Sitting of 24 November 1909

Preamble
Mr. Speaker took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
Copy ordered of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1908–9, showing (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1909; and (2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Navy (Aeronautical Work).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of those to be employed in aeronautical work in the Navy will be drawn from the engineering branch?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The number of engineers who will be employed on aeronautical work depends entirely on the future requirements of this service, of which no estimate can at present be made.

  Royal Marine Forces.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state whether during the next four years any officer of the Royal Marine Forces will, in the ordinary course, complete three years in command and be eligible to become a reserved colonel; and, if so, what is the name of that officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: All the colonels commandant now serving will complete the periods of their command during the, next four years. Possibly some of their successors may also be eligible for the Reserved Colonels List during the next four years, as the Order in Council refers to "expiration of command," which may take place in less than three years. Vacancies, however, are expected in the list of generals which will be filled by some of the officers
  188
  at present holding the position of colonel commandant.
  Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question and give the name of the officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The lion. Gentleman has assumed that there would be one officer. My reply shows that there may be several. I could not give the names as it is hypothetical.

  Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many students are at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport; what is the rank of the officer in charge; what do his pay and allowances amount to; whether he is allowed a house; and at what age was this officer promoted to his present rank?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is 21; to the second, captain, Royal Navy; to the third. £946 per annum; to the fourth, in the affirmative; and to the fifth, 43.
  Captain FABER: May I ask if this could not be done cheaper by employing a captain of the Nore Division of the Home Fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it could, of course, but this captain was in charge of a much larger college, and it is not desirable to move in the matter at the present time.

  Electric Searchlight Carbons.
  Mr. CARLILE (for Mr. Starkey)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty purchase the greater part of the carbons for the electric searchlights of warships from Germany; and whether, in the event of the foreign supply not being available, manufacturers in this country would be able to meet a sudden demand?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the whole of the carbons purchased by the Admiralty for searchlights of His Majesty's ships are made in this country. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he could state the nature of the claims that have been preferred against the Peru-

  189
  vian Amazon Company or its immediate predecessors in title in respect of the ill-treatment of natives of Barbadoes; and if he had taken any action thereon?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Some claims have in the past been presented to the Peruvian Amazon Company or its predecessor on behalf of British Colonial subjects through the Consular Officer at Iquitos, and these, have, I am informed, received due consideration, but the details of such claims are not at present available. Inquiry is being made through the Colonial Authorities as to the existing conditions with respect to Colonial subjects.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether any further reports as to the Peruvian Amazon Company have yet been received; and, if so, whether they can be communicated; and whether any information on the same subject has been received from the United States Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Only unofficial reports as to the incidents alluded to have at present been received, but I am in communication with the Peruvian Amazon Company on the subject. It has been ascertained by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington that the reports of personal misadventure and destruction of property of the two United States citizens in that region are correct, and that payment of a sum of 500 dollars, claimed on their account as compensation, has been recommended to the Peruvian Treasury.

  North Sea Convention (Fishing Grounds).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire from the Powers, signatories to the North Sea Convention, what fishing grounds they would desire to see closed from the operation of trawlers, with the object of preventing the destruction of immature fish and protecting the legitimate interests of the line fishermen?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing to add to the answer I returned to the question of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on the 4th instant. The question is one of general policy, on which His Majesty's Government are not at present prepared to make any further statement.
  Mr. C. WASON: In view of the fact that it is only to ask for information from those foreign Powers, and not to commit them to
  190
  anything, will he give the matter further consideration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer.

  Moray Firth Trawling.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact of an increase of trawling by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth since the passing of the Prevention of Trawling Bill; if he is aware of the wreck of the Belgian trawler "Mie," of Ostend, whilst engaged in trawling off Banff, when her crew was rescued by the German trawler "Senator Bault," of Hamburg, which was also fishing; and, in view of the building and fitting up of fresh trawlers to fish the Moray Firth from Ostend, if the Government are alive to the situation, and propose taking any steps to discontinue the preservation of fish for the special benefit of the foreigner?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has been called, not to an increase but to a large decrease in trawling in the Moray Firth since the date named. I am aware of the wreck referred to but have no information as to whether the vessel wrecked was engaged in trawling; the rescuing vessel, I understand, was not trawling but was sheltering from a storm. I am not aware that fresh trawlers for the Moray Firth are building or fitting out at Ostend.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask if the decrease, which I do not admit, is a decrease of foreign trawlers or a decrease of British and foreign combined, or an increase in foreign trawling?
  Mr. URE: A diminution in foreign trawling.
  Mr. PIRIE: I do not think that is in accord with the facts.

  Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if lie will state bow many trawlers have been reported to the Customs authorities since the coming into operation of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that four trawlers have been reported to the Customs.
  Mr. PIRIE: If only four have been reported to the Government there must be either of two alternatives, namely, that

  191
  they are not prosecuted when they land fish in British ports; or else they land the fish in foreign ports.
  Mr. URE: They have not been observed.

  Shetland and Whaling Companies.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the feeling that exists in Shetland against the whaling companies and the manner in which they have established themselves there; and whether, in view of the fact of the continuous decrease of the herring fishing on the West Coast, he will send a Special Commissioner to report as to the desirability or otherwise of restrictive legislation?
  Mr. URE: As I informed my hon. friend the Member for Argyllshire yesterday, there is no present intention to appoint a Special Commissioner to report into matters affecting the herring fisheries. I am aware of the existence of a certain amount of local feeling against the whaling companies, but I am unable to add to the answer given on the matter to my hon. friend on the 2nd of this month.

  Pekin (British Post Office).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the French and German Governments had a post office at Pekin, and, if so, why had the British not got a post office there?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): There are French and German post offices at Pekin. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, so far as it is a postal matter, it does not appear that the number of British subjects residing in Pekin apart from the Legation is sufficient to justify the establishment of a British post office there.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the question?
  Mr. BUXTON: If circumstances alter. We have consulted the Foreign Office on the matter, and they agree that under existing circumstances there is no need apart from the Legation to start a British post office there.

  Gardeners in Dublin (Bate of Wages).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to a resolution passed at a public meeting in which it was alleged that the Board of Works for Ireland paid the
  192
  gardeners and labourers in its employment at a rate of wages below the standard rate in the City of Dublin; whether that was the case; and, if so, whether immediate steps would be taken to rectify a state of things which was contrary to the declarations of the House of Commons made in two successive Parliaments?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): My attention had not been previously drawn to the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The allegation made in the resolution is, I am informed, without foundation. As pointed out in my answer to a question put by the hon. Member for West Limerick on 15th March last, the rates of wages paid by the Board of Works, allowance being made for the privilege enjoyed by the men, are not only up to the market rate, but, in the majority of cases, in excess of it.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the rate of wages paid in the City of Dublin for this class of labourer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: By the Board of Works?
  Mr. NANNETTI: Yes.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It varies from 16s. to about 21s. But we are not responsible for the rate of wages; we are responsible for paying the standard rate. Unfortunately, in this case, it is a very low rate indeed.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the standard rate of wages for labourers in the City of Dublin is 21s., while the wages paid to the labourers in question are from 14s. to 16s., and does he consider that a living wage in the City of Dublin?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The wages are not from 14s. to 16s., but from 16s. to 21s. I think it is a very low rate, unfortunately, but we cannot raise the standard rate of wages in this particular place.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Are not the Board of Works bound by the Fair Wages Resolution? Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that the standard rate of wages is paid here the same as anywhere else?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My information is to the effect that the rate we pay is the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Do I understand that the Government have a right to make a standard rate of wages for one Department as against all the other labourers in the City of Dublin?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. The question asked was whether the Board of Works pays the gardeners and labourers in its employment at a rate of wages below the standard rate in the City of Dublin. I am informed that the Board does not pay below the standard rate, and, as I have said two or three times, I regret that the standard rate is so low.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that 14s. is the standard rate for gardeners in Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have specifically denied that that is the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the standard rate is 16s? Will he see that it is brought up to the 21s. which is paid by the Corporation and other public bodies?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that that is not the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: As a member of the Corporation I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is paid. Will he look into the matter further, and see whether it is possible to raise the wages from 16s. to something upon which the labourers of Ireland can live?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite agree that the rate is unduly low. I cannot go beyond that. I regret that, according to the information which reaches me, that is the standard rate. If the standard rate were higher I would gladly ask the Board of Works to pay it.

  England and Germany (Interchange of Teachers).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the German teacher now employed at the council school at Holloway, who had been brought over from Germany on the interchange system, was allowed to take ordinary class work; whether the Board of Education had sanctioned this arrangement; whether his being employed to do this work was in accordance with the Board's regulations on the is subject; whether the Board would cancel its approval, if it had been given, so that an Englishman might be appointed to do this work; and whether he had any official information showing that the
  194
  Prussian Government had in any case employed its English teachers, whose services it had obtained under the interchange system, to take ordinary class work to the exclusion of German masters?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The conditions under which German assistants are assigned by the Board of Education to English schools are regulated by the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Prussian Government. The Convention provides, among other things, that assistants must not be required to give regular class instruction, or to take supervision duty, and that not more than 12 hours' work a week may be demanded of them. These provisions were inserted for the protection of the assistants, and in order that they might have plenty of time and opportunity to pursue their own studies. In the case to which the hon. Member refers, the approval of the Prussian Ministry of Education was asked and given to an arrangement whereby the assistant would take class instruction within the limits of time laid down toy the Convention. The Board see no reason to withhold their approval of this arrangement. I am informed that as a matter of fact the teacher in question is supernumerary to the ordinary establishment of the school, and that his removal would not necessitate the appointment of another teacher in his place; but I cannot admit that that has anything to do with the case, or that any obstacle should be raised to the appointment of a foreign teacher where such an appointment would be in the best interests of the school. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. CARLILE: Why are there granted under these conditions to German subjects special privileges which are not allowed to British subjects in Germany under similar conditions?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, I am informed—not officially, but by some of the assistants who have returned from Germany—that they have had the privilege of taking class instruction in German schools.

  Foxboro' Land Sale (Extension of Sub-Tenants).
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (for Mr. James O'Kelly)asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the circumstances of the sale of certain lands at Fox-

  195
  boro', county Roscommon, by a landlord named Taafe, to a middleman named Laven, to the exclusion of the sub-tenants, 10 in number; whether the sub-tenants had declared their anxiety to purchase through the Land Commissioners and to have their present non-economic holdings increased by the addition of portions of the untenanted land upon the estate; whether the sum agreed upon between the landlord and the middleman to be advanced by the Commissioners was £4,050, which worked out at about 37 years' purchase; whether the middleman who entered into this agreement was not a farmer but a Dublin publican; whether there was any reasonable prospect of his being able to carry out his undertaking; and whether, under the circumstances, the Commissioners would be asked to review this case with the two-fold object of securing the ratepayers from future loss, and of obtaining the benefits of the Land Act for the sub-tenants.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner has instituted proceedings for the direct sale to the tenants of the estate referred to. The man named in the question has agreed to purchase his holding, which is stated in the purchase agreement to contain 142 acres of the lands of Foxborough, held by him as a yearly tenant at a rent of £250. He has applied for an advance of £4,050, being 16.2 years' purchase of the rent. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the usual inquiries will be made as to sub-tenants.
  Mr. CULLINAN: As it is in the power of the Estates Commissioners to refuse to make these advances unless the subtenants are treated with, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the sub-tenants are considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When they consider the case the Estates Commissioners will bear in mind the position of the sub-tenants.

  Foster Fitzgerald Estate (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state when the agreements signed by the tenants to purchase the Foster Fitzgerald estate, near New-towndillon, North Kerry, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; whether the agent, Mr. J. D. Crosbie, promised the tenants whose lands were being flooded that he would immediately make up the
  196
  river banks and lay aside a fund for the maintenance of the same; and whether, before the estate was vested in the tenants, the Estates Commissioners would have an inspection of the holdings made so as to safeguard the interests of the tenants.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the purchase agreements for the sale of this estate were lodged on various dates from September, 1907, to July, 1908. The purchase agreements of the tenants who would be affected by the non-maintenance of the river embankment contain a clause to the effect that the embankment on the holding, heretofore jointly maintained by the vendor and purchaser, shall be put into such repair as the Land Commission shall require, and that such sum as the Land Commission shall think fit shall be retained out of the purchase money for its future maintenance. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the matter will be fully considered by the Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the money retained by the Land Commission be held by them in trust, or will it be given to local trustees for the upkeep of the embankment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It will probably be given to local trustees.

  Fitzmaurice Estate (Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether any steps had yet been taken to reinstate the evicted tenants on the Miss Fitzmaurice property, situate near Duagh, North Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 18 evicted tenants have been reinstated on this estate.

  Old Age Pension Withdrawn (Kilflynn, Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether Timothy Neale, of Gortclohy, Kilflynn, was in receipt of an old age pension; whether Neale had been informed by the pension officer of the district that he was to be disqualified for an old age pension; and, if so, on what grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Neale was awarded a pension of 5s. a week by the Ardfert Pensions Sub-Committee. The pension officer appealed against their decision on the ground that claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit, and the Local Government Board, on full consideration of the case, upheld the appeal.

  Sands Estate (Sub-tenancy).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether Jeremiah Carroll, of Knockanure, held as a subtenant from Mrs. Bridget Goulding, Kealid, on the T. W. Sands estate; whether Mrs. Goulding had consented to sell to Carroll on the same terms that she had bought from the landlord; whether Carroll's holding as a sub-tenant had been inspected by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, when would the vesting order be issued to Carroll?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Carroll holds a small plot of about an acre and a half as a sub-tenant on this estate. The estate has been inspected and reported on, and the Estates Commissioners have decided that this is not a case in which the sub-tenant should be deemed a direct tenant of the small plot in his occupation.
  Mr. FLAVIN: On what ground did the Estates Commissioners come to their decision?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Section 15 of the Act of 1903 gives the Estates Commissioners a discretion in the matter. In the exercise of that discretion they came to the conclusion that the sub-tenants in this case should not be deemed to be direct tenants.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Why should an exception be made in this case, where the tenant in possession is willing to sell to the subtenants on the same terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know anything about it. The Estates Commissioners have, by Act of Parliament, a discretion as to whether sub-tenants should or should not be considered direct tenants, and in this case, in the exercise of that discretion, they decided against their being so considered.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I will call further attention to the matter.

  Special Reserve (Officers).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to increase the numbers of the officers in the Special Reserve from the present strength of 1,924 to the establishment of 2,808?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No special steps are being taken in regard to this matter beyond what have been taken under the Regulations; but I have every reason to hope that candidates for the Special Reserve of
  198
  Officers will be gradually forthcoming from the Officers Training Corps.

  Cavalry Horses (Peace Establishment).
  Lord BALCARRESasked what is the peace establishment in horses of the three line cavalry brigades which were trained on Salisbury Plain this year; how many horses were brought with them when they arrived for manœuvres and how many horses were returned in the field states as fit for work after the first week?
  Mr. HALDANE: The peace establishment of the three brigades, including chargers, is 4,635. The field states available show the fighting strengths to have been 2,680 on 1st September and 2,511 on 10th September. It must be remembered that all the horses under six years of age were left behind, and that the regiments had already been undergoing severe brigade training for about a month previously.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Lord BALCARRESasked whether steps are being taken to ensure that officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in Ireland shall this year receive the full leave to which they are entitled by the Regulations?
  Mr. HALDANE: Under normal conditions it will now be possible to give every Royal Army Medical Corps officer serving in Ireland throughout the year full leave, provided that he is willing to take it when the exigencies of the Service permit.

  Lord Kitchener's Appointment.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he would state whether Lord Kitchener will be under the orders of the War Office or the Colonial Office when performing his future duties in East and West Africa?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not able at the present moment to reply to this question.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any date when he will be able to give the information?
  Mr. HALDANE: All these things will be gone into by Lord Kitchener himself when he takes up his command.
  Captain FABER: What date will that be?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should think it will be some time in May.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state whether the Governor of Malta or the High Commissioner of the Mediterranean will occupy the palaces of Sant Antonio and Valletta; and if he would now state whether the Governors of Malta and Gibraltar will represent the Sovereign in their respective commands after the new High Commissioner has taken up his duties?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not yet in a position to reply to either of the questions on this subject put by the hon. and gallant Member.

  Army Contractors (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair Wage Clause by the firm of A. J. Bagnall and Company, contractors for painting at the barracks, Whittington?
  Mr. HALDANE: It appears that the contractors referred to have employed labourers in painting certain outside work. Inquiry shows that there is no generally accepted rule that the particular work in question should be assigned to skilled painters, but it is the view of the War Office that painters should be employed on this work, and the contractors will be informed accordingly.

