May] reported,

  TEA.
  " That the Customs Duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the first clay of July, nineteen hundred and ten, that is to say:—
  Tea, the pound …; …; fivepence."
  Resolutions [11th May] reported,

  BEER DUTIES
  1. "That in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on beer imported
  1326
  into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, on and after the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties, that is to say:-
  In the case of beer called or similar to mum, spruce, black beer, or Berlin white beer, or other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a similar character
  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specific gravity—

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  1

  0

  s.

  d.

  Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  1

  2

  In the case of every description of beer other than that above specified—
  For every thirty-six gallons, where the worts thereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of … threepence
  and so in proportion for any difference in gravity."

  MISTY IN RESPECT OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR SUPPLIED IN CLUBS.
  2. "That in the year beginning the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, and in every subsequent year, a statement shall be made of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in every club, and of the purchases of intoxicating liquor by the club, during the preceding year, and an Excise Duty shall be charged at the rate
  of threepence for every pound of those receipts, or at a rate not exceeding sixpence for every pound of those purchases."
  Resolutions [17th May] reported,

  INCOME TAX.
  1. "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, at the rate of one shilling and twopence in the pound, and that an additional duty of Income Tax at the rate of sixpence in the pound be charged in respect of incomes which exceed five thousand pounds on every pound of the amount by which the income exceeds three thousand pounds."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.''
  The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 104.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES.

  [11.22 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beaumont. Hon. Hubert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bell, Richard

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Malden)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brooke, Stoptord

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Erskine, David C.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Essex, R. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Channing. Sir Francis Allston

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Lambert, George

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Grady, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pointer, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rees, J. D.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Walton, Joseph

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Waring, Walter

  Winfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Robinson, S.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Massie, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Watt, Henry A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Menzies, Walter

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Mond, A.

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Williamson, A.

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Napier, T. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sileock, Thomas Ball

  Winfrey, R.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Joseph Pease and Mr. J. H. Lewis.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  NOES.

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keswick, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Oddy, John James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton. Marquess of

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley. H. B.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Jamea Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clark, George Smith

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Renwick, George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

  1330

  1331

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Winterton, Earl

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Mr.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Motion made and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  2. "That no exemption, abatement, or relief under the Income Tax Acts shall be given to any person who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Resolution [20th May] reported,

  DEATH DUTIES.
  1. "That in the case of persons dying n or after the 30th day of April, 1909, there shall be substituted for the rates of Estate Duty set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1907, the following rates:—
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put, "That The House this House doth agree with the Committee 101. in the said Resolution."

  Where the principal value of the estate

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

  £ £

  Exceeds 100 and does not exceed 500

  1

  Exceeds 500 and does not exceed 1,000

  2

  Exceeds 1,000 and does not exceed 5,000

  3

  Exceeds 5,000 and does not exceed 10,000

  4

  Exceeds 10,000 and does not exceed 20,000

  5

  Exceeds 20,000 and does not exceed 40,000

  6

  Exceeds 40,000 and does not exceed 70,000

  7

  Exceeds 70,000 and does not exceed 100.000

  8

  Exceeds 100,000 and does not exceed 150,000

  9

  Exceeds 150,000 and does not exceed 200,000

  10

  Exceeds 200,000 and does not exceed 400.000

  11

  Exceeds 400,000 and does not exceed 600,000

  12

  Exceeds 600,000 and does not exceed 800,000

  13

  Exceeds 800,000 and does not exceed 1.000.000

  14

  Exceeds 1,000,00

  15

  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 104.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES.

  [11.33 p. m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Armitage, R.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Elibank, Master of

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cleland, J. W

  Erskine, David C.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Clough, William

  Essex, R. W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Falconer, James

  Barnard, E. B.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Fenwlck, Charles

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  GIII, A. H.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crossley, William J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Brooke, Stanford

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harwood, George

  Buxton. Rt Hon Sydney Chorine

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Menzies, Walter

  Seely, Colonel

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nicholls, George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Summerbell, T.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A.,(Glamorgan, E.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Salt Wald.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Tomkinson, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pointer, J.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walton, Joseph

  Lambert, George

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lamont, Norman

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wardle, George J.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

  Waring, Walter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rees, J. D.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robinson, S.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williamson, A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Winfrey, R.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Manfieid, Harry (Northants)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  J. H. Lewis and Captain Norton.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Massie, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  NOES.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Foster, P. S.