IRISH LAND BILL.
  Lords Amendments further considered.
  LORDS AMENDMENTS.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Restrictions on Sales of Land in Congested Districts Counties.)
    (1) The Land Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, enter into an agreement for the purchase of any land situated in a congested districts county, save with the consent of the Congested Districts Board: Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in the case of any land required for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.
    (2) No estate situated in a congested districts county shall, after the passing of this Act, be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, to persons other than the Congested Districts Board without the consent of that Board, which consent shall not be withheld unless the Board undertake to
    200
    purchase the estate within a reasonable time: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of any sale of a congested estate in pursuance of an originating application or request lodged before the passing of this Act.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words, "undertake to purchase the estate within a reasonable time," and insert instead thereof the words "to enter into an agreement or to send a final offer for the purchase of the estate within one year."
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I think it is a reasonable one. "Reasonable time" is now defined by imposing the obligation upon the Board to make the final offer for the estate within the year.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not propose to divide the House, but I think it is a most unreasonable time, considering the progress of land purchase in Ireland at the present time under the present Bill, when an estate—many estates—that have been offered for sale are waiting for five, six, or seven years to be paid for. I think the time proposed is absolutely unreasonable, and I suggest that it is another attempt to render the powers of the Congested Districts Board absolutely nugatory.
    Mr. MOORE: I only wish to draw attention to the remarks that we have just listened to, which illustrate, first of all, another protest against the Bill which hon. Members are dying to have.
    Mr. DILLON: Not as much dying as you are.
    Mr. MOORE: Secondly, it illustrates the way the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends approach everything, reasonable or unreasonable, which can do the class they are always attacking some harm. See how this stands: Notice is served by the Congested Districts Board that they are going to take a man's land under their compulsory powers——
    Mr. DILLON: Not at all; the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about.
    Mr. MOORE: I am quite used to that kind of compliment. Under the proposal in the Bill this public Department has a right to serve a notice on a man that they

    201
    are going to take his land compulsorily. The Amendment provides that within a year they are to make up their minds whether they are going to do so or not. During the whole of the year the man has this notice hanging over him, and he cannot sell his land to anybody else, and he cannot improve his land in the meantime, because he might be throwing his money away if he did. The Chief Secretary, with absolute fairness and reason, says that this period of indefiniteness is only to last 12 months, and at the end the man will be told whether or not his land will be taken by the Department. Such a desire does not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for East Mayo. This notice has to be kept hanging over a man's head for five, six, or seven years——
    Mr. DILLON: No, it has not.
    Mr. MOORE: I think it is a very clear illustration of the rabid desire which makes the hon. Member for East Mayo see in every bush a bear, or some object of the sort.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 62.—(Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of Congested Districts Board.)
    Where the Congested Districts Board make a proposal for the purchase of an state or untenanted land, the provisions of Part II. of this Act with respect to the Amendment and withdrawal of proposals of the Estates Commissioners shall apply, with the substitution of the Congested Districts Board for the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"; this as a preliminary step to further rearrangement here.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 64.—(Compulsory Purchase.)
    (1) The Estates Commissioners in any ease where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land—

    (a) in respect of which a final offer has been sent by them and has not been accepted in manner provided by this Act; or

    202

    (b) in respect of which they have received a requisition under this Act from the Congested Districts Board shall publish in the "Dublin Gazette" a notice containing particulars of the final offer of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board as the case may be and stating that the Estates Commissioners intend to purchase the estate or untenanted land described in the final offer at the price named in such offer, unless within the prescribed time an application is made under this Part of this Act to the Judicial Commissioner by any person interested in the estate or untenanted land.

    (2) A copy of the final offer and of the aforesaid notice shall as soon as possible be served in the prescribed manner by the Estates Commissioners upon all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the estate or untenanted land.
    (3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply by way of objection to the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land.
    (4) The Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise the powers conferred on the Land Commission by Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section forty-eight of the Act of 1381, and his decision on any question other than one of law shall be final.
    (5) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act on any question of law and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
    (6) Subject to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, the price named in the final offer or fixed under this Part of this Act as the case may be shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall within the prescribed time be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased

    203
    by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be, by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase-money into the Bank.
    (7) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Section shall be at the discretion of that Commissioner, who may if he thinks fit order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
    (8) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land under this Section, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) paragraph (b) Leave out the words "Judicial Commissioner" ["Part of this Act to the Judicial Commissioner"] and insert instead thereof the word "Court."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): This is the first of a number of Amendments of a very important description which have been moved to our Clauses for compulsory purchase. I use the term "compulsory purchase" advisedly. The phrase is popularly used, and it is the phrase used in the Bill. If in order it would be, I think, for the convenience of the House if I stated very briefly the general attitude of the Government towards these Amendments, and the difference between the scheme as it was and is, and will be if the Amendments which we propose are carried. According to our original scheme, we had, as the House is aware, general power of compulsory purchase all over Ireland, applied to classes of land whether outside or inside the congested districts: According to our proposals, the question of the necessity or expediency of putting into operation these compulsory powers rested entirely with the Departments who are entrusted with the Administration of the Act—the Congested Districts Board in the congested districts and the Estates Commissioners outside. The Congested Districts Board having for its functions primarily the relief of congestion, it was assumed that the Board would acquire land for the relief of congestion, and for that purpose only. We did not, in the Bill as it left this House, restrict it in so many words; we left it an open question whether or not it should apply, in the interest of carrying out the powers vested in them by statute, whether it should put
    204
    in force compulsory powers. We excepted a certain class of lands from these compulsory powers—demesne lands, gardens, pleasure grounds, and home farms. These are all phrases well known in Ireland, and have all received judicial interpretation in connection with matters arising under the Irish Land Acts. Every person familiar with the working of the Irish Land Act is familiar with these terms, and knows exactly how to interpret them in case it was necessary to determine whether lands came within their meaning or not. We did not except any other class of land for compulsory powers.
    It became necessary under our original scheme that some tribunal of a judicial nature should be set up for three purposes:—Firstly, to determine whether or not the land proposed to be taken came within this description of lands which were exempted from the compulsory powers contained in the Bill; secondly, for another and a very important reason. The House will remember that in the course of the Committee Stage the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell) raised the question that the Estates Commissioners might pick and choose bits of land from an owner's property, leaving the worst and taking the best, or taking a portion of land which would greatly injure the adjoining land. When the question was raised, and our attention called to the matter, we admitted the possibility, though not the probability, and we then provided that in any such case the tribunal established should determine what particular area of land should be purchased; so that if a portion of a man's estate was taken compulsorily by the Commissioners he should be able to claim that the whole of his property, or some such portion of it, as be thought desirable, should be acquired, and that the Estates Commissioners should not be allowed to pick and choose, and, perhaps, leave the owner encumbered. For that purpose some judicial tribunal was necessary. And the third and most important point of all to be determined wag the question of price.
    We proposed under our original scheme, and we still adhere to it, the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission as the authority for all those classes of duties. We thought that was the best tribunal, and I will give the House the reasons why. In the first place we thought it desirable that there should be one tribunal for all questions of that kind that arise. If you have a multiplicity of tribu-

    205
    nals, it means a great increase in cost and trouble and delay. Each tribunal would be confined to its own particular business, and you would have questions that arose directly before one tribunal bound up with questions that arose before another. The questions of price and value, for instance, work into one another; one of the matters in determining whether land is of a certain character and value is very often its site. Land is purchased at a high price, and sometimes it is assumed it is so purchased not for its agricultural value but for its amenities, so that the question of price and the question what land should be excluded, although apparently different, are very often the same. Everyone appearing in the courts in connection with these matters knows that the question of law and price are bound up together. So we think it desirable that not only should there be one tribunal to determine all these questions, but we think it should be the same tribunal in both cases, and we think it desirable also, in the first instance, it should be one man in all three cases and not three, and for these reasons: The taking of evidence before a tribunal of three persons is always a cumbersome, difficult, and tedious task. In nearly all systems of jurisprudence, certainly under our law, and under the law of Scotland, and I think it is also the Continental system, the practice is that one judge should be the tribunal in the first instance. One judge hears the case and makes up his mind, no matter how important the issues may be, and the issues in an ordinary Common Law action or in a Chancery Action may be quite as important and more important even than in questions of compulsory purchase. We think it advisable that there should be but one judge, and we think it reasonable that there should bean appeal from him on questions of law at all events, and we are quite content and anxious that the power of appeal should be extended and should be extended to all questions except the question of price, which is one that the Court of Appeal have admitted they could not enter upon, and have refused to enter upon where they had the authority. For these reasons we have selected the Judicial Commissioner, and I think I can give three good reasons for that selection.
    In the first place he has had enormous experience in the determination of the very questions which arise. In his position as a Judge of the Land Commission, these questions are before him every day
    206
    —whether land is demesne land or not, what is the true value of the lands, what is the relation of the head rent, what is the value of the tithe rent charges and such matters as may be charged upon them. He is dealing with all these questions every day. I may say in regard to Mr. Justice Wylie—and the whole House will agree with me—there is no judge upon the bench who so satisfactorily discharges his duties; he has been a long time there, and, so far as I am aware, he has never been attacked by any individual or by anyone in the country. He discharges very difficult and important duties with great credit to himself and to his office. Of course, I could not ask the House to assent to the tribunal merely because of the high character of the judge. I think the position of Judicial Commissioner, apart from the individual, qualifies the holder of the office specially for this particular work.
    Then, again, it is a fallacy to suppose that this system of compulsory purchase is novel. We have had ever since 1889, under the Land Purchase Acts, a system of compulsory redemption of head rents. A head rent, as every lawyer knows, is generally a fee simple estate in the land; it is not merely a rent charge; it is very often a case of long lease, very often a fee simple estate, and when a fee simple estate is determined by a judge of the Land Commission he has determined the price of a fee simple interest in the land. The Judicial Commission has done that every day for the last 20 years, and that is compulsory purchase, so that not only does his position and functions admirably suit him for the duties we propose he should discharge, but he has actually been doing every day since the Judicial Commissioner has been appointed the very thing she is expected to do under this Bill, including the fixing of the price of land. The question of the exclusion of demesne lands, parks, and pleasure gardens are matters which come before him every day. As to the question of price, to say that the Judicial Commissioner or any Commissioner that may be appointed is the best person to determine the price, is a question I need not argue, because on this-point I have the advantage of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J.H. Campbell) who on this very question approved most distinctly of the proposal of the Government that the Judicial Commissioner should be the tribunal to fix the price. I will read to

    207
    the House the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said:—
    "I have given the question of the determination of the price every possible consideration, and I am bound to say that I have come to the same conclusion as the chief Secretary. I do not think we can altogether put aside the suggestion that a member of the purchasing body should not be the judge, not that I think it will in any way, in the case of Mr. Justice Wylie, operate unfairly. I do not think it will. I have had the honour of his acquaintance for a great many years, and I think both landlords and tenants will be safe in his hands to do what is right; but it is contrary to our ideas of natural justice that the head of this same Department, which is made under this Bill the purchasing authority, should, under the Act, be the man who will fix the price. At the same time, I cannot see any different solution, and I think it will work all right, and I do not wish for one moment to oppose it. As regards arbitration, the account which the right hon. Gentleman gave of it in this country made my mouth water, because I did not recognise that it was applicable to Ireland; but it has so many objections to it that I could not think of putting it before the right hon. Gentleman."
    He goes on to say:—
    "But I ask the hon. and learned Member not to persist in the Amendment, because I think, on the whole, the Chief Secretary has adopted, under very difficult conditions, perhaps the best possible tribunal available to him, and certainly I myself cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute."
    After the right hon. Gentleman had discussed the question of the objections he came to the conclusion that the Judicial Commissioner is the best possible tribunal available, and said, "I cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute." After these remarkable words from a right hon. Gentleman who has had so much practical experience of the work of the Judicial Commissioner ever since he was appointed 30 years ago, I think the Government would not be justified in withdrawing the original proposal they made, more especially when it has secured such enthusiastic commendation. Just a few words in regard to the Amendment. By their Amendment, the House of Lords has restricted compulsion in the case of congestion expressly outside the congested area. This is a most important restriction and alteration in the Bill, and I think when we ask the House to agree to this restriction as we are doing we are making a very great concession indeed to the other House. Then they have enlarged the grounds upon which lands may be excluded. They had proposed a very general clause to the effect that if it appears to the tribunal they desire to set up that other land equally suitable can be acquired at a reasonable price voluntarily the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board are to be forbidden putting into force compulsory powers. This may be all right in theory, but in practice it
    208
    will lead to great difficulties. If they propose to purchase compulsorily the owner will be able to bring forward hundreds of cases perhaps of persons willing to sell land, and this will cause very great delay, because the circumstances of each of those estates will have to be inquired into by the judicial tribunal. This will take days and weeks, because the circumstances of each property must be investigated by both parties, and it will entail enormous trouble and expense and a considerable inconvenience. For these reasons we are prepared to ask the House to disagree with that Amendment. We think the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board may very well be trusted not to put compulsory powers into force unless they are absolutely necessary. No Government Departments are desirous of going to the trouble of compulsory purchase if they can get the land they require voluntarily.
    The Lords Amendment exempts some other classes of land, but they are not very material. The main change made is to establish instead of the tribunal which we sought to set up a composite court composed of two King's Bench judges with the Judicial Commissioner, and they propose the option of arbitration. We think that arbitration is a most objectionable system. We have had experience of it in the working of the head rents, and the result was that this House unanimously abolished the possibility of arbitration for the purpose of fixing the price of the head rent, because the system was found to work so badly and dilatory, and was expensive. Now the House of Lords proposes to establish that system again, and we certainly object to it. We are anxious that the thing should be done as expeditiously as possible. To my mind there are even graved objections to the scheme which the House of Lords propose. They suggest, in the first place, a jury of three judges. Questions raised before such a court are much more difficult to determine, because frequently the judges take different views, and considerable delay is caused, for the reason that one judge can attend only on one day, because he is wanted in another court, and these eases have to be adjourned from day to day. But there are still graver objections to this proposal. I should be very sorry to make the slightest reflection upon the impartiality with which the judges in the King's Bench Division do their business, but their business is not that of fixing the price of land

    209
    and determining questions which arise in this case. They have other very much more important questions to determine with which they are more familiar, and they this proposal you are taking them away from their ordinary duties to discharge a duty which is foreign to their purpose and their present jurisdiction. As regards the question of delay, the primary duty of the King's Bench judges is to act as criminal judges, and during the months of March and July it would be absolutely impossible to get this tribunal together. In the month of December it would be equally impossible, for there are three circuits in Ireland—the spring circuit in March, the summer circuit in July, and the winter circuit in December. There are only four judges for the winter assizes, and if they have to carry out those duties as their ordinary work they would certainly not be available for the purposes of this new court, and it would paralyse the work of the courts. The scheme in every way is ill-judged and inconvenient. It would result in this, that practically for only six months in the year should we get a court. For three months the judges would be on circuit, and would not be available, and there is the three months' vacation. Then King's Bench judges have to discharge duties at Green-street, and if one of these judges happened to be the judge appointed to go to Green-street, these cases would have to be postponed. There would in every way be delay, increased expense, and unsatisfactory treatment of the whole matter. Just let me say one word as to the reasons why the Lords have dissented from our scheme and the arguments which they advance against the position in which we desire to place the Judicial Commissioner. They say he is a member of the Land Commission, and therefore prejudiced, and it is contrary to natural justice that a member of that body should be the person to fix the price. There is a sufficient answer to that, although he is a member of that body, his functions are quite independent of the Commissioners. He is doing chamber and departmental work, and he sits in a different place, and is never brought in contact with the Commissioners except in the case of appeals and when questions are referred to him. The same objections which apply to him under this Bill would apply under the Act of 1903, where he is made the Referee. It seems to me that in substance and fact the objection has no solid foundation what-
    210
    soever. There is another amply sufficient answer. We give an appeal from every decision of his, and we are willing to even extend the right of appeal, so that there will be in every case the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland in every question except the one of price, which the courts have declared themselves incompetent to determine. We have, then, a judge in every way suitable, and one who fills a position which in every way suits the duties he will have to discharge. We are asked to accept in lieu thereof a cumbersome, awkward tribunal which it would be difficult to get together, and which has less special knowledge for the determination of the questions involved than the tribunal we set up. For these reasons I move, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I hope to deal with the matter we have got to discuss as briefly as possible, because I want to keep faith with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Birrell) in the undertaking we gave last night, in consideration of which we adjourned; but the matter is one of great importance. I believe myself, having regard to what I consider to be the inherent justice of the Amendments inserted in another place, that the refusal of the Government to accept these reasonable Amendments puts this Bill in the gravest possible danger. I can hardly understand why, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues found it possible upon matters of vital importance and of principle to come to an arrangement with the Noble Lords in another place, they should have been so obstinate in reference to a matter which I think I will satisfy the House has been dealt with by the House of Lords on precisely the same principles of ordinary justice and fair play on which the question of compulsion has always been dealt with in any Act of Parliament for any part of His Majesty's dominions up to the present day. The right hon. Gentleman has said they have given way in so far as they propose to leave as the subject-matter of review the decision of the Estates Commissioners as to the suitability or necessity of compulsion. He said that, so far as he was concerned, he would have been quite prepared to have left this matter in the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, and to have trusted entirely to them. I am not going to say anything at all against the Estates Commissioners beyond this, that they themselves have made no secret of the fact that they are exposed to pressure

    211
    from all sides. They are not a judicial body that you cannot approach except under pains and penalties for contempt of court. They are an administrative body, and anybody who knows anything about their working of the last few years knows that there has been overwhelming pressure from all sides, both of a legitimate and illegitimate kind. I would remind the House of what was said by the hon. Member for Kildare in the course of the discussion of the action of the Estates Commissioners in the distribution of untenanted land when he informed the House that the distribution had been most unsatisfactory, because the land was distributed in favour of persons who had the biggest crowd to shout for them and who could bring the greatest pressure to bear upon the Estates Commissioners. That is a state of facts which we all know there is at least a danger of existing, and I am myself inclined to think the Estates Commissioners would welcome the determination of the Government to accept the proposal of the House of Lords in that particular matter. So far as I can understand from the skeleton outline of the proposed Amendments given by the right hon. Gentleman—and it is very awkward to follow them unless they are given in detail—the Government do not intend to quarrel with the exceptions from compulsory powers so far as they are contained in the Amendments from another place. I assume that applies to any land which is at present the subject-matter of purchase annuity.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is a substantial concession, and one required in the interests of justice. It would have been an intolerable thing to have started a campaign of eviction against men who on the faith of an Act of Parliament are on the way to become proprietors of their own holdings. That is a substantial and at the same time, I think, a reasonable concession. There remains, practically, as the only question in dispute, the court that is to determine the price. I confess I was very much surprised that for the first time in my experience some observations of mine should have found favour in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I rather suspected what was in store for me. I would only say this with regard to the criticism he has made. I hardly think it is quite correct to describe as enthusiastic approval of the Government scheme a paragraph in which
    212
    I denounced it as vicious in principle and contrary to natural justice But that is what the right hon. Gentleman calls enthusiastic approbation of his original scheme. Let us understand exactly what was before the House at that time. There was no alternative scheme before it. At the time I spoke the only Amendment before the House was one to leave out these provisions about the fixing of prices. There was no scheme produced in conflict with it, and all I stated, while I condemned and still condemn the principle of the entrusting the determination of the price of the land to be purchased by his colleagues to the head of the tribunal purchasing it, was that I would, in the absence of any better proposal, support it. But then I went on to say that I believed it was vicious in principle, and contrary to natural justice, that the determination of the price involving such very large interests should be left in the hands of any one gentleman, even one of the ability and admitted impartiality of Mr. Justice Wylie, because it would put him in a false position and compel him often to come into conflict with those with whom he has to sit as colleagues in other departments of his work. The right hon. Gentleman stated certain reasons which, he said, influenced the Government in deciding that they would not accept the tribunal proposed in the Amendments inserted in another place. The first of those reasons surprised me very much. It was that in the Court of First Instance the tribunal would be limited to one. But what about the fixing of fair rents under the Act of 1882? What about the constitution of the Court of First Instance in those cases? Surely what was right for the tenant there could not be unjust or unfair for the landlords now? In 1882, in every case where fair rents were fixed, there was one lawyer and one assessor constituting the court. I thought that one and one made. two. I think so still. Originally, and with the approval of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway from Ireland, when the rent fixing tribunals in the Court of First Instance were set up in Ireland, they did not consist of one person, but of three. There were never less than two constituting the court. Thus we find hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway saying when it was a case of the tenants' interests, the determination should not be left to the decision of one person, but that the court should consist of at least two or three. That seems to me to be a very striking illustration of the want of any

    213
    foundation for the suggestion that either in principle or in practice the determination of the price should be left, in the first instance, to a single individual.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was a special advantage in this particular case in leaving this matter to be determined by the Judicial Commissioner, owing to his vast experience in questions involving the value of land. That may be sound in theory, but it is wrong in fact. The present Judicial Commissioner has only held his office 12 months, and he has neither more nor less experience in the practice of fixing the value of land than any of his colleagues in the King's Bench. We all know that they all, before they obtained the positions they now hold, practised for many years in the Land Court, and were engaged as counsel in questions affecting the value of land and in determining the principle on which that value ought to be fixed. Let me give another illustration, to be found under the Act of 1870. To whom did the appeals go in the cases of claims by tenants for compensation for unreasonable or capricious eviction? That went to a judge who had no assessor, and who had to determine all these questions for himself, and they were questions which involved just as intricate estimates of value and of the measure of the price of land as are now contemplated to be dealt with under the provisions of this Amendment. [Nationalist cheers.]
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: And what a complete and disastrous failure it was!
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I was expecting that cheer. The hon. Member evidently did not observe the point of the cheers with which his colleagues greeted my last statement, for he speaks of the practice there referred to as a complete and disastrous failure. I will, however, accept his description of it. I will agree with him that it was a failure, and I will point out that you are now going to repeat that failure. You are going to again do what the hon. and learned Gentleman deems to have been in the past a disastrous and complete failure, and you are going to apply the same procedure to the enormous interests which are to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. I want to know—in the case of a great measure of this kind—on what conceivable principle the Government has strained at this gnat? What has induced them to strain at this gnat? They have swallowed a good deal. Having regard to the principles which we understood on the first and second read-
    214
    ing of this Bill the Government were prepared to die for before they would accept anything in the shape of surrender, and having regard to the surrenders they have made I cannot for the life of me understand what influence has been at work to prevent them accepting what I consider to be the most reasonable proposals contained in this Amendment. After all, what does it come to? The right hon. Gentleman says that one of the main objections is that a court of three cannot proceed as expeditiously as a court of one. I can understand that as a reason why in the case of every Court of Appeal you should confine its constitution to one. The tribunal proposed to be set up here is, however, to be practically a Court of Appeal from the Estates Commissioners. It is not a Court of First Instance, because the Estates Commissioners, under this Bill, will be the Court of First Instance, and we are not limited in this case to having a court of one. Under the Government Bill the Court of First Instance in this case will consist of at least two of the Estates Commissioners, and therefore I suggest that that in no way influenced the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, because under his scheme they have left the first determination of the matter to a body consisting of at least two persons. You are dealing not with a Court of First Instance at all, but with a Court of Appeal as to the question of price. The Court of Appeal is to be the final court except as regards questions of law. Now, the real matter involved in the determination of price is not a question of law. It is one of amount, and the court with which we are here dealing, and which the right hon. Gentleman call's the Court of First Instance, is, in fact, to be the final court as regards the main questions, mainly that of price. I cannot for the life of me understand the suggestion. I know of no analogy for it; I know of no court in England or under any Act of Parliament where you give an appeal on a question of price and that is left to the determination of a single individual. The right hon. Gentleman has-not ventured to assert anything against the integrity, impartiality, or ability of the gentlemen whom it is proposed should decide these matters, and it would not lie very well in his mouth to do so, because one-third of them are the nominees and appointees of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The suggestion made here is this, and I wonder how far it will be acquiesced

    215
    in by hon. Members below the Gangway, that the Irish judges are so overwhelmed by their judicial duties that you cannot afford even for a few months to take some of them away for a special work of this kind. The picture that the right hon. Gentleman drew of the length of time that would be occupied in hearing these appeals is not vary reconciliable with the assertion we have had in these Debates that the Government intended to resort to compulsion in a very few and exceptional cases, and I should have thought that the few and far between instances in which the Estates Commissioners would be compelled to resort to compulsion—I should have thought that the Court of Appeal to be appointed would have easily disposed of them. That, however, does not appear to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think they will be at work from week to week, and that they will be deluged with appeals.
    That throws a very strong light on what is going to be the actuality in regard to these appeals. It establishes what we have maintained all along, that once you let in the principle as applicable to a particular case, the pressure which is brought to bear on the Assistant Commissioner will be so great that the exception will become the rule. I am glad that to that extent the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount and kind of work which will be thrown upon this tribunal under the proposals of this Bill have been proved to be erroneous. What is, after all now between the right hon. Gentleman and his Government and those in another place who inserted this Amendment? He has quoted, and they have teen quoted ad nauseam, the remarks which I made when this matter was up in the House of Commons. But I have never had, and never pretended to have, in this House any title of any sort or kind to speak on behalf of the land-owners of Ireland. I do not represent them. I do not suppose 5 per cent, of my Constituents belong to that class, and I have never claimed or asserted any right to speak on their behalf. They know their own interests best, and just as the tenantry in Ireland in 1881 refused through their representatives to allow their rents to be fixed by the county court judge, and succeeded in getting a new tribunal set up, as least I should have thought that the persons who are primarily affected in this business, namely, the owners of land, should have a voice in saying what is to
    216
    be the nature and constitution of the court to which their interests are to be referred. I always listen attentively to the hon. Member for Waterford and read what he says, because he is the last Member in this House I should like to misquote, and he is scrupulously fair himself in quoting from an opponent. I have not his actual speech, but I do recall a speech he made a month ago in Ireland, in which he said that he, for one, would nave no objection to giving the land-owners in this matter the strongest judicial tribunal they could get. That was the substance, of his words, but I do not pledge myself to the literal accuracy of the quotation.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I will not contradict the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no recollection of that at all. I do not recollect making the speech.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member may take it from me that he did undoubtedly on a public platform pledge himself to this, that he had no objection to the landlords getting the strongest possible judicial tribunal for the purpose of determining the price of their land. The persons who constitute the tribunal cannot be impeached, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it is impossible to impeach them, and we have now come to this position in regard to this appeal, that after all that has been done in connection with it, and the efforts which have been made to bring about a settlement of this matter and let these appeals be brought, we are now to be told that there is to be a fight to the finish on this question of the tribunal. All I can say is I hope that this Amendment will be adhered to. I believe if there is one thing beyond anything else, that the land-owners are entitled to have, it is a thing which they have always yielded to the tenants—a strong and impartial tribunal to determine as between them and their landlords; and in adopting a tribunal which consists of the Judicial Commissioner himself, who is to be associated with two of his colleagues of the King's Bench, I think the land-owners have only insisted upon what is reasonable and just, and I again say that I trust that they will adhere, to their Amendment which they have proposed.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent, I think, in his statements and his arguments. At the commencement of his speech he said he could not understand why the Government were standing firm on this question at all.

    217
    He said they were straining at a gnat, but almost in the same sentence he spoke of it as a matter of such importance that the fate of the Bill would be put in the utmost danger or jeopardy if the Amendment were carried.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I said so far as the Government was concerned it was a gnat, and so far as the owners, of property were concerned it was a vital matter.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I say as far as my view is concerned this is a matter of vital importance. We have been engaged all day yesterday in considering, and I am sorry to say in adopting, a series of Amendments by the Lords with regard to this Bill. Each one of those Amendments was injurious to the Bill, not only in the opinion of hon. Members sitting on these Benches but in the opinion of the Government and of the overwhelming majority of this House. Each one of those Amendments was bad, and the cumulative effect of them was most highly injurious to the value of this Bill, but I take such a serious view of this question that if none of those other Amendments had been carried, and if the Government accepted the new tribunal proposed by the House of Lords in this new Clause, I should say that it destroyed the value of their Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a speech which he said I delivered a month ago in Ireland, in which I said I was willing and anxious that the landlords should have the strongest possible tribunal to settle the value of their property. I have no recollection of making that speech, but I have no hesitation in repeating that today, and I regard the tribunal proposed by the Government as the strongest possible judicial tribunal which could be set up. Is it not ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman—especially after his speech was quoted by the Attorney-General for Ireland—is it not ridiculous for him to contend that the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie, a Judge of the Supreme Court, who commands the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman, does not constitute a strong judicial tribunal? What is the point? The right hon. Gentleman says, "You are going to compulsorily fix the value of a man's property, and therefore I am not satisfied that Mr. Justice Wylie, a Judge of the Supreme Court, is a fair or impartial or proper tribunal." But does the House realise that ever since the year 1881 the value of men's estates in Ireland have been from year to year compulsorily fixed, and compulsorily fixed by
    218
    what tribunal? Not by a Court of Appeal, not by Judges of the Supreme Court, sitting, as is suggested by the-House of Lords in this case, but by what may be called common or garden Sub-commissioners. There were three of them, but the last Government struck off one, so now there are only two. One is the Legal Commissioner and the other is only an assessor, and the decision in each of these cases is actually given by one man, and every decision as to the fair rents on an estate is a decision as to the value of the estate and a compulsory decision as to the value of the estate. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that extraordinary pressure will be brought to bear upon the tribunal by the Government.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: No, the hon. Member is referring to a different matter altogether. I was referring to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners in determining what estates they would deal with.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: There is no point in that contention, because the right hon. Gentleman has already conceded, and he admits as to that, that there is an appeal provided by the Government proposal on all these points to the Court of Appeal, so that the observation of the right hon. Gentleman is of no value if there is no suspicion that the tribunal set up by the Government is open to pressure. What is to be said as to the position of this one Sub-commissioner? Is he not open to pressure at this moment, and when this Sub-commissioner is sitting in the country towns, and is deciding the value of fair rents, what appeal is there from that? Is there an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of value? Is there an appeal to the two Judges of the Supreme Court? Nothing of the kind. There is an appeal to one man at the head of the Land Commission in Dublin, and his decision on the question of value is final. In these circumstances, and in view, of the existing law on the question of fixing fair rents it does seem to me ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the tribunal proposed in this Bill, namely, the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie, who has the rank of a Judge of the Supreme Court, and whose ability and impartiality everyone admits—it is ridiculous to say that that is not a fair tribunal. Take the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords. Two Judges of the King's Bench Division, with an appeal on this question

    219
    of value to the Court of Appeal. That does not exist with regard to any other case in Ireland.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: It is only an appeal on a question of law.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I understand, but what he has advocated is an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of Value.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: No, not on the question of value, but only on questions of law.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Then, so far, the right hon. Gentleman is not at variance with the Government, and he does not suggest that there should be an appeal on questions of price to these two Judges in the King's Bench Division, who had no sort of experience in fixing questions of value at all, whereas the Judicial Commissioner proposed by the Government is engaged from day to day in doing this very work. We believe that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords would make the working of this Bill absolutely impossible. Just consider the position in which we stand with regard to compulsion under this Bill. First of all the Bill provided a general power of compulsion. Then that general power was struck out at the instance of the House of Lords, and the compulsion was limited to compulsion for the treatment of congestion, and although we felt very bitterly the striking out of that general power we felt that the granting of compulsion all through Ireland in regard to this question of congestion would be a very valuable thing. Now the House of Lords comes along, and, having made that so-called concession on the question of compulsion in relation to-congestion, they propose a tribunal which everyone connected with Ireland knows perfectly well could not, and would not work, and they have taken away with the one hand what they professed to do with the other. Under no circumstances could we take any responsibility for a tribunal of this kind, and I am glad the Government has stood firm upon this matter. In my judgment it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to lose his Bill than to accept this tribunal. Of course, that is a matter for himself, I cannot compel him to drop his Bill. I am powerless in this matter. He can do as he likes. He can pass his Bill in spite of what we say if he likes, but we have the duty thrown upon us of saying that, in our opinion, it would
    220
    be better to lose the Bill than to accept this tribunal. The hon. Member (Mr. Moore) just now said we were dying to get this Bill passed. I admit I was dying to get the Bill passed in the form in which this House passed it, because it was in that form a great Bill, and would have gone very far indeed to settle the Irish Land Question. If it is carried in its present form, even though this Amendment of the House of Lords be defeated, it will not settle the Irish Question. In its present form I am not dying for the Bill to pass. The people who are dying for the Bill to pass are those landlords who want to get the benefit of the £22,000,000 additional money which the Bill is providing for their benefit, both in flotation losses and in addition to the bonus. If it rested with us we would vote against the passage of this Bill with this Amendment in it.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not know that anyone really was carried away by the eloquence of the hon. Member. Those who have studied the actions of hon. Members and have listened to their protests can hardly mistake them for reality. We know what these protests are worth. I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member say this was a great Bill when it passed the Commons.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I said that all through.
    Mr. MOORE: No, you did not. When the hon. and learned Member was outvoted on the first sham fight on the increased interest of the tenants' annuity he told the House of Commons that the Bill was hardly worth taking.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: No; on the third reading of the Bill I said it was in my judgment a great and far-reaching method of reform.
    Mr. MOORE: I was talking of the attitude which the hon and learned Member took up when the Government rejected his own Amendment, which every Irish Unionist voted for, in protesting against the increase of the tenants' annuity. He then used different language, and said the annuity had taken half the benefit out of the Bill. With regard to the present Amendment, it has come down to this, that these compulsory powers are to be exercised for the purpose of congestion, and when you are dealing with a tribunal which has to do with the exercise of compulsory powers it is more in

    221
    relation to congested areas than to any other. What is really, as the Bill stands, the real Court of First Instance in regard to compulsory purchase in congested areas? It is a Board of nine members, who are to initiate the whole proceeding, and even the Chief Secretary cannot tell us now a single name of these nine. It will be safe to assume that 75 per cent. of them will be members or ex-members of the staff of the "Freeman's Journal," and that the remainder will be' nominated by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and his Friends. We shall have Mr. John Fitzgibbon, probably Mr. Denis Johnstone, and a few gentlemen who have shown what real patriots they are by undergoing the penalty of imprisonment. If a Board constituted in this way is to be the Court of First Instance to decide what powers are to be put in force for compulsion, is it any wonder that the men whose lands are to be taken compulsorily on the initiative of that Board should ask that at least the Court of Appeal, which by judicial process is to decide these matters, should be one in which the owners of the land to be taken have confidence? This is their proposal.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to the Court of Appeal in Ireland?
    Mr. MOORE: The point, is that we are to be driven from appeal to appeal. Ultimately you are to go to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, instead of having a strong enough appellate tribunal, and there is no appeal on price.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member said the Congested Districts Board would be the initiative in this matter. They would not be the initiative in the question of price; they would be the initiative in the question of what estate was to be purchased, and on the question whether that estate ought or ought not to be purchased there is an appeal under this proposal to the full Court of Appeal.
    Mr. MOORE: But the Congested Districts Board have the final offer. Is not that an initiative as to price?
    Mr. BIRRELL: But Mr. Justice Wylie determines that question.
    Mr. MOORE: The position the Chief Secretary takes up is that if you have an ultimate Court of Appeal in Ireland, inasmuch as we all have confidence in the Court of Appeal, it does not matter what
    222
    happens in the intermediate stage, what tribunal you put up, or what costs you incur so long as you have a final Court of Appeal in the Court of Appeal. Why should you be driven to the Court of Appeal in every case? I thought the Government wanted to avoid litigation and cost. But there is another objection. I say nothing against Mr. Justice Wylie. I agree with every word that has been said about him. He has the confidence of the entire profession. What is Mr. Justice Wylie's real function in Ireland? I do not believe he has heard fair rent appeals on more than half a dozen occasions, because his most important function is that he represents the State judicially in sanctioning the paying out of every farthing of public money which goes to land purchase. You have at present £62,000,000 of public money which is to be paid out under agreements which have been lodged and which can only be paid out after judicial investigation for which Mr. Justice Wylie himself is judicially responsible. Not a penny of that will be paid out without his signature. He is the only judge who is qualified to do this. If you take him from his work of passing final schedules, superintending the work of the examiners who have gone into the title and paying out this money, it is another block on land purchase, because there is no one who can take his place.
    Mr. CHERRY: I think both Mr. Justice Dodd and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald could take his place.
    Mr. MOORE: I should be glad to learn under what Statute Mr. Justice Dodd could take his place. He was appointed an ordinary Judge of the King's Bench Division on the understanding that when required he was to do Land Commission work.
    Mr. CHERRY: That was under the Act of 1903.
    Mr. MOORE: Is it desirable to take Mr. Justice Wylie away from this work? If it is not desirable, I do not think there is much in the interruption. If you remove Mr. Justice Wylie you are putting another block in the way of land purchase. I do not suppose that argument appeals to the Government because, as far as I can make out, their intention is to put every obstacle in the way of land purchase, because they say, with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), the Act has been working too smoothly. I think the Lords will be very ill-advised if they allow for a moment any alteration to be made in their proposal which would