  Anson, Si William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J.

  Balcarres, Loud

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lend.)

  Clark, George Smith

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clive. Percy Archer

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Banner, John S. Harmcod-

  Clyde, J. A

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Keswick, William

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lambton, Hon Frederick William

  1334

  1335

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford sly.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Renwick, George

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Pike Pease and the Marquess of Hamilton.

  Oddy, John James

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Orinskirk)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Waiworth)

  Starkey, John R.

  Resolution reported,

  SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.
  2. "That in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, Settlement Estate Duty shall be charged at a rate double that at which it is now chargeable, and that for the purpose of any claim to relief boon Estate Duty under sub-section (2) of section five or sub-section (1) of section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1894, in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, payment of or liability to duty (whether the payment is
  made or the liability attached before, on, or after that date) in respect of settled property on the death of a person (other than the settlor), who was at the time of his death or had been at any time during the continuance of the settlement competent to dispose of the settled property, shall not be deemed to be a payment of or liability to duty in respect of settled property."
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 103.

  Division No. 146]

  AYES.

  [11.45 P.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gill, A. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Armitage, R.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cooper, G. J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Croaks, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harwood, George

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brooke, Stanford

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hodge, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Hooper, A. G.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Erskine, David C.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Essex, R. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hudson, Walter

  Chance, Frederick William

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Falconer, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jewett, F. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman. W. C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lambert, George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Surnmerbell, T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, J. E

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pointer, J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Porsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas, Apel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Thomasson, Frarklin

  Lupton, Arnold

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Lye Charles Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Vivian, Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Welters, John Tudor

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Walton, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Ridsdale, E. A

  Waring, Walter

  M'Callum, John M

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Menzies, Walter

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Meltene, Percy Alport

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Clevel'd)

  Williamson, A.

  Mond, A.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Seat, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morse, L. L.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Murray. Cant. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Myer, Horatio

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Winfrey, R.

  Napier, T. B.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wood, T. M`Kinnon

  Neones, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr.

  Nicholls, George

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  J. H. Lewis and Captain Norton.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Nussey, Thomas Wiliana

  NOES.

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farehnm)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Georga Denison (York)

  Mason, Jaunt F. (Windsor)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Bigneld, Sir Arthur

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Nugent. Sir Walter Richard

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Oddy, John James

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsely, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile, E. Mildred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Peel. Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Joynson-hicks, William

  Remnant, James Farqunarson

  Clark, George Smith

  Kerry, Earl of

  Renwick, George

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Keswick, William

  Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  1338

  1339

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pike Pease and the Marquess of Hamilton.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Walker, Cal. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Resolution reported,

  LEGACY OR SUCCESSION DUTY.
  3. "That after the 30th day of April, 3909—
  1. Any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of three per cent. shall be payable at the rate of five per cent., and any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of five per cent. or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of 10 per cent.;
  2. Legacy and Succession Duty, payable at the rate of 1 per cent. under the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Succession Duty Act, 1853, respectively, or any other Act, shall be charged, notwithstanding any repeal effected by or anything contained in any other Act, and the duty shall be charged in the case
  of husbands or wives as in the case of lineal ancestors or descendants;
  the Resolution to take effect in the case of Legacy Duty only where the testator by whose will the legacy is given, or the intestate on whose death the Legacy Duty is payable, dies on or after the 30th day of April, 1909, and in the case of a Succession Duty arising through devolution by law only where the succession arises on or after that date, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, only if the first succession under the disposition arises on or after that date."
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 101.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES.

  [11.58 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Armitage, R.

  Crossley, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Beale, W. P

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Eubank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jenkins, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney Charles

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lomb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lambert, George

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Cleland, J. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lehmann, R. C

  Clough, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lupton, Arnold

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Macdonald, J. R (Leicester)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Summerbell, T.

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thomasson, Franklin

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Verney, F. W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walton, Joseph

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, Jobs (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waring, Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mond, A.

  Rogers, F. E. Newma

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, J.

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  Morse, L. L.

  Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morton. Alpheus Cleophas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Murray, Capt Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Napier, T. B.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Nicholls, George

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sears, J. E

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carth'n)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seely, Colonel

  Williamson, A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Winfrey, R.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Stanley, Han. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Steadman, W. C.