    223
    lesson the value to them of the Court of Appeal which they have proposed to set up, a court against which no impartiality and no ulterior motive can be suggested but which gives confidence to those whose land is going to be taken and which in justice they ought to have, even at the risk of more protests from hon. Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. CHERRY: I made a mistake just now. Mr. Justice Dodd could not be compelled to do this work; he is only appointed for the purpose of fixing fair rents.
    Mr. MOORE: That is what I said. I do not think it very material. I trust those that moved this Amendment and carried it in the other House will adhere to it, because there is no earthly use in all these safeguards which are put into the Bill unless you have a tribunal which you can trust absolutely to carry them out, and, without saying anything against Mr. Justice Wylie, I think it would be a misfortune that he should be taken away from his legitimate work of distributing public money, provided the Government intend to apply any more money for land purchase.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) said he had no power to compel the Chief Secretary to drop this Bill. We all remember, only a couple of years ago, in the exercise of the power which we in Ireland know he possesses, that he made the Chief Secretary drop the Irish Councils Bill. In that case he only had to hold up his little finger and the Bill was dropped. I have not the slightest doubt that if it was his real wish that this Bill should be dropped he could exercise his powers in precisely the same way as he did then, but I think he has not the slightest intention of doing anything further than making the strong protest that he has made towards wrecking this Bill, and on that assumption I should certainly hope that Noble Lords in another place will stand to their guns firmly and will insist on having the tribunal which they have put in their Amendment as the tribunal which is to consider these questions, principally of the price of land to be acquired compulsorily. I am very glad indeed that the crucial question on which this Bill is either to stand or to fall, if we are to believe the Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), is being put clearly before the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman said we were occupied all
    224
    yesterday in adopting the modifications in the Bill which had been proposed by the House of Lords, and which went very far towards spoiling the usefulness of the measure. I would point out to hon. Members below the Gangway that if they have had to adopt modifications in the Bill, they must, always remember that in bargaining, whether in regard to an Act of Parliament, a pound of tea, or a horse, they always ask twice as much as they ever hope to get. Therefore. I can quite understand that they were not at all surprised when they found themselves in the position of having to accept considerable modifications when the Bill came back from the House of Lords. But they forget that, even if they made concessions yesterday, the House of Lords has made very great concessions in what they have allowed to remain in the Bill. The question of compulsory purchase, which is the most important part of the Bill, is absolutely antagonistic not only to the interests of the land-owners in Ireland but antagonistic to the interests of land-owners all over the kingdom. It is not a small concession which has been made in another place to admit the principle of compulsion to such an extent as has been done. It is not fair to assume that all the concessions have been on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, for in reality they are getting everything, and the owners of land in Ireland stand to lose everything, unless, I admit, provision is made for their getting a fair price for what is taken from them. If that is done, they will not have very much to fear. If hon. Members on this side of the House were assured that under this Bill the landlords should get a fair price for their land, we should not raise any further objection. It is with that laudable desire we hope that the Amendment proposed by the House of Lords will be adhered to. With the exception of cases where land is compulsorily acquired for public works, railways, and so on, it has not hitherto been possible to compel landlords to sell their land, what is now proposed is a perfectly new principle in English law, and it is one which has been resisted on both sides of the House for many years. Now for the first time that principle is embodied in an Act of Parliament. In connection with everything relating to the purchase of land in Ireland there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction and disagreement as to whether the decisions of the existing tribunals were right or not. I was, therefore, surprised to hear the hon. and

    225
    learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) quoting this afternoon the case of the Sub-commissioners as the analogy on which we should act in appointing the tribunal to be set up under this Bill. My recollection of the action of the Nationalist party with relation to the fixing of fair rents is that they have invariably complained since 1881 that rents were unfairly fixed and that they were too high. [An Hon. Member: "Very properly."] An hon. Member says, "Very properly," but it is the tribunal which has fixed rents for the last 30 years. That is suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as the analogy which he wishes to see followed in setting up this tribunal. The land-owners in Ireland are the persons who are to be compulsorily expropriated. After listening to the Debate this afternoon I venture to say that the argument used by the Attorney-General that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords would not be able to cope with the work is of no value. The Chief Secretary himself, in putting his proposal before us, insisted time and again that it would be only in very few exceptional cases that this tribunal would be called upon to act, and that the cases would be rare where the landlords and the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners would not be able to agree between themselves on the price. If that is so, then I say the objection raised by the Attorney-General to the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords, namely, that it would be impossible to get the work done in that way, falls to the ground at once. Then the objection was taken that the Judges at the High Court know nothing of the value of land. It has been pointed that the present Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Wylie, until a year ago had no more acquaintance with the question of land than the Judges of the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was a Sub-commissioner."] That is a long time ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has more experience."] Unfortunately, Mr. Wylie may be called away at any time. We are asking on behalf of the persons in Ireland who are going to be expropriated, that there should be set up the strongest and fairest tribunal you can get, and I ask whether there is anything unreasonable in asking that it should consist of the Judicial Commissioner and two Judges of the High Court? That is perfectly fair and impartial, and if the Government refuse, and if hon. Members below the Gangway refuse to acquiesce in that proposal, it
    226
    must be because they have some ulterior motive. They think that the tribunal would fix the prices to be paid to the landlords at too high a figure. There can be no other assumption. Nobody would seriously contend that those gentlemen, after hearing expert witnesses, would have any difficulty in determining what the proper price was. Another objection to the Lords Amendment was that it would mean the taking away of two judges from the ordinary rota of the judges, and thereby dislocating the ordinary legal work in Ireland, but that is an objection which also falls to the ground like the others. Because the landlords ask a little bit more than hon. Members below the Gangway consider they are justly entitled to ask, they think that no good is to be obtained from the Bill and that it might as well be thrown away. If they take up that attitude, let them do so. I have always held that the Bill contains a great deal morn harm than good, but even with the depleted terms it contains I suppose there are some persons who are prepared to take the Bill. I believe the landlords who want the Bill are very few and far between, but if they want to get rid of their land at a price, I would be very sorry to stop them. With that exception and the provision which the Bill contains in the interests of the ratepayers, I do not think the measure contains anything which should make either landlords or tenants have the slightest hesitation in throwing it back on the Government at any time.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I regret that the Chief Secretary has not said a word to us in this Debate, because, notwithstanding the impatience of some hon. Members below the Gangway, I would remind the Government that this is the most important question in the Bill. There has been some controversy as to what the exact proposals of the Government are and as to what would be the effect of the proposed tribunal upon the people whose land is to be taken. Whatever may be the case in regard to these controversies, there can be no dispute that you are asking Parliament to empower a body in Ireland which is not responsible to this House, and which is not represented by a Minister sitting in this House in the same sense that other spending departments are represented, to compulsorily acquire land for the relief of congestion, and you are taking credit to the Government for attempting to relieve congestion by this new measure. So far, so good, but you have no right to take that credit while refusing to those whose land

    227
    is to be taken the form of tribunal which is provided in every other case where land is compulsorily acquired, except in connection with allotments and small holdings. I had hoped that the Chief Secretary might have indicated to the House that there was room yet for some arrangement or compromise. We have heard the declaration of the Attorney-General that the Government cannot accept the proposal made in another place. It was said by the Attorney-General that we ought to be content with the fact that the Judicial Commissioner is to fix the price. There is no suggestion against the good faith and high minded action of the Judicial Commissioner. He is not impugned. At the same time it is perfectly true that the Judicial Commissioner is a member of the Estates Commission.
    Mr. CHERRY: The Land Commission.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: He is a member of the Land Commission, and therefore he is to a large extent a party to these proceedings. I quite understand the interruption of the learned Attorney-General (Mr. Cherry), but even he will admit that in this controversy the distinction between the people who are concerned in the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland is a very narrow one, and everyone concerned in the administration of the various Land Acts, of which this is going to form one, have a common object in view, and are working practically on the same lines. To set up the Judicial Commissioner as an absolutely independent tribunal, to whom all the landlords can look whose land is to be taken away compulsorily for the relief of congestion in which they may have no concern themselves, is to make a proposal which is asking a great deal of those whose land is being taken away, and I regret extremely that there has been no suggestion so far of any possible compromise. Various suggestions have been made outside this House for a special tribunal, or a court such as was set up in the Land Act of 1871. There is, I believe, precedent m some of these earlier Acts of a special tribunal. I could name more than one public official in Ireland whose names will be received with universal approbation both by those above the Gangway and those below the Gangway. One of those who have been suggested is the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, a man of exceptional experience in connection with congestion, and in connection with the general government of Ire-
    228
    land, against whom there never has been the smallest suggestion by anybody, either Nationalist or unionist, and a man whose services to Ireland have been of the highest possible character. I say, as an instance, that Sir Henry Robinson is one of those officials who might be selected if it were decided to have a special tribunal.
    Do not let there be any mistake about the position. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) made it perfectly clear that he and his friends do not want this Bill if there is to be the smallest change in the tribunal. I have no authority to speak for those in another House, who have put this Amendment in, but with all responsibility for my words, I say that unless an attempt is made to compromise over this question, the fate of this Bill will be gravely imperilled. When hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say, as they said to-day, that this Bill will be taken by Irish landlords because they want money, I think they are doing a poor service to the cause they represent; because surely we know that the smooth working of the Land Acts in Ireland is at least as important to the tenant farmers in Ireland as to the landlords. The supply of money for the purpose of land purchase is as important to the general good government of Ireland and to the farmers as it is to the landlords themselves. Therefore to suggest that the landlords welcome this Bill simply because it provides money for themselves is to do a poor service to the cause which the Nationalist Members themselves represent. I do not believe, if the landlords of Ireland are not satisfied with the tribunal in all respects, that they will consider the proposals in this Bill so favourable as to justify them in accepting it. What their view may be I do not know, but I do know this, that every argument that has been addressed by my hon. Friends behind is one which rests on strong conviction, and is not addressed to the House simply because they desire to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, we should like to see this Bill passed, and should like to see an effort made by Parliament to strengthen the efforts made by the Irish Government to deal with congestion. But I cannot contemplate without dismay and without a grievous feeling of alarm any serious stoppage in the transfer of land from owner to occupier in Ireland. For these reasons I would be thankful to see the Bill passed; but I say to the Government in all seriousness, whatever may be their opinion in I regard to Mr. Justice Wylie, the present

    229
    Judicial Commissioner—and I share in that opinion—as to his competence to deal with these difficult and delicate questions, they are asked now to make a change which is not of a very grave kind, and will not, I believe, produce the result anticipated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe, on the other hand, that if this tribunal which has been suggested is not one which meets with their approval, it will be possible to find one upon which all are agreed, and I regret extremely that there has been no suggestion of possible compromise. All that we have heard from the Government and from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is this: "There are our terms; take them or leave them. If you do not take them this Bill will drop. "If that is so, I say that the responsibility for that result will rest with the Government.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) I think demand some sort of reply. I am not here to speculate as to what the fate of the Bill may be. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say, I believe with perfect sincerity, that anxious as they are to have a Bill, they are not anxious to have any Bill, and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway taunt them with the feeling that. "You would take any Bill." What Bill would the hon. and learned Gentleman take?
    Mr. MOORE: None at all.
    Mr. BIRRELL: However, I am not to speculate on that. I have my own responsibility as Minister in charge of this Bill. I listened to these accusations, which are rather of a bluffing character, from hon. Members with indifference. I am most anxious to save this Bill, because I am anxious to relieve the ratepayers of Ireland from an immediate obligation, and I am also anxious to preserve the framework, if only the framework, of land purchase in Ireland, which is imperilled, and has been almost destroyed owing to the complete financial breakdown of the whole machinery of the Act of 1902. I am anxious to go on doing what this Government has done with greater generosity than any previous Government, namely, supply five or six or eight or ten millions a year for the purpose of discharging these obligations. No other Government has ever done as much, and we have continued to do it at a rate which was never contemplated by the promoters of the Act of 1903, who took their stand
    230
    upon a certain speculation as to the price of Land Stock. They hoped that Land Stock, which they issued first at 88, would go up, and that if it had gone up they would increase the five millions a year. But instead of that it has gone down. I am most anxious for these reasons to preserve and maintain this Bill. But I stand here at this moment among the fragments of my own measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as if this was the one point as if nothing else in the nature of change had been suggested. They say, "How obstinate he is," and "it all comes down to the question of price, giving two Judges of the High Court and the Judicial Commissioner the right to determine the price and having to appeal to them for every acre of land required by the Congested Districts Board and by the Estates Commissioners for the relief of congestion, and the relief of congestion alone. Surely you will not wreck the Bill on that." But in answer to this I may point out that in this Bill I have given way already. I have been doing nothing yesterday, all day and all night, but giving way, and now that this particular point is reached they say that there is nothing at issue except the price. The price is made the principal point. But if that be so, then why, may I ask, did they insist in the House of Lords on an appeal on the ground of necessity?
    That was not in our Bill, but we conceded that point to them, that the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board should not be trusted to do the work of their own Departments; that they should not be justified in saying, "We want this particular estate," but that the owner could say for any particular reason, "You could get land elsewhere, and you cannot have this unless you can show the necessity for it. "We have conceded the appeal as to necessity, and now we are content to leave to Mr. Justice Wylie that matter of necessity and all the other points of law which are closely involved in the question of necessity. With regard to the restrictions which we have accepted which are prohibitions as to kind of lands to be acquired, there is an appeal from Mr. Justice Wylie to three learned judges, constituting the Court of Appeal in Ireland. I cannot understand for the life of me how any human being can say that we have not given the fullest possible protection to the landlords. Except, they say, on the question of price there is no Court of Appeal. I do not see how any court,

    231
    the House of Lords, or anybody else, on the question of price can act as a Court of Appeal. All they can do is to delegate their powers. Eventually you come down to the opinion of one man when it is a question of price, just as you do under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. Each side appoints an arbitrator. If they differ—as frequently they do—an umpire is appointed, and on that umpire alone millions of money have been fixed as the price of land, and you ultimately get to one man. You do not get these three learned lawyers sitting in Dublin. How can they determine precisely the value of land away down in a distant county which they do not visit and do not inspect, and which they have always declined to visit or to inspect? Judges time out of mind have said it is no business of theirs to do anything of the
    sort. "If you like, we will appoint our inspector to go and inspect the property." So on the question of price you have to rely on one particular man. We are all agreed that Mr. Justice Wylie, who is an important and responsible person, is fitted, and therefore I only rose for the purpose of repudiating the suggestion that I am the obstinate person or that I am inspired with any other wish save to do what is needful in the matter. I have proved my earnest, passionate, desire to save this Bill, but I have conceded point after point against my own intelligent conviction, and it is therefore not right to say that I am the obstinate person who will make no concessions.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 45.

    Division No. 910.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 p.m.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hodge, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Delany, William

    Hogan, Michael

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ambrose, Robert

    Dillon, John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Duffy, William J.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Barker, Sir John

    Erskine, David C.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jenkins, J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Essex, R. W.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, Sir D, Brynmor (Swansea)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Jones, Leil (Appleby)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Falconer, J.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Bertram, Julius

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

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

    Ferens, T. R.

    Keating, M.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kelley, George D.

    Boland, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Laidlaw, Sir Robert

    Bright, J. A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lambert, George

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

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Lamont, Norman

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, L.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glover, Thomas

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Cameron, Robert

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Gulland, John W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Lundon, T.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hancock, J. G.

    Lynch, A. (Clare. W.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Clough, William

    Harrington, Timothy

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    M'Kean, John

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Crean, Eugene

    Henry, Charles S.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Cross, Alexander

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

    Marnham, F. J.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Pointer, J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Massie, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H.

    Stanley, Hut. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Stewart, Halley (Greerock)

    Meagher, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Middlebrook, William

    Radford, G. H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Morse, L. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Murnaghan, George

    Rees, J. D.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Toulmin, George

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Verney, F. W.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walsh. Stephen

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche John (Galway, East)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Grady, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Pose, Sir Charles Day

    Williamson, Sir A.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands J.

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

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Winfrey, R.

    Paul, Herbert

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sheehy, David

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    NOES.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Clark, George Smith

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Younger, George

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Moore, William

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Lord Balcarres.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: Leave out from end of Sub-section (2) to end of Clause.
    Mr. CHERRY: I move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This portion is proposed to be left out in order to substitute other Clauses for it.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 64, insert Clauses E, F, and G.

    CLAUSE E.—(Powers of Court to Restrain the Compulsory Acquisition of Land).
    (1) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same under this Part of this Act on the ground—

    (a) that other land sufficient and equally I suitable for the purposes for which
    234
    the estate or untenanted land is proposed to be acquired is available for purchase by the Commissioners or Board, as the case may be, by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price; or

    (b) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a park, garden, pleasure ground, recreation ground, demesne, or home farm, or was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, for a sum not exceeding two thousand pounds; or

    (c) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, or is the property of a local authority, or is held by any corporation or company for the purposes of a

    235
    railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; or

    (d) that if the estate or untenanted land is acquired as proposed other land of the owner adjoining the estate or untenanted land will be injuriously affected or the amenity of the owner's residence will be impaired:

    he may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the court for an order restraining the Estates Commissioners from acquiring the estate or untenanted land, or any specified part or parts of the same under this Part of this Act.
    (2) The court, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, shall be a court constituted of the Judicial Commissioners and two Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court to be selected from a rota formed for the purpose.
    (3) The court shall hear and determine all applications coming before it under this Section, and may, if the justice of the case so requires, amend the final offer by excluding therefrom any part or parts of the lands therein described, or (with the consent of the owner and the body by whom the final offer was sent) by including therein any other lands of the owner.
    (4) Where a final offer is amended by the court under this Section, the body by whom the offer was sent may make such consequential Amendments in the offer as appear to them to be necessary, and the offer as amended in pursuance of this Section shall be deemed to be the final offer for the purpose of any subsequent proceedings under this Part of this Act.
    (5) The court with respect to any applications coming before it under this Part of this Act and to all questions arising thereon shall have and may exercise all the powers, rights, and privileges of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the decision of the court on any question other than one of law shall be final.
    (6) There shall be an appeal to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Court under this Section on any question of law, and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
    (7) An order of the court or the Court of Appeal restraining the Estate Commissioners from acquiring land under this Part of this Act shall remain in force for five years after it is made.
    (8) Rules of the Supreme Court shall provide for the forming of a rota for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and for the procedure to be adopted on the hear-
    236
    ing by the court, and the Court of Appeal of applications and appeals under this Section.
    (9) The expression "owner" in this Section means any person having power under the Land Purchase Acts to sell the estate or untenanted land.
    Mr. CHERRY: I move to amend the new Clause by omitting from paragraph (d) the words, "or the amenity of the owner's residence will be impaired." These last words are very vague, and so far as there is any substance in them they are not necessary.
    Mr. MOORE: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not insist on this Amendment. These words are in the Labourers Act, and, I believe, in the Evicted Tenants Act, so that land may not be acquired for the purposes of those enactments in positions which would affect the amenities of owners' private residences—for instance, a piece of land opposite a man's lodge gate. I do not suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman would wish anything like that to be done, yet the present action of the Government almost offers an inducement to follow a course contrary to the spirit of the Acts which I have named.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Drafting and consequential Amendments made.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "The Court shall hear and determine all applications coming before it under this Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "The Judicial Commissioner shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have, and may exercise, the powers conferred on the Land Commissioners by Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) of Section 48 of the Act of 1881."
    Mr. MOORE: This is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and we have not had time to consider it. I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but it will be understood that we are in no sense agreeing, though these Amendments are consequential.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words "on any question of law."
    The effect of this Amendment will be to allow of a very much wider appeal to the Judicial Commissioner than the House of Lords gave, and it will be not merely on questions of law, but on questions of fact, and of mixed questions of law and fact. [An Hon. Member: "And not of value?"] No; not of value.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In same Subsection to leave out the words "on such question."

    CLAUSE F.—(Applications as to Price.)
    (1) Subject to any application to the court under the last preceding Section, and to the final determination of all questions arising thereon, any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may apply, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, by way of objection to the court to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land, and, subject to the previsions of this Section, the price shall be fixed by the court accordingly.
    (2) The court, upon any application tinder this Section, if satisfied that the price can more conveniently and properly be fixed by arbitration, may—

    (a) On the request of any of the parties interested other than the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, if the question of price is the solo question or sole remaining question in dispute; or

    (b) In any case where the parties so consent:

    refer the application to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court, and in the case of any such reference the provisions of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1856, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in like manner as in the case of a reference to arbitration under that Act.
    (3) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land, regard shall
    238
    be had to the fair value of the same to the owner, but no additional allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory.
    (4) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application under this Section shall be at the discretion of the Court, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
    Drafting Amendment made.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."
    Mr. MOORE: Would that govern costs in the Court of Appeal? This would seem to restrict it to costs before the Judicial Commissioner.
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that is so.
    Mr. MOORE: I understand that the Government undertaking is costs in each court. Probably the matter will be arranged.
    Mr. CHERRY: Yes, if it can be done. That is the intention.
    Mr. MOORE: Perhaps that Amendment can be inserted at a later stage?
    Mr. CHERRY: If necessary, but I do not think it is necessary.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Further drafting Amendments made.
    Clause G (Completion of Purchase) agreed to, with drafting Amendment made.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out Clause 65 (Restriction on Compulsory Purchase of Land). Leave out Clause 66 (Orders for Framing Lists of Assessors).

    CLAUSE 68.—(Definitions.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In second paragraph—"The expression 'the Land Purchase Acts' includes the Land Purchase Acts as defined by the Act of 1903, the Irish Land Act, 1907, and Parts I., II., and IV. of this Act"; after the word "by" ["by the Act"] insert the words "the Act of 1896 and."

    CLAUSE 69.—(Untenanted Land.)
    Land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act, be deemed to be untenanted land.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out the words "the Act of 1903"; leave out the words "and this Act."

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Sub-section (3).—In the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land, the number of years' purchase represented by the advance shall be calculated in manner prescribed by the Treasury.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: After the word "land" insert the words "and in any case where the amount advanced is less than the purchase money"; after the word "Treasury" insert the words "regard being had in the case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner."

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Acts Repealed.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end insert the words "save as regards sales of parcels of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board before the passing of this Act."
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of,—Mr. Birrell, the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Long, Mr. Moore, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments afterwards reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.— [Mr. Birrell.]

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Lord BALCARRES: I beg to move: "That the Debate be now adjourned."
240
We expect a very important Ministerial statement, and therefore I move.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY moved: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. F. MADDISON: The Irish Land Bill was concluded very early, so that it would be a mistake to adjourn this Debate. I think it is in the interests of the Committee that the business down on the Paper should be discussed. What has happened is one of those incidents that may occur at any time. This is not a party matter, and I take it hon. Members opposite are just as much concerned as we are in getting useful legislation. Therefore, to move to report Progress at a time like this when Ministers have not had the opportunity of getting into the House strikes me as not being at all conducive to the best interests of business, and on that account I shall vote against the Motion.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think this is the most scandalous contempt of the House of Commons that has ever been displayed, and this is the House which says it ought to be the sole arbiter. Let the hon. Member go across to the other building and see the way the other House is crammed. He will not find no Ministers there. He will not find a deserted Ministerial side of the House, but he will find people really intent on doing their work. I venture to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where the President of the Board of Trade is?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I express an apology to the House that the Ministers in charge of the Bill were not present at the exact moment they were called upon. Usually, by the courtesy of the House, a Bill is allowed to proceed until the Minister is brought from his room. I can assure the House that in a moment the President of the Board of Trade will be here to take charge of the Bill.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This is a Bill of profound interest to the working classes of this country. It is a Bill which all sections of the House desire to see passed in the interests of the friendly societies. It is a Bill in respect of which Members of all parties have been urged by their constituents to support. It is a Bill which has been the subject of very prolonged negotiations with the Board of Trade, but so little do the Government think of opinion in the country that they cannot even be in the House of Commons, knowing full well that this Bill might come on at any moment during the last two hours, and that despite the fact that Members supporting the Bill have been here de die in diem to attend to the Bill. It is nothing more nor less than an outrage upon the House of Commons and an insult to the working classes. I only hope that due note will be taken of the scandalous proceedings of the Government this afternoon. I can promise them that when I have a chance I shall draw the attention of my Constituents to the matter.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I think the hon. Gentle-
man has pitched his observations a little high. With reference to the Development Bill, we understood that there would be another Division on the Irish Land Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were talking together, and if I had been sent for I could have been here in half a minute. I was in charge of the Bill on Report, and could have gone on with it now. As to the Assurance Companies Bill, there is no reason why we should not proceed with it. The President of the Board of Trade is the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill——
Mr. HAY: Where is he?
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not keep all the Cabinet Ministers in my pocket. It will be remembered that I was present on the Bench with my right hon. Friend when we last discussed the Bill.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 196.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 1.—(Companies to which Act applies.)
  This Act shall apply to all persons or bodies of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, not being registered under the Acts relating to friendly societies or to trade unions (hereinafter referred to as assurance companies), whether established before or after the commencement of this Act and whether established within or without the United Kingdom, who carry on within the United Kingdom assurance business of all or any of the following classes:—

  (a) Life assurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of assurance upon human life, or the granting of annuities upon human life;

  (b) Fire insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of insurance against loss by or incidental to fire;

  (c) Accident insurance business; that is to say, the issue of or the undertaking of liability under, policies of insurance upon the happening of personal accidents, whether fatal or not, disease, or sickness, or any class of personal accidents, disease, or sickness;

  244

  (d) Employers' liability insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen in their employment;

  (c) Bond investment business; that is to say, the business of issuing bonds or endowment certificates by which the company, in return for subscriptions payable at periodical intervals of two months or less, contract to pay the bond holder a sum at a future date, and not being life assurance business as hereinbefore defined;

  subject as respects any class of assurance business to the special provisions of this Act relating to business of that class:
  A company registered under the Companies Acts which transact assurance business of any such class as aforesaid in any part of the world shall for the purpses of this provision be deemed to be a company transacting such business within the United Kingdom.
  The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Churchill)moved in Subsection (1), after the words, "trade

  245
  unions" to insert the words "which persons and bodies of persons are."
  In moving this Amendment, which is purely verbal, may I express my regret that I was not in my place when the Bill was called on?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

GENERAL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Deposit.)
  (1) Every assurance company shall deposit and keep deposited with the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court the sum of twenty thousand pounds.
  (2) The sum so deposited shall be invested by the Paymaster-General in such of the securities usually accepted by the Court for the investment of funds placed under its administration, as the company may select, and the interest accruing due on any such securities shall be paid to the company.
  (3) The deposit may be made by the subscribers of the memorandum of association of the company, or any of them, in the name of the proposed company, and, upon the incorporation of the company, shall be deemed to have been made by and to be part of the assets of the company, and the registrar shall not issue a certificate of incorporation of the company until the deposit has been made.
  (4) Where a company carries or intends to carry on assurance business of more than one class a separate sum of twenty thousand pounds shall be deposited and kept deposited under this Section as respects each class of business, and the deposit made in respect of any class of business in respect of which a separate assurance fund is required to be kept shall be deemed to form part of that fund, and all interest accruing due on any such deposit or the securities in which it is for the time being invested shall be carried by the company to that fund.
  (5) The Paymaster-General shall not accept a deposit except on a warrant of the Board of Trade.
  (6) The Board of Trade may make rules with respect to applications for warrants, the payment of deposits, and the investment thereof or dealing therewith, the deposit of stocks or other securities in lieu of money, the payment of the interest or dividends from time to time accruing due
  246
  on any securities in which deposits are for the time being invested, and the withdrawal and transfer of deposits, and the rules so made shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.
  Mr. J. J. CLANCY (for Mr. Mooney)moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "company" ["every assurance company"] to insert the words "save one registered or having its head office in Ireland."
  This is the first of a series of Amendmends, the object of which is to retain in Ireland the money deposited by Irish companies.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very anxious to meet hon. Members as far as I can, and I think I can meet the hon. Gentleman here, not by accepting his Amendment, but by another Amendment effecting practically all his purposes. If he withdraws this Amendment I will move as a new Sub-section:—
  "(7) This Section shall apply to any assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland, subject to the following modifications: References to the 'Supreme Court' shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; and references to the 'Paymaster-General' shall be construed as references to the Accountant-General in the last-mentioned Court."
  That will have the effect of carrying out the purposes of all his Amendments, excepting only the last one—to insert "for England and Scotland and the rule making authority under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Acts for Ireland." That Amendment is not embodied in the Amendment I propose to substitute for these various Amendments. The effect of it would be to take the power out of the hands of the Board of Trade so far as Ireland is concerned, and to vest the ruling in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. In the others I think I meet the case, and I will propose them if those of the hon. Member are withdrawn.
  Mr. CLANCY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's satisfactory explanation, I will follow the course he suggests. The last Amendment I do not consider very important.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, at the end of the Clause, to insert:—
  "(7) This Subjection shall apply to an assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) References to the Supreme Court shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; and

  (b) References to the Paymaster-General shall be construed as references to the Accountant-General in the last-mentioned Court."

  CLAUSE 3.—(Separation of Funds.)
  (1) In the case of an assurance company transacting other business besides that of assurance or transacting more than one class of assurance business, a separate account shall be kept of all receipts in respect of the assurance business or of each class of assurance business, and the receipts in respect of the assurance business or, or, in the case of a company carrying on more than one class of assurance business, of each class of business, shall be carried to and form a separate assurance fund with an appropriate name."
  (2) A fund of any particular class shall be as absolutely the security of the policy holders of that class as though it belonged to a company carrying on no other business than assurance business of that class, and shall not be liable for any contracts of the company for which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of assurance of that class, and shall not be applied, directly or indirectly, for any purposes other than those of the class of business to which the fund is applicable.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGHmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that nothing in this Section shall require the investments of any such fund to be kept separate from the investments of any other fund."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HAY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give us a little more explanation of this Amendment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is the question of a certain fund being hypothecated for the security of life policies. Apart from that, there is the question of making returns so as to show the investment specially earmarked for a particular fund. But it is not the intention, and never has been, that investments should be specially earmarked.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman is capable of expressing his ideas in clear and unmistakeable language when he likes, and I think we ought to have some more information as to what is really intended with regard to these monies; whether or not they are going to be put as specific securities for the specific purposes indicated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the Life Insurance Companies Act it is enacted that life insurance funds shall be kept separate in the books of the company, but the Act does not, and never has required that the investment of that fund should be specifically ear-marked. Though not ear-marked the funds have been kept separate. It was thought by some of the Scottish companies that this Bill would alter that. My right hon. Friend was anxious to remove that doubt, and the Amendment which he has moved is to have that effect.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot say that I understand it. The Clause runs like this: "In the case of an assurance company transacting other business besides that of assurance or transacting more than one class of assurance business a separate account shall be kept of all receipts," etc. "And the receipts.….shall be carried to and form a separate assurance fund with an appropriate name." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) proposes to add to the end: "provided that nothing in this Section shall require the investment of any such fund to be kept separate from the investment of any other fund."
  I venture to say that these words, if accepted, will alter the whole of the preceding words of the Section. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment proposes that the investments shall be mixed up with any other investments. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the object of having receipts kept separate, and having to

  249
  have a separate fund under these circumstances? It is evident, as far as I can see—and I studied this Clause very carefully before I rose to speak—that if the Amendment is accepted, the first part of the Clause goes for nothing at all. Before we divide upon this matter, we ought to have some better explanation.
  Mr. T. LOUGH: There has been a misunderstanding, I think, because the words have not been carefully studied. There need be no mixing up, because both investments can be made clear. If an investment is good for one object, it is also good for two objects. If there was an excellent mortgage, and it was a perfect security for one part of the funds of the company, there is no reason why it should not be for another portion of the funds. All the requirements of the Act would be fulfilled and the Amendment merely allows one investment for the several needs.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that if there are two funds and one mortgage there is no reason why that one mortgage should not be divided between the two funds. That, I gather, is his explanation. But why should you not get another mortgage for the second fund? If you once begin to do this sort of thing how will you know to which fund the half belongs? Unless it is earmarked it may arise that one fund may claim that the whole of £10,000 belongs to that one special fund, and not to another. I must say that the explanation of the Amendment has made the matter worse. There is no difficulty in two funds of £10,000 each in getting two mortgages.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I expected that in answer to the appeal I made to the President of the Board of Trade that he certainly would have given us a little more enlightenment upon this point. This is a very important Clause of the Bill. In fact, as we read on in Sub-section (2) of the Clause, the intention clearly is that there shall be specific investments of specific funds separate and entirely distinct from other funds. In fact, the second portion of this Clause, which is now under consideration, makes it quite clear that the particular amount of the security which is to be kept for one particular kind of business is a security for that particular kind of risk; is to be kept so separate, according to the second part of this Clause, that it is to be treated almost as if there
  250
  were two separate companies, and one part of the funds is not to be liable for any contracts relating to another part of the funds. Now, Mr. Emmott, it does seem to me that the President of the Board of Trade, in this feverish hurry to legislate, which appears to be actuating the Government at the present moment with regard to this Bill, accepts or proposes to accept an Amendment which really makes nonsense, not only of the first part of this Clause, but clearly is quite inconsistent with the whole of the second part of it. And the explanation which the President of the Board of Trade, that these funds can be mixed for the purpose of investment, seems to me to allow a most irregular thing. Supposing there happens to be £10,000 in one fund and £7,000 in another. According to the Government's proposal you can take a mortgage out for £17,000. Supposing you realise that mortgage and there is a loss. How is that loss to be apportioned between the two funds? There may be all kinds of difficulties arise in the attempt to do so. I welcome this Clause, and think it is an excellent thing that there should be security for this kind of business, and that it should be kept separate, and that the security for one part of the business should not be allowed to get mixed up with the other parts. If we are going to give authority to the companies, notwithstanding this, to mix up these funds, I think it is going to detract very much from the benefit of the general protection which is sought by the Clause. In the absence of a very complete and satisfactory explanation I feel justified in raising my voice by way of protest.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think there is some misapprehension as to the actual practical effect of the Amendment. This Clause alters Section (4) of the Act of 1870, as amended by the Act of 1872, and there is nothing in that Act that applies to the investment of the funds themselves. The practical working out is this: It has been settled by Parliament, and we desire to enact also, with reference to the companies to which this Clause applies, that if they have separate business they must separate the funds which belong to those separate businesses. You have two different kinds of insurance, life and fire. You must keep the funds quite separate, so that the funds, belonging to one part are available for this interest of that part. But there is no reason whatso-

  251
  ever, and there is no reason under the Act of 1870, to keep investments separate. Just let us see what the practical operation is. Take a perfectly simple case. Suppose you have £1,000 to invest for each of two parties, you have £2,000 to invest altogether. Supposing you have an excellent mortgage security, and it must be assumed that you have, so all you have to do is, if the law were as it is desired to be by the hon. Member opposite, is to take two mortgages for £1,000 instead of one mortgage for £2,000. The fund is not altered in the slightest degree. The part of the £2,000 that belongs to one person and the part that belongs to the other still belongs to each of them. I agree that in case there should be loss there might be some little difficulty in the apportionment, and that priority might be sought in the case of mortgages. This makes no change in the law, but it reproduces the law of 1870 as amended by the Act of 1872, and it makes it clear, if it is convenient and proper in the carrying on of the business, that the same investment may cover the two. There is no objection to that being done.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear way he has put the case, but I should like to ask him, in the case he has given of two sums of £1,000, making the sum of £2,000, whether it is a fact that if you put a mortgage out for these two sums pari passu there would be any extra cost for doing so? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General was that there would be no extra cost.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Oh, yes. The two mortgages for £1,000 would cost more than one mortgage.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is no cost upon the mortgagee; the cost has to be paid by the mortgagor.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Here we have two members of the legal profession differing, and I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford).
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I never denied that proposition.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Then what becomes of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It does not matter to the insuring company whether
  252
  the person pays £5 or £10, but it does matter to the person investing. Let me point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that all the moneys of insurance companies are not invested in mortgages, a great many of them are invested in bonds. If you want to invest £2,000 in different accounts you can easily buy £l,000 worth of bonds in one account and £1,000 worth of bonds in another. There is no extra cost, and you can keep the two in separate compartments or boxes. This is not such a very simple matter as the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks. I presume there is some object in this Clause in providing for two separate accounts. If there are to be two separate accounts, unless there are to be two separate investments, you might as well leave out the Clause providing for the two separate accounts. I presume these Clauses are put in to avoid fraud. The moment these investments are mixed up the opportunities for fraud are very much greater than if the investments are kept separate.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one question. I should like to know whether, in the event of a big calamity, such, for instance, as that which occurred in San Francisco, any funds to meet claims on life policies invested under the Amendment which has been moved could be held as security to meet the claims arising in the fire insurance department, or whether the life policy would be protected and the assets available upon the claim on the death of the insured; in short, whether life funds could be taken to pay for a conflagration such as that which occurred at San Francisco?
  Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: As far as the differentiation between the two cases goes there is nothing in the nature of difficulty even in the case of mortgage. Supposing there is a mortgage of £15,000 contributed equally in two parts by separate mortgagees. You put down in the list of assets one as representing so much Consols, so much railway stock, and £7,500, half of the £15,000 investment. There is no difficulty about that. With regard to any other investments they only represent the profits of the year, and they only stand in the name of the same party. The actual name upon the books may be the same person, but in each year you have a statement on the part of the company that their funds allocated to life insurance business are represented by So-and-so, and are earmarked there. With regard to the

  253
  question as to the first of two pari passu mortgagees, that is a strange arrangement. You have two, one must appear as the first and the other second; there must be some priority. If there are two separate mortgages, one must have priority over the other. There is no such thing as a pair of mortgagees ranking together, at any rate in this country. If you have one mortgage deed of £1,000 upon property A, if there is another mortgage deed in identical terms of £l,000 upon the same property, one must have priority over the other. The only way to do it is to have mortgages in which each of the parties is described as contributing so much, and in the event of failure or foreclosure the party in priority would share.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is with great diffidence that I differ from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and I want to say why I do differ from them. I think they are confusing the question of funds with the question of investments. There must be separate funds for separate purposes. To reduce the whole thing to an absurdity, let us assume the whole of the funds of a company, say £2,000,000, are invested in Consols. Does my hon. Friend say that £1,000,000 should be invested in Consols, and another invested in Indian Stock in order to differentiate the investments? That is the logical conclusion if the investments are to be separate. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury) says "No, no." Then I venture to suggest that, instead of investing the whole of it in Consols, that it should be invested in separate blocks of Consols. That is no real advantage to the policy holders. I venture to suggest that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is in accordance with sound business.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I make no apology before leaving this subject for saying another word upon it. Of course, I quite realise there is a distinction between funds and investments. This Clause does not apply merely to the deposits that have to be made, as some Members who addressed the Committee seemed to think. It applies to the whole receipts of a company. A company may be carrying on three absolutely distinct classes of business, as some of them are. Here now for the first time we are going to pass an Act of Parliament which says that each of these three classes of business is separate, is practically a separate com-
  254
  pany, with separate risks and separate property, kept distinctly apart for the purposes of these separate businesses. Now let us consider for a moment how the accounts would look. Supposing you take the accounts of such a company, assuming it had got cumulative receipts and funds—one million and something—for life, and two millions and something for fire, if we read the Clause as it stands, the balance-sheet would go to show how each of these were represented. Supposing the life departments got £1,500,000, it would show that one million and a half was represented by so much—Consols so much, mortgages so much, mortgages and property in Australia or the Colonies so much, and Inscribed Stock so much. That particular fund would be represented by specific investments which everybody insuring their lives with that company would know. If there was a million and a half of money, it would be actually represented by items A, B, C, D, E, and F in the balance-sheet. I certainly looked upon this Clause as being one of the best things for the purposes of insurance companies I had ever seen. For the first time the knowledge was going to be given to the people who insured their lives or their buildings what the funds in that particular department were, and it was going to be made clear, as it is clear in this Clause, that these funds could not be appropriated for any other business, but that they were distinctly reserved for these particular reasons. It is within the knowledge of every Member of this Committee that there are insurance companies which have been very heavily hit in recent years, with the result that the whole of their fire funds have been swept away. Unfortunately, each of us knows of companies of that description where very heavy claims have to be met. Supposing there was a number of investments made together in the funds of a firm like that, these funds would have to be realised, possibly at a loss, particularly having regard to the recent fall in trust securities, and having regard to the action of the Government in relation to the finances of the country. Now is the life department of the company, in such circumstances, to be forced to realise its securities for the purpose of providing funds which are only liable to the life department? I look upon this Clause as a charter of privileges and a safeguard to the ordinary investor in insurance companies in the future, and I look upon the Amendment now before the Committee under which these investments can be mixed up

  255
  and under which really, for the purposes of the accounts to be represented year by year, it would not be possible to say what are the specific investments put into these particular funds, as giving the whole safeguard away. On this point I differ from my hon. and learned Friend beside me. I do not think he has quite realised the extreme importance of the Clause and the very objectionable nature of the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. HAY: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give an answer to the question I put to him it may remove my objection to this Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Where they invest in such securities as have been mentioned by the hon. Member they can allot a certain amount to one fund and a certain amount to the other.
  Mr. HAY: My question was whether under the wording of this Amendment assets ear-marked for life policies might be used for fire insurance claims—say, in San Francisco?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Amendment put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Actuarial Report and Abstract.)
  (1) Every assurance company shall, once in every five years or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or byelaws, cause an investigation to be made into its financial condition by an actuary, and shall cause an abstract of the report of such actuary to be made in the form or forms set forth in the Fourth Schedule to this Act and applicable to the class or classes of assurance business carried on by the company.
  (2) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall also apply whenever at any other time an investigation into the financial condition of an assurance company is made with a view to the distribution of profits, or the results of which are made public.
  Mr. HAYmoved to leave out of Subsection (1) the words "or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or bye-laws." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment, the object of which is to provide that these returns shall only be required once every five years.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can go some way to meet the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has down on the Paper a long Amendment to Clause 31 which I am willing to accept, and I think that will achieve the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in view without going beyond that and affecting other branches of the business. The Clause provides that an investigation shall be made every five years, and oftener in certain circumstances. The method of conducting the business of certain companies may make the investigation almost an annual one, and in some cases that is necessary. In the case of some companies like the Prudential, where there are large money payments made every year, and where the assets of the company are affected as well as the interests of the policy holders, it is right that there should be an annual statement. There are a number of companies which do their business by an annual reduction of premium, and in that case, the security of the policy holders not being affected, there would be no need to insist upon the annual investigation. The difference between the hon. Member's Amendment and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield is that it distinguishes between these two classes, giving relief in one case without relaxing control in the other.
  Mr. HAY: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LOUGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "condition" ["financial condition by an actuary"], to insert the words "including a valuation of its liabilities." I hope my right hon. Friend will accept my proposal.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the addition of these words expresses the intention of the Bill in an improved form, and I am willing to accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Amalgamation or Transfer.)
  (1) Where it is intended to amalgamate two or more assurance companies, or to transfer the assurance business of any class from one assurance company to another company, the directors of any one or more of such companies may apply to the court,

  257
  by petition, to sanction the proposed arrangement.
  (2) The court, after hearing the directors and other persons whom it considers entitled to be heard upon the petition, may sanction the arrangement if it is satisfied that no sufficient objection to the arrangement has been established.
  (3) Before any such application is made to the court—

  (a) notice of the intention to make the application shall be published in the "Gazette"; and

  (b) a statement of the nature of the amalgamation or transfer, as the case may be, together with an abstract containing the, material facts embodied in the agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is proposed to be effected, and copies of the actuarial or other reports upon which the agreement or deed is founded, including a report by an independent actuary, shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be transmitted to each policy holder of each company in manner provided by Section one hundred and thirty-six of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, for the transmission to shareholders of notices not requiring to be served personally: Provided that wherever either company carries on another class or other classes of assurance business in addition to the business of life assurance it shall not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life, endowment, sinking fund, or bond investment policy holders; and

  (c) the agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is effected shall be open for the inspection of the policy holders and shareholders at the offices of the companies for a period of fifteen days after the publication of the notice in the "Gazette."

  (4) No assurance company shall amalgamate with another or transfer its business to another unless the amalgamation or transfer is sanctioned by the court in accordance with this Section.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Amendments which I have to propose to this Clause are of a purely drafting character. The whole of Sub-section (4) is an Amendment introduced in the House of Lords upon the Motion of Lord Milner. The object is to make the Clause more clear.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment made:
  In Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), at end, to add the words "nor in the case of a transfer to such policy holders if the business transferred is not life assurance business or bond investment business."
  Mr. HAYmoved to leave out:

  CLAUSE 15.—(Provision as to Novation by Policy Holders.)
  The Clause would involve in the case of amalgamation the passing of a private Bill. That seems to me to be absolutely unnecessary, and I beg to move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government accept this Amendment. I think we have surrounded transfer and amalgamation with sufficient safeguards that we can dispense with this Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think this Clause is a great protection to the policy holders. Where the amalgamation of two companies take place and the policy holder does not give his consent in writing, he should still retain the same right as he possessed before amalgamation. Why should this Clause be omitted? This proposal was intended to provide security for the policy holders, and it is only fair that in case of amalgamation the security should remain as it was before the amalgamation takes place. I should like some further explanation why the Government has assented to the omission of this Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer, because I think it is a serious matter from the point of view of the policy-holders.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We think that already ample security is given in the Bill to the policy-holders.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Special Provisions as to Winding Up of Assurance Companies).
  The court may order the winding up of an assurance company, in accordance with the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly, subject, however, to the following modification:—
  The company may be ordered to be wound up on the petition of ten or more policy holders owning policies of

  259
  an aggregate value of not less than ten thousand pounds;
  Provided that such a petition shall not be presented except by the leave of the court, and leave shall not be granted until a primâ facie case has been established to the satisfaction of the court and until security for costs for such amount as the court may think reasonable has been given.
  Mr. HAYmoved to add, at the end of the Clause, the words: "Provided further that no part of the capital or other assets of the company shall be released from liability in respect of assurance contracts until it has been proved to the satisfaction of the court that the assurance funds of the company are sufficient to meet the liability under assurance contracts in full."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the whole process of the winding up of assurance companies is provided for in the Companies Consolidation Act by rules made by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore it is not necessary to make provision of the character which the hon. Member desires. The hon. Member's Amendment is entirely foreign to the general matter of the Clause, because it purports to provide for the administration of the assets of an assurance company in the winding up, and that is quite thoroughly, and I think drastically, dealt with under the Companies Consolidation Act.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Penalty for Non-compliance with Act.)
  Any assurance company which makes default in complying with any of the requirements of this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in the case of a continuing default, to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues, and every director, manager, or secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the default shall be liable to a like penalty; and if default continue for a period of three months after notice of default by the Board of Trade, which notice shall be published in one or more newspapers as the Board of Trade may, upon the application
  260
  of one or more policy holders or shareholders, direct, the default shall be a ground on which the Court may order the winding up of the company, in accordance with the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved after the word "officer" ["every director, manager, or secretary, or other officer"] to insert the words "or agent."
  This Amendment will clear up the doubt which exists as to whether an agent is an officer or not. It makes it clear that he is an officer.
  Clause 25 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Recovery and Application of Penalties.)
  Every penalty imposed by this Act shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be recovered and applied in the same manner as penalties imposed by the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, are recoverable and applicable.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved to leave out the words "save as otherwise expressly provided."
  These words were inserted in view of provisions which were originally intended to be put in Clause 37, but in the course of the discussions on this Bill those provisions have been dropped out.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Service of Notices.)
  Any notice which is by this Act required to be sent to any policy holder may be addressed and sent to the person to whom notices respecting such policy are usually sent, and any notice so addressed and sent shall be deemed and taken to be notice to the holder of such policy.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words:—
  "Provided that where any person claiming to be interested in a policy has given to the company notice in writing of his interest and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified

  261
  in the notice, and notice which is by this Act required to be sent to policyholders shall also be sent to such person at the address so specified."
  A policy holder is defined in Clause 30 as a person who, for the time being, is the legal holder of the policy. It is possible that the legal holder may have only a small pecuniary interest in the policy, and that a valuable policy may have been deposited as security for a debt. This provides that where any person besides the legal holder has given notice to the Company that person shall be entitled to the same notice as the actual legal holder.
  Mr. BERTRAMmoved, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified in the notice."
  I have had some communication with the Department in reference to Clause 30 to which the right hon. Gentleman has made reference, and the definition there given of "policy bolder." It is said to mean the person who is the legal holder of the policy. That is a matter with regard to which no assurance office can have knowledge. Nobody at the assurance office can possibly tell who is the legal holder of a policy. Take, for instance, the case of a life policy deposited by a client with his solicitor. The solicitor goes bankrupt, and the whole of his papers are handed over to the trustee in bankruptcy, and the trustee in bankruptcy is the legal holder of that policy. I want notice to be given to every person who has any interest in the policy. Nobody in the Assurance office can tell what that interest may be, and the legal holder, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, may have the smallest interest. Every person who has given notice to the assurance company that he has an interest in a policy ought, to my mind, to be entitled to receive notice, and not merely if he has particularly asked the company to send him one if it becomes necessary. The effect of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade as it stands would be that every person who at this moment has an interest in a policy and has given notice would not be notified, because none of the notices given up to this moment contain that request for the information, but every person who, after the date of this Bill, gives notice will receive notice of intended amalgamations and so on, and it seems to me to be most unreasonable that persons who are at present interested and have given notice should be ignored.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I quite recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and of course we are endeavouring to secure the fullest serving of notices to all parties, but we want to be careful about this. When we originally discussed this Amendment, it was not quite realised how far the other parts of the Bill would be affected by amending the definition of a policy holder. The words occur frequently in the Bill, and any alteration in the meaning of a poilcy holder may produce a reaction. One result will be to constitute each person who has an interest in a policy a policy bolder. Clause 16 requires that a petition to wind up a company must be supported by 10 or more policy holders. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member on Clause 30 would be to enable 10 persons interested in a single policy to formulate a petition for winding up, whereas the Jaw intends 10 separate policy holders. I say that, not because I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman, but because I am anxious to show that we must move carefully. I do not mind, however, accepting his Amendment for the present.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It could be done by leaving out the words proposed to be left out and by adding at the end the words, "at the address to be specified by him in the notice."
  Mr. BERTRAM: My trouble is that these notices are invariably given toy the solicitor as agent on behalf of the person interested. It is invariably given in this form, "I, A.B., of such an address, agent for John Smith, give you notice that by an indenture, dated so and so, John Smith became interested in the policy, so and so." I have given hundreds of these notices myself, and they are precisely in that form. The address of the person on whose behalf the notice is given is very seldom stated. The agent's address is given. The only people who will receive notice under the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will be those who do not happen to have employed agents. Anybody who has employed an agent will toe ignored, though he has given perfectly good notice.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It stands to reason that, if a notice is required to be sent to any person interested in a policy, the assurance company must send it to the address given, whether it is given by the person interested or by a person on his behalf. The notice of the interest ought also I to state for the benefit of the company the

  263
  address to which notices should be sent. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should object to adding at the end the words, "and at the address to be specified by him in the notice."
  Mr. BERTRAM: The words "to be specified" would exclude all existing notices You are excluding everybody who at this moment stands in the company's books as interested.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I confess, as one who has had some little experience in transferring interests in policies and giving notices to companies, that I think the Amendment proposed by the Government is a very reasonable and an exceedingly useful one. It does not make it compulsory. As the Amendment stood, every time you give a notice, you give a fresh address or some address to which communications may be sent. What it does say is that where an insurance company is requested by a person who claims to have an interest to send a notice to a given address, such notice as is required to be sent to policy holders shall also be sent to that specified address. That is quite reasonable. Not only do insurance companies which conduct this class of business do it, but every other company in the United Kingdom will, if it gets authority from the individual, who may, for instance, be entitled to a dividend, send communications in relation thereto to a specified address. I cannot see why either the original Amendment proposed by the Government or the exceedingly reasonable suggestion made by the Solicitor-General should not meet the case. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his further Amendment. I understand he thinks there may be some difficulty in the way of recognised agents sending in communications to insurance companies.
  Mr. BERTRAM: No.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Then I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman objects.
  Mr. BERTRAM: Let me put an imaginary case. The hon. Member opposite insures his life for £20,000 and he borrows £500 from me on the security of the policy. I give notice to the office in which he is insured. My interest is ridiculously small, while his is so great. The office, although having received notice from me will, as the Bill now stands, should it propose to amalgamate with another office, notify the hon. Member but not me.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the hon. Member is quite wrong on that point, which is covered by the concluding words proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The insurance company would have my address and they would also have his address as the lender of the money, and any communication sent out would be despatched to both addresses. Suppose I chose to leave home and go to New Zealand for twelve months, why should I not be able to notify the company to send any communication to my agents, bankers, or solicitors? That is all the Amendment proposes. I say it is an exceedingly useful Amendment, and I repeat I hope the hon Member will not persist in his further Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed: To strike out the word "so" ["so specified"] in the last line of the proposed Amendment.— [Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Question, "That the word 'so' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed: At end of proposed Amendment, to add the words "by him in this notice."
  Amendment proposed: At end of Clause to insert the words, "Provided there where any person claiming to be interested in a policy has given to the company notice in writing of his interest, any notice which is by this Act required to be sent to policy holders shall also be sent to such person at the address specified by him in his notice."

  CLAUSE 28.—(Accounts, etc., to be laid before Parliament.)
  The Board of Trade shall lay annually before Parliament the accounts, balance-sheets, abstracts, statements, and other documents under this Act, or purporting to be under this Act, deposited with them during the preceding year, except reports on the affairs of assurance, companies submitted to the shareholders or policy holders thereof, and may append thereto any correspondence in relation to any such

  265
  statements or abstracts and any note of the Board thereon.
  Amendment proposed: To leave out all the words from "append" ["and may append"] to end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "to such accounts, balance-sheets, abstracts, statements, or other documents any note of the Board of Trade thereon, and any correspondence in relation thereto."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words proposed there inserted.
  CLAUSE 29.—(Savings) added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Interpretation).
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "chairman" means the person for the time being presiding over the board of directors or other governing body of the assurance company:
  The expression "policy" includes any instrument, evidencing a contract of insurance:
  The expression "policy holder" means the person who for the time being is the legal holder of the policy for securing the contract with the assurance company:
  The expression "underwriter" includes any person named in a policy or other contract of insurance as liable to pay or contribute towards the payment of the sum secured by such policy or contract:
  The expression "financial year" means each period of twelve months at the end of which the balance of the accounts of the assurance company is struck, or if no such balance is struck, then the calendar year:
  The expression "Court" means the High Court of Justice in England, except that in the case of an assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland it means, in the provisions of this Act other than those relating to deposits, the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and in the case of an assurance company registered or having its head office in Scotland it
  266
  means, in the provisions of this Act other than those relating to deposits, the Court of Session, in either division thereof:
  The expression "Companies Acts" includes the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, and any enactment repealed by that Act:
  The expression "registrar" means the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies:
  The expression "actuary" means an actuary possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board of Trade:
  The expression "Gazette" means the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin "Gazette," as the case may be.
  Mr. CHURCHILLproposed to leave out the second paragraph, "The expression 'policy' includes any instrument evidencing a contract of insurance."
  The object is to exclude reinsurance companies from the scope of the Bill. It is not necessary that they should be included, as they do not have any contact with the public. They deal solely with other insurance companies, and have not the same incentive for escaping the provisions of the Bill. We have been anxious not to unduly widen the scope of the Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the inclusion of these reinsurance companies is not necessary in the public interest.
  Sir HENRY KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the name of one or two of these reinsurance companies? I am not aware of any company which confines itself to re-insurance. I know that companies reinsure between each other, and that that is a fruitful way of increasing their business; but I am not acquainted with any company which exists solely for the purpose for reinsuring risks.
  Mr. HAY: I have to thank the President of the Board of Trade for moving this Amendment, which is similar to one of which I had given notice. I do not think it necessary to add any words to what he has advanced in support of it. In reply to the hon. Member for Central Hull, I can assure him that many such companies do exist, and that they are highly prosperous companies.
  Sir HENRY KING: Will the hon. Member name one or two?
  Mr. HAY: No, Sir; but I would be prepared to give the hon. Gentleman

  267
  particulars of some of them. This Amendment protects British re-insurance companies from being in a worse position than foreign re-insurance companies undertaking this business in this country.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Will not the effect of the Amendment be that an insurance company not doing any direct business in this country will be enabled to come in and take part in this reinsurance business without making provision for security of any sort or kind?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade do not know of any company which does only reinsurance business. But we are told that there are such companies. The hon. Member has asked whether a foreign company doing general business outside this country can come here merely for the purpose of doing reinsurance business. If we were to assume such a case I think it would be no exaggeration to say that such a company doing that class of business would not be called a reinsurance company.
  Mr. HAY: These re-insurance companies have to be and are registered at the Board of Trade in the same way as any direct insurance company. To my knowledge there are a number registered.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. CHURCHILLproposed, in lieu of the paragraph left out, to insert the words "the expression 'annuities on human life' does not include, superannuation allowances and annuities payable out of any fund applicable solely to the relief and maintenance of persons engaged or who have been engaged in any particular profession, trade, or employment, or of the dependents of such persons." This Amendment has been brought forward in view of some disquiet felt by Scottish companies. The Bill, as a matter of fact, makes no change in the law in regard to these questions, but the Amendment may remove any doubts that have arisen.
  7.0 P.M.
  Further Amendment proposed: At end of paragraph commencing "the Expression 'Court,'" to leave out the words "other than those relating to deposits."—[Mr. Mooney.]
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Application to Life Assurance Companies.)
  Where a company carries on life assurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) "Policy on human life" shall mean any instrument by which the payment of money is assured on the happening of any contingency dependent on human life, except the contingency of fatal accident, or any instrument evidencing a contract which is subject to payment of premiums for a term dependent on human life:

  (b) Where the company grants annuities upon human life "policy" shall include the instrument evidencing the contract to pay such an annuity, and "policy holder" includes annuitant:

  (c) The obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds shall apply notwithstanding that the company has previously made and withdrawn its deposit, or been exempted from making any deposit under any enactment hereby repealed:

  (d) Where the company intends to amalgamate with or too transfer its life assurance business to another assurance company, the Court shall not sanction the amalgamation or transfer in any case in which it appears to the Court that the life policy holders representing one-tenth or more of the total amount assured in the company dissent from the amalgamation or transfer:

  (e) Nothing in this Act providing that the life assurance fund shall not be liable for any contracts for which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of life assurance shall affect the liability of that fund in the case of a company established before the ninth day of August eighteen hundred and seventy for contracts entered into by the company before that date:

  (f) In the case of a company carrying on life assurance business and established before the ninth day of August eighteen hundred and seventy, by the terms of whose deed of settlement the whole of the profits of all the business

  269
  carried on by the company are paid I exclusively to the life policy holders, and on the face of whose life policies the liability of the life assurance fund in respect of the other business distinctly appears, such of the provisions of this Act as require the separation of funds, and exempt the life assurance fund from liability for contracts to which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of life assurance, shall not apply.

  Mr. LOUGHmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "on" ["money is assured on the happening"], to insert the words, "death (except a policy insuring only against fatal accident) or."
  I propose also, as a consequential Amendment, to omit the words, "except the contingency of fatal accident," and the object is to improve the wording of the definition of the expression, "Policy on human life." As I understand, my right hon. Friend rather approves of this Amendment, and the only criticism I have heard from any quarter is as to the position of the word "only," which, in the Amendment on the Paper, was placed after the words, "fatal accident." To meet that criticism, I have inserted the word after the word "insuring." In that form I think the Amendment will be generally accepted.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: It is rather difficult to follow the exact meaning of the change in the position of the word "only," but the Amendment, as put down on the Paper, will create an anomaly, because in fatal accidents where there is a separate policy it is not necessary to draw the policy as a life policy, but if a fatal accident risk is associated together with a non-fatal accident or sick risk then it becomes necessary under this Amendment to treat the policy as a life policy, and it would then be subject to all the disadvantages of a life policy with regard to the provisions which the Bill introduces in case of amalgamation of companies. For instance, if a reinsurance company were to buy up a small accident company which had an accident and fatal accident business it would be necessary, if the policy were treated as a life policy as; the Amendment proposes, to notify in the case of one company not less than 60,000 life policy holders. Now that the position of the word "only" is altered, I am not quite sure of the meaning of it, but
  270
  would be the effect. It would be absurd to put this troublesome proceeding in motion when a person has not got a life policy but only a yearly policy. An accident policy is an annual contract, and might never become payable, because the man may not die in the year, and it may never be required again. This is rather an important point, and we do not want to put the insurance company to the trouble of notifying the whole of their life certainly as it was down on the Paper that policy holders.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not quite clear in my own mind as to the position of the word "only," and I would just like to consider it, but on the general question I am anxious to meet my right hon. Friend. I had made up my mind to accept the Amendment, and I should be glad to do so if the word "only" is put after the word "except," so that it would read "except only a policy insuring against fatal accident." I think, however, the question in regard to the position of the word "only" ought to be considered on Report, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put the word for the present in front of the word "insuring," I will take steps to obtain proper consideration.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In regard to a largo number of the policies referred to they insure £1,000 in case of death, and in case of disablement £6 a week, and if the effect of the word "only" in one or other of these positions would be that where the risk is simply to be so much on death, it is to be within the purview of this Clause; but if the policy and the risk should happen to be associated with the payment of so much money per week for disablement, that the mere fact that that extra benefit being associated with the other should deprive the policy holder of his right to be put in this position, then I think it would be entirely wrong, and I sympathise with the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member who site behind the President of the Board of Trade, which I think is perfectly right.
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to reassure the hon. Member who sits on this side, and I think if he looks at the Amendment as I now move it, he will find that all the difficulties he is anxious to protect us against will be met. I shall be very glad to accept the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and if he will accept the Amendment now and consider the position of the word "only" on Report, I shall be very glad.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would rather have it in the form I recommended, namely, that it should come in after the word "except," but I will consider the matter again and put it right upon Report.
  Mr. LOUGH: I must accept what my right hon. Friend offers, but I really do think that if he looks at it, he will see that the word "only," in the position he suggests, would except all policies, and it is not the intention to except all policies but only fatal accident policies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: After the word "on" ["money is assured on"], to insert the words "death (except only a policy insuring against fatal accident) or," and to omit the words "except the contingency of fatal accident."—[Mr. Lough.]
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, to leave out Sub-section (c), and to insert:—
  "Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the life assurance business carried on by the company if the company has been established within the United Kingdom, and has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom, before the twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and nine. Provided, however, that a company established within the United Kingdom which has made a deposit under The Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, and has not yet become entitled to the return of the sum so deposited shall be required to keep such sum deposited until its life assurance fund shall amount to the sum of forty thousand pounds."
  I move this Amendment because I conceive that this provision as to the £20,000 deposit is, perhaps, the least impressive of the recommendations of the House of Lords Committee. Its history and genesis are well known, and as the reason advanced for the proposal that this £20,000 should be deposited is not and cannot be anything but an intention to intimate to persons proposing to insure their lives in this country with companies from abroad doing business in this country the only real object is that they should have some real means of suing these companies in the courts of this country and obtain execution against such assets as they have in this country. It appears to me that that may be proper to be applied to new companies starting to do business with a British domicile and registered in this country, but it surely
  272
  does not apply in the case of these companies which have matured their deposit and having the necessary funds have got their deposit out at a period anterior to the period mentioned in my Amendment. Everyone knows that these companies being domiciled in this country give the fullest opportunity to all those to whom they are under liability of suing in the courts of this country and obtaining execution against the abundant assets probably secured for the fulfilment of liabilities due from them, but I do not think it requires much elaboration to show that this is not by any means an improper suggestion to make that these old-fashioned companies well deserve to be relieved from this vexatious obligation which is of little enough value in bad cases, and certainly ought not to be laid upon companies who have proved their fitness to do business.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The Bill proposes that life assurance companies shall deposit and keep deposited the sum of £20,000. Hitherto they have had to deposit £20,000, but when their premiums have reached £40,000 they can take out the original £20,000. The Committee of the House of Lords, which sat two years ago, and on whose report we substantially proceed, made the following recommendation: "The deposit of £20,000 with the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, which the Act of 1870 makes obligatory on any new company, whether foreign or British, has undoubtedly had the effect of preventing the formation of mushroom companies. But under the Act a company is permitted to withdraw this sum as soon as the premiums amount to £40,000. The Committee are aware that this sum of £20,000 would be of little use to meet the liabilities of the larger companies which do business in this country. But they feel that if this amount were deposited and could not be withdrawn by any company, it would afford an absolute guarantee to policy-holders in foreign companies of being able always to proceed, if necessary, against such companies in the Courts of this country. The Committee therefore recommend that every company which carries on business in Great Britain should be required to maintain this deposit of £20,000, permanently, so long as any policies continue outstanding in this country."
  The Amendment is that it should be enforced against foreign companies, but

  273
  that British companies should be exempted. I am quite willing to admit that it is not so necessary in the case of British companies as it is in the case of foreign companies, where you want to find a basis of jurisdiction, but what we have to consider is, will it not be a very bad thing if we were at this stage to mar the whole symmetry of our insurance law by introducing different treatment as between foreign and British companies. Of the foreign companies the most important section is the Colonial companies, which for this purpose are described as foreign companies, and I think it would be very injurious from a sentimental point of view to draw an adverse discrimination between Colonial and British companies. It is Imperial preference of a reverse character. It would also be a great pity from the point of view of the general policy of our insurance laws if we were to abandon similarity of treatment merely for the sake of relieving British companies from the necessity of putting back this £20,000. I am assured that the deposit will make no practical difference whatever to any British insurance company except one. I suggest that even though it may be said there is some pedantry in getting substantial British companies, possessed of millions of money, to put back the original £20,000 which they have taken out, that is a small argument against throwing over our whole system of equal treatment for the sake of discriminating adversely against Colonial companies. I am quite aware that there is a school of thought which thinks that there should be discrimination and preferential treatment as between foreign and British business, and there are a great many arguments, no doubt, which can be advanced in favour of that, but if you adopt that policy you should do it in a wholehearted manner and carry it out fully. The loss of the advantage of equality of treatment which is the basis on which we go, for the very small purpose of relieving companies from keeping deposits of £20,000 would not be worth while. I have not refused the Amendment without having given my best consideration to it.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is impossible not to sympathise with the general idea of the Amendment, but there certainly is one very important consideration which ought to be taken into account before it is adopted. Whenever an English company desires to carry on business abroad it is obliged to obtain from the Government of the country permission to
  274
  carry it on, and most Continental countries insist upon the Board of Trade here giving a certficate to the effect that a foreign company formed in that particular country would be under no preferential disability as against an English company if it were to begin to do business in England. Within the last two or three weeks I have been endeavouring to get permission for a company to carry on business in Roumania, and it has been necessary to apply to the Board of Trade to give a certificate to the British Minister in Bucharest to the effect that a Roumanian company wanting to carry on business in England would be under no disability whatever. If that certificate cannot be obtained, our companies would all be shut out from doing business in those foreign countries, and it would be far more detrimental to the interest of British trade and British companies to be subjected to any such disability than merely to give preferential treatment of any description to British companies at home here. I think under the circumstances it would certainly not be judicious to entertain any Amendment being put into this Bill which would differentiate against foreign companies, and have the far more serious ultimate effect of placing all our English companies under very serious difficulties when they try to do business abroad.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think anyone desires to differentiate against foreign companies. The point is whether in point of fact there is the same reason for requiring English companies to keep the deposit of £20,000 as there is for requiring foreign companies to keep the deposit. The object of the President of the Board of Trade is to give something which will enable the English claimant to sue the foreign company, and he says there ought to be £20,000 capital, at any rate to go as far as it will go. Assuming that be so, it evidently does not apply to an English company at all. It has no application to an English company. You can sue an. English company because it is here, and you can obtain your judgment, for what it is worth, against the whole of its funds. There is no object in the provision as regards English companies, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing. Then he said, after all, it is not a matter of any importance to an English company. Twenty thousand pounds may not be of great importance to most companies, but I believe every life insurance company but one has memorialised the Government in favour of this

  275
  particular Amendment, among others; therefore it is really rather absurd to say it is not a matter of importance if they are all agreed that it is. The life insurance companies must know their own business best, and they say it is a matter of some importance, and it seems to me that since the reason of the Amendment only applies to foreign companies the proposal ought to be confined to foreign companies.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Noble Lord is in error in saying the only reason advanced by the Government is that of the advisibility of getting jurisdiction in this country to sue a foreign company. I do not think the insurance companies, from the information we get, are very anxious to avoid the obligations of the £20,000. After all, they get gilt-edge securities for it, and they may get 3½ per cent. on the money, and so in that way it is in the interest of the policy holders and of the good management of the company that the money, once deposited, should be kept at £20,000.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: My short answer is that my Amendment does not propose any offence against the doctrine of equal treatment. It does not propose differential treatment. The provision was aimed at two things. It was aimed at the fraudulent foreign company which tries to walk away from its obligations—and in one or two cases this was done—and it was aimed, secondly, at mushroom companies. My Amendment proposes to exempt only those which are in such a position that they cannot do cither of these things. I propose to give this exemption only to the old companies, which are not mushroom companies and cannot become such, and not being foreign companies, and being tied fast, with all their assets invested here, cannot have applied to them the same considerations which are applied to a foreign company in the case in which it is only too easy for them to evade their obligations.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: The proposal of the Government really introduces a sham equality. It is not real equality of treatment. This is the difference. British companies have substantial funds in this country and foreign companies have not. The only funds belonging to the foreign companies in this country may be this £20,000. That is all you have to go on here, and this giving jurisdic-
  276
  tion will not help you to their funds abroad. The British companies have substantial funds here. This is giving an impression of false security. You can have a foreign company saying they are complying with every condition of the law that you require from a British company, and yet they have no other funds than that £20,000. As a matter of fact, against any ordinary action based on a single policy, no company doing business in this country, foreign or British, will attempt to evade the decision of the court. It is only when you come to winding-up or leaving the country that you want a substantial fund, and then £20,000 is no use. We had a case recently where a company incurred very substantial liabilities in this country, amounting to millions, and they left this country, with the result that the policy holders in this country are going to get practically nothing on their policies, whereas the policy holders in other countries, in some of our Colonies, where they have a substantial guarantee, will get a substantial sum. This requirement of a £20,000 deposit is of no use whatever in a case like that. I suggest this is not the way to deal with this phase of the question. The proper way to deal with it would be to require a substantial deposit here until there were invested in this country very substantial funds. Fix a substantial sum. The British company does comply with it, and foreign companies will do the same. This provision is a futile one, and it is somewhat a reflection upon British companies, with millions of funds, that they have to deposit £20,000. It is a sham equality.
  Mr. HAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Whittaker) has made it perfectly clear that as a protection against evil-doing by a foreign company this deposit is perfectly ridiculous. In recent years a very grave scandal and a huge loss has come upon perfectly innocent persons through the action of a foreign life company, and therefore to pretend that this deposit of £20,000 is any guarantee is to try and delude the public, which in insurance matter is extremely ignorant. The Debate will, I hope, also induce the President of the Board of Trade to consider favourably certain Amendments which will come later on in the Schedule which, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will do something to mitigate the situation, because foreign companies will have to declare what their liabilities and their assets

  277
  are in this country in making the Returns to the Board of Trade. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot have given mature consideration to the Amendment or read with care the very strong representations made by the best life offices of the United Kingdom. It is a pity that he should brush aside the suggestions of companies representing not only the wealth but the frugality of the community, and what is after all an element of business in this country of which we have a right to be most proud.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite unable to accept the Amendment. I have had repeated conferences with the parties to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and indeed I have given as much time to the consideration of this particular matter as to any other in the whole scope of the Bill. I would remind the Committee in the first place that I am not introducing a new matter at all. This was the recommendation of the Lords and Commons Committee. In the second place the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved was moved in the House of Lords, where it received long consideration from many people who are closely conversant with the subject, and it was rejected there. I am, therefore, not going out of my way when I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. I quite recognise the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) has brought forward, but that really comes up on another Amendment. I hope the Committee will not think me vexatious if I refuse to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph (f):—
  "(g) Any business carried on by an assurance company which under the provisions of any special Act relating to that company is to be treated as life assurance business shall continue to be so treated, and shall not be deemed to be other business or a separate class of assurance business within the meaning of this Act."
  I would remind the Committee that the Norwich Union obtained a special private Act in 1905, giving that Company certain powers which they think may be interfered with by this Bill unless this Amend-
  278
  ment is made. We think the probability is that this Bill will make no difference to the rights conferred under that private Act, but we are not quite sure about that. It is rather doubtful. There are certain words in the private Act which give the idea that the rights may be interfered with, and we do not think that this would be the proper way to deal with them. Therefore I propose to introduce this saving Clause which will have the effect of making sure that that Act will not be interfered with.
  Mr. HAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue this Amendment. Here is a case where an association has got certain special rights. It is most improper that one company should be given preferential treatment. If this company by private Act has obtained certain rights which other companies do not enjoy, surely the right hon. Gentleman, when reviewing the whole of our insurance laws, should bring special advantages into line, so that there should be true Free Trade in insurance business throughout the United Kingdom. The giving of special rights by private Acts to particular companies, thus overriding the public law, is a matter which cannot but be injurious to the whole insurance business and lead to a very great blot on this otherwise useful measure.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is really quite intolerable that special exemption should be made for one particular office. One of the objects of the Bill is to secure that special funds belonging to insurance companies should be set out separately. It appears to me that if one particular office has got a clause in a private Act to keep its accounts in another form, it should not be exempted from the general provisions of this Bill, which apply to the other insurance companies of the country. It is extremely undesirable that there should be this distinction in the form of keeping accounts. I really think that the proposal contained in this Amendment is one which we ought not to have from the Government. I do invoke the principle of equality for all. This is a provision which would be very much resented by the insurance companies of the country.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 911.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 P.m.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Hay.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Erskine, David C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Eeslemont, George Birnie

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Falconer, I.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barker, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dillon, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hogan, Michael

  Muldoon, John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Myer, Horatio

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nannetti, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Keating, M.

  Paul, Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Verney, F. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Ponsorrby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lament, Norman

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 912.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pointer, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Beale, W. P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Beauchamp, E.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

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

  Jones, Leil (Appleby)

  Sears, J. E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Bowerman, C. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Bright, J. A.

  Lambert, George

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lynch, H. B.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomas, Sir A, (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, William

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Essex, R. W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morse, L. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Falconer, J.

  Muldoon, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fenwick, Charles

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

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Paul, Herbert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  NOES.

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownles

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Dumphreys, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kenwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Seymour King and Mr. Claude Hay.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY Mr. STUART-WORTLEY moved at end of Clause to add,
  "(h) In the case of a mutual company whose profits are allocated to members
  280
  wholly or mainly by annual abatements of premium, the abstract of the report of the actuary on the financial condition of the company, prepared in accordance with the

  281
  Fourth Schedule of this Act, may, notwithstanding anything in Section five of this Act, be made and returned at intervals not exceeding five years, provided that where such return is not made annually it shall include particulars as to the rates of abatement of premiums applicable to different classes or series of assurances allowed in each year during the period which has elapsed since the previous return under the Fourth Schedule."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Application to Fire Insurance Companies.)
  Where a company carries on fire insurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) It shall not be necessary for the company to cause periodical investigations to be made into its financial condition by any actuary or to prepare any statement of its fire insurance business in accordance with the Fourth and Fifth Schedules to this Act:

  (b) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the fire insurance business carried on by the company if the company has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the 25th day of May, 1909:

  (c) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply where the company is an association of owners or occupiers of buildings or other property which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is carrying on, or is about to carry on, business wholly or mainly for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against damage by or incidental to fire caused to the houses or other property owned or occupied by them:

  (d) It shall not be necessary to make a deposit in respect of fire insurance business where the company has made a deposit in respect of any other class of assurance business, and where a company, having made a deposit in respect of fire insurance business, commences to carry on life assurance business or employers' liability in-
  282
  surance business the company may transfer the deposit so made to the account of that other business, and after such transfer, the deposit shall be treated as if it had been made in respect of such other business:

  (e) So much of this Act as requires an assurance company transacting other business besides assurance business or more than one class of assurance business to keep separate funds into which all receipts in respect of the assurance business or of each class of assurance business are to be paid shall not apply as respects fire insurance business:

  (f) The provisions of this Act with respect to the amalgamation of companies shall not apply where the only classes of assurance business carried on by both of the companies are fire insurance business, or fire insurance business and accident insurance business, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the transfer of assurance business from one company to another shall not apply to fire insurance business.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "company" to leave cut the words "to cause periodical investigations to be made into its financial condition by an actuary or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESmoved, in paragraph (b), to omit the words "before the 25th of May, 1909," and to insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of inserting the date in the Bill was to prevent the growth of mushroom companies; but now that the Bill is drawing towards completion, and is likely to receive the Royal assent in a day or two, there is no danger of mushroom companies, and consequently I shall accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Hackney.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Does that apply to the similar Amendment of which I have given notice in other Clauses.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 33 (Application to Accident insurance Companies), agreed to, with drafting Amendments.

  CLAUSE 34.—(Application to Employers' Liability Insurance Companies.)
  (1) Where a company carries on employers' liability insurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) This Act shall not apply where the company is an association of employers which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is carrying on or is about to carry on business for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen employed by them, either alone or in conjunction with insurance against any other risk incident to their trade or industry.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "business" ["business for the purpose of the mutual insurance"] and insert the words "wholly or mainly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 35 (Application to Bond Investment Companies) agreed to, with a drafting Amendment.

  CLAUSE 36.—(Power of Board of Trade to Exempt Unregistered Trade Unions.)
  The Board of Trade may, on the application of any unregistered trade union originally established more than twenty years before the commencement of this Act, extend to the trade union the exemption conferred by this Act on registered trade unions.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved to add, at the end of the Clause, the words, "and may on the application of an unregistered friendly society extend to the society the exemption conferred by this Act on registered friendly societies if it appears to the Board, after consulting the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, that the society is one to which it is inexpedient that the provisions of this Act should apply."
  There is some danger that the comprehensive wording of Clause 1 might go further than it was intended to go. It is not intended, for instance, that the provisions of this Bill should apply to the village slate club, but as it stands it might be held to apply. It appears to be difficult to define what a slate club is. I am
  284
  advised that the best way out of the difficulty is to leave a discretion with the Board of Trade.
  Mr. HAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay down any rule which would bring any company within the terms of the exemption, or is each case to be taken on its merits? Because I conceive that various difficulties may arise unless it is known that the Board of Trade will follow a certain course of action.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The object of the Amendment is to enable us to exempt a village slate club from being considered an insurance club. The course suggested is only to be taken after consultation with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  Amendment agreeed to.
  Clause, as Amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Provisions as to Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies.)
  (1) Amongst the purposes for which collecting societies and industrial assurance companies may issue policies of assurance there shall be included insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent, grandparent or grandchild.
  (2) No policy effected before the passing of this Act with a collecting society or industrial assurance company shall be deemed to be void by reason only that the person effecting the policy had not, at the time the policy was effected, an insurable interest in the life of the person assured, or that the name of the person interested, or for whose benefit or on whose account the policy was effected, was not inserted in the policy, or that the insurance was not one authorised by the Acts relating to friendly societies, if the policy was effected by or on account of a person who had at the time a bonâ fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured, and it the sum assured is not unreasonable for the purpose of covering those expenses.
  (3) Any collecting society or industrial insurance company which, after the passing of this Act, issues policies of insurance which are not within the legal powers of such society or company shall be held to have made default in complying with the requirements of this Act; and the provisions of this Act with respect to such de-

  285
  fault shall apply to collecting societies, industrial insurance companies, and their officers, in like manner as they apply to assurance companies and their officers.
  (4) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by Section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the committee of management or other governing body of a collecting society having more than one hundred thousand members may petition the court to make an order for the conversion of the society into a company under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and the court may make such an order unless, after hearing the committee of management, or other governing body, and other persons whom the court considers entitled to be heard on the petition, the court is satisfied that one-fourth at least of the members of the society object to the conversion, and the court may award reasonable costs of opposition; and the court may give such directions as it thinks fit for settling a proper memorandum and articles of association of the company; but, before any such petition is presented to the court, notice of intention to present the petition shall be published in the "Gazette," and in such newspapers as the court may direct.
  When a collecting society converts itself into a company in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section, Sub-section (3) of Section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, shall apply in like manner as if the conversion were effected under that Section.
  (5) In this Section the expressions "collecting society" and "industrial assurance company" have the same meanings as in the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "funeral expenses."
  8.0 P.M.
  I want some definition of the limitation of funeral expenses. It is a very common experience in these matters that a son or a daughter incurs considerable cost in connection with sickness and doctor's fees for attendance on an aged parent, and to limit the insurable sum to what pays funeral expenses only would be an injustice in a case of that kind unless the term "funeral expenses" be so elastic as to include medical attendance and other costs incurred in cases of illness prior to death. If I have some assurance on that point I will not press this Amendment. Meanwhile I move it in the form I have suggested, to
  286
  leave out the words, "there shall be included insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses, and to insert instead thereof the words, "on the life."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot agree to the Amendment, the effect of which would be in the case of collecting societies and industrial assurance companies that they would have power to insure without the limit contained in the Bill. There would be unlimited insurance possible for any sum of money within the increased and extended degree of relationships legalised by this Bill. I think that would be a very sharp and striking change in the Clause and in the view which Parliament has taken as to the limitation which should be placed upon this kind of insurance. Within the limits of reasonable funeral expenses, it is possible to extend the ordinary definition of natural relationships, and that has been done to meet a felt want in the country at large, which is proved by the very large number of policies which have been taken out. To extend the insurable interest so widely as this Amendment would allow would be, to a very large extent, to repeal the Gambling Act of 1874 so far as industrial assurance societies are concerned, and so far as Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1876 is concerned. I certainly do not feel at present that I could accept the Amendment.
  Mr. SHACKLETON: I think my hon. Friend's Amendment is already met by this Bill. It is not practicable to limit the exact funeral expenses as suggested, and there are occasions where medical and incidental expenses have to be met. Even if a limit were fixed as proposed, it could easily be evaded by duplicating the insurance with another company. That is the answer to limiting funeral expenses. As a matter of fact we had an application in Blackburn, where 40 assurance policies had been taken out against one life. There is no possible stop that could be put either in this Bill or under the present law to multiplying assurances with different companies. I think that is a sufficient ground, and all the requirements of the hon. Member are met perfectly satisfactorily by the Bill, with which I know persons interested, agents and so forth, are satisfied.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will consider the matter between now and the Report

  287
  stage with a view to inserting qualifying words in regard to funeral expenses. At the present time the Section is evaded by taking out half a dozen policies, sometimes for more than one life. We have a form of words which will allow of reasonable medical expenses and funeral expenses. Such a form of words would afford more elasticity in the matter, and in the hope that this will be done, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I understand that the next Amendment I have on the Paper, to insert in Sub-section (1), after the word "parent," the word "child," is already provided for in the original Act.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is perfectly right; it is in the original Act.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in Sub-section (1), before the word "grandchild," to leave out the word "or," and to insert the words "brother or sister."
  I move this Amendment with a view to legalising the great bulk of assurance policies. There is a great volume of these policies now under uncertainty, and I propose to extend the definition of insurable interest within a greater degree of natural relationships. I have considered the matter very carefully indeed, and I have every reason to believe that this Amendment is thoroughly justifiable within the limits we have proposed.
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." put, and negatived.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I want to ask whether if the words "brother or sister" are inserted, it would be any bar to my moving the further Amendment which I have on the Paper in regard to illegitimacy of children.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. it will not have that effect.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Am I to understand that this is strictly limited to funeral expenses, or whether it would not be possible to recover against the society, for instance, if an individual had taken out an insurance and had no funeral expenses to pay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If he had a reasonable expectation, he would be liable to be called upon.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The funeral expenses as a matter of fact have reference to particular relationships.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am aware of that fact, but I am also aware that the words "funeral expenses" in actual practice do not cover funeral expenses at all.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is a matter that must be fought out on the facts in each case. I took part in a case myself in which the decision was that funeral expenses was not insurable interest, and this is to make the point perfectly clear.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "grandchild," to insert the words "nor shall illegitimacy be a bar to the taking out of such policy."
  I do not know the proper form of words, but my meaning is perfectly obvious. It will be remembered that under the Workmen's Compensation Bill, when it was before the House, an Amendment similar to mine was moved and accepted. Under this Bill as it stands I am advised that the "mother" or "grandmother" of an illegitimate child could not insure it against funeral expenses, nor could the child itself take out a policy for funeral expenses on the mother or grandmother because it happened to be illegitimate. I think in regard to the principle that has been established in the Workmen's Compensation Act, that