  J. H. Lewis and Captain Norton.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendall

  Pointer, J.

  NOES.

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

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, P. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clark, George Smith

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Percy Archer

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Oddy, John James

  Resolution reported,

  VOLUNTARY DISPOSITIONS LITER VIVOS.
  4. "That in the case of persons dying on or after 3rd April, 1909, five years shall be substituted for 12 months as the period preceding the death of the deceased before which a disposition purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos, or a surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, must have been made or effected in order that the property taken under the
  disposition, or affected by the surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, may not be included as a property passing on the death of the deceased."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 100.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES.

  [12.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Luttrell, H ugh Fownes

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Maclean, Donald

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Falconer, James

  Macpherson, J T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Findlay, Alexander

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Barres, G. N.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Beale, W. P.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Massie, J.

  Benn, W. (Tower Harrlett, St Geo.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Mond, A.

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

  Harwood, George

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morse, L. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Helene, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Chance, Frederick William

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bessetlaw)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls. George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clough, William

  Hodge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Clynes, J. R.

  Holland, Sir Wiliam Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Grady, J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pease, Rt. Hop. J. A. (Staff. Wald.)

  Crooks, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare Pointer, J.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Edmund G (Leominster)

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

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Lambert, George

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

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Layland-Barett, Sir Francis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lehmann, R. C

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lough, Rt Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Watt, Henry A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robinson, S.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Stewart-Smitn, D. (Kendal)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Summerbell, T

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Sutherland, J. E

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentlord)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williamson, A.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sears, J. E.

  Verncy, F. W.

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Seely, Colonel

  Vivian, Henry

  Winfrey, R.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walton, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Shipman, Dr John G

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  J H. Lewis and Captain Norton.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waring. Walter

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  NOES.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir Wiliam Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Radford G H.

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renwick, George

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley. Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley. Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lvttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  M'Calmont, Col. James

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Coates, Major E F. (Lewisham)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cochrane. Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Crack, Sir Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Newdegste, F. A.

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfleld)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Oddy, John James

  Resolution reported,

  ESTIMATE OF PRINCIPAL VALUE.
  5. "That in the case of persons dying on or after the 30th day of April, nineteen hundred and nine.
  (1) no reduction shall be made in the estimate of the principal value of any property under sub-section (5) of section seven of the Finance Act, 1894, on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole of the
  property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time;
  (2) the limitation on the estimate of the principal value of agricultural property -under the same sub-section shall cease."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 94.

  Division No. 149.]

  AYES.

  [12.15 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Partington, Oswald

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Hobert (Staffs, Leek)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Harwood, George

  Pickersgill, toward Hare

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pointer, J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Baines, G N.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Hodge, Joho

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Holt, Richard Doming

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buckmaster. Stanley O.

  Jenkins, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowlands, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chance, Frederick William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Channing. Sir Francis Allston

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seely, Colonel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Snowden, P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cowan, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk Burghs)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Crossley, William J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Maclean, Donald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eificn)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Summerbell, T.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Manheid, Harry (Northants)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mannham. F. J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Massie. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Menzies Walter

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Erskine, David C.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Vivian, Henry

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walters, John Tudor

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Walton, Joseph

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morse, L. L.

  Waring, Walter

  Falconer, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Waterlow, D. S

  Findlay. Alexander

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gill, A. H.

  Nicholls, George

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Glen-Coats, Slr T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Goddard. Sir Daniel Ford

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Greenwood, G (Peterborough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whittaker, Rt Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  1348

  1349

  Williamson. A.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr.

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

  W T. (Westhoughton)

  J. H. Lewis and Captain Norton.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Winfrey, R.

  NOES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip S.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cuhitt (Peckham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Gordon, J.

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, SR Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lockword, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord R. (Maryiebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lyttelten, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clark, George Smith

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Mr

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Pike Pease and the Marquess of Hamilton.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersffeld)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Oddy, John James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Resolution (11th May] reported,

  MOTOR CARS.
  6. "That, in lieu of any Excise duties now payable for motor-cars, there shall be charged, both in Great Britain and Ireland, in each year, for every motor bicycle or motor tricycle a duty of one pound, and for every other motor-car a duty at the following rates, calculated in accordance with horse-power:—

  Horse Power.

  Duty.

  Under 6½

  Two guineas.

  6½ but under 12

  Three guineas.

  12 but under 16

  Four guineas.

  16 but under 26

  Six guineas.

  26 but under 33

  Eight guineas.

  33 but under 40

  Ten guineas.

  40 but under 60

  Twenty guineas.

  60 and over

  Forty guineas.

  That the duty under this Resolution shall not extend to motor - cars which are charged with duties as hackney carriages under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, or to motor-cars which are not carriages within the meaning of that Act, and that the unit of horse-power for the purpose of the duty shall be calculated in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Resolution [20th May] reported,

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  7. "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise)."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That, this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to [24th and 25th May], read as follows:—

  SPIRITS.
  1. "That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

  3

  9

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  6

  0

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  5

  5

  and the duties of Customs on the articles hereafter mentioned being articles in which spirit is contained, or in the manufacture of which spirit is used, shall he proportionately increased and shall be as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Chloral hydrate the lb.

  0

  1

  9

  Chloroform the lb.

  0

  4

  4

  Co 1 dion the gallon

  1

  14

  11

  Ether acetic the lb.

  0

  2

  7

  Ether butyric the gallon

  1

  1

  10

  Ether sulphuric the gallon

  1

  16

  6

  Ethyl, iodide of the gallon

  0

  19

  0

  Ethyl bromide the lb.

  0

  1

  5

  Ethyl chloride the gallon

  1

  1

  10."

  2. "That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and if after the thirtieth day of April. nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  3

  9

  and so on in proportion for any less quantity."

  TOBACCO.
  3. "That in lieu of the duties of Customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall on and after the 30th day of April, 1909, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

  s.

  d.

  Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.: Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof-

  Unstripped the lb.

  3

  8

  Stripped the lb.

  3

  8½

  Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof-

  Unstripped the lb.

  4

  1

  Stripped the lb.

  4

  1½.

  Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:

  Cigars the lb.

  7

  0

  Cigarettes the lb.

  5

  8

  Cavendish or Negrohead the lb.

  5

  4

  Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.

  4

  8

  s.

  d.

  Other manufactured tobacco the lb.

  4

  8

  Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

  4

  5

  Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

  5

  4

  4. "That in lieu of the duties of Excise now payable on tobacco grown in Ireland there shall on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, De charged the following duties (that is to Say):—

  Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—

  s.

  d.

  Tobacco containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

  3

  6

  Tobacco containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

  3

  11

  Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

  Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.

  4

  8

  and that duties of Excise at the same rates shall be charged on tobacco grown in England or Scotland, and that there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by every person growing, cultivating, or curing tobacco in England or Scotland an Excise duty of five shillings."

  MOTOR SPIRIT.
  5. "That there shall be charged on motor spirit, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, a Customs import duty of threepence per gallon, and on and after the first day of June, nineteen hundred and nine, an Excise duty of the like amount; and that there shall be charged, on and after the last-mentioned date, on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of motor spirit, an Excise duty of one pound, and on a licence to be taken out annually by a dealer in motor spirit an Excise duty of five shillings."

  FINANCE BILL.
  Bill ordered to be brought in, upon the said Resolutions and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to this day by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hobhouse.
  Finance Bi11,—" to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 7th June.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  Education Loans (Repayment).
  Education Loans (Repayment).
  Ludgate Hill Station.
  Ludgate Hill Station.
  Options and Futures in Foodstuffs.
  Options and Futures in Foodstuffs.
  Signing on Crews, South Shields.
  Signing on Crews, South Shields.
  Mercantile Marine Office, Albert Dock.
  Mercantile Marine Office, Albert Dock.
  Ships Clearances Outward (London).
  Ships Clearances Outward (London).
  Natives of South Africa (Lord Selborne's Speech).
  Natives of South Africa (Lord Selborne's Speech).
  Jamaica (Dry Dock Accommodation).
  Jamaica (Dry Dock Accommodation).
  Small Holdings, Kent.
  Small Holdings, Kent.
  Hours of Labour (Exhibitions).
  Hours of Labour (Exhibitions).
  Conviction of Railway Porter, Dulverton Petty Sessions.
  Conviction of Railway Porter, Dulverton Petty Sessions.
  John Mannion's Rent Reductions.
  John Mannion's Rent Reductions.
  Judicial Rent Appeal (John Ryan's Case).
  Judicial Rent Appeal (John Ryan's Case).
  Labourer's Cottage (John Reynolds' Case).
  Labourer's Cottage (John Reynolds' Case).
  Application for Reinstatement.
  Application for Reinstatement.
  Poor Law Statistics (Ireland).
  Poor Law Statistics (Ireland).
  Enniskillen District Council.
  Enniskillen District Council.
  Progress of Estate Purchases.
  Progress of Estate Purchases.
  London Motor Cabs (Cost of Petrol).
  London Motor Cabs (Cost of Petrol).
  Welshpool (Military and Public Spirit).
  Welshpool (Military and Public Spirit).
  Cork Stamp Office.
  Cork Stamp Office.
  Education Expenditure (Lindsay).
  Education Expenditure (Lindsay).
  London District Post Offices (Sorters).
  London District Post Offices (Sorters).
  Night Telegraph Communication (Ports).
  Night Telegraph Communication (Ports).
  Casual Paupers (" Way-Ticket" System).
  Casual Paupers (" Way-Ticket" System).
  Education (Administrative Provisions)Bill
  Education (Administrative Provisions)Bill
Preamble
The EARL OF ONSLOW—Sat Speaker.

THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee—Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:

L. Archbp. of Canterbury.

L. Chancellor.

L. Archbp. of York.

V. Wolverhampton (L. President).

E. Crewe (L. Privy Seal).

D. Bedford.

D. Northumberland.

M. Winchester.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

M. Bath.

E. Denbigh.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Jersey.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Carnwath.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Portsmouth.

E. Clarendon.

E. Malmesbury.

E. Onslow.

E. Chichester.

E. Beauchamp.

E. Stradbroke.

E. Vane. (M. Londonderry).

E. Cawdor.

E. Camperdown.

E. Lichfield.

E. Yarborough.

E. Russell.

E. Dartrey.

E. Feversham.

E. Lytton.

E. Ancaster.

E. Carrington.

E. Halsbury.

E. Cromer.

E. Plymouth.

V. Falkland.

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

V. Cross.

V. Knutsford.

V. Llandaff.

1166

V. Ridley.

V. Churchill.

V. Milner.

V. Selby.

V. St. Aldwyn.

L. Bp. London.

L. Bp. Hereford.

L. Bp. Southwark.

L. Hastings.

L. Clinton.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

L. Barnard.

L. Saltoun.

L. Balfour.

L. Kenyon.

L. Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway).

L. Brodrick (V. Midleton).

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Granard. (E. Granard).

L. Colchester.

L. Ranfurly (E. Ranfurly).

L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery).

L. Kilmarnock (E. Errol).

L. Denman.

L. Oranmore and Browne.

L. Kintore (E. Kintore).

L. Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine).

L. Belper.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Kinnaird.

L. Lawrence.

L. Castletown.

L. Wolverton.

L. Sandhurst.

L. Lamington.

L. Ampthill.

L. Reay.

L. Tweedmouth.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Monkswell.

L. Ashbourne.

L. Montagu of Beaulieu.

L. Macnaghten.

L. Newton.

L. Stanmore.

L. Burghclere.

L. James.

L. Heneage.

L. Ludlow.

L. Newlands.

L. Curzon.

1167

L. Avebury.

L. Alverstone.

L. Shuttleworth.

L. Allerton.

L. Sanderson.

L. Desborough.

L. Weardale.

L. Haversham.

L. Courtney of Penwith.

L. Airedale.

L. Collins.

Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY (CARDIFF RAILWAY, VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.] TAFF VALE RAILWAY (RHYMNEY RAILWAY, VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.] BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.] MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] BRISTOL UNIVERSITY BILL. [H.L.] GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.] STOURBRIDGE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a; agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended with regard to all the Provisional Order Bills entered on the Minutes for consideration this day; agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CHESHUNT COLLEUE) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL. [H. L.] EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BUCKS, &c.) BILL. [H. L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bills read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELRCTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (WESTON, CLEVEDON, AND PORTISHEAD LIGHT RAILWAYS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. ]) BILL. [H.L.] LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bills read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments, &c.—Was presented by the Lord Denman (for the Lord Pentland) pursuant to the Private Legisla-
1170
tion Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 69.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock, to Wednesday, June 23 next, a quarter past Four o'clock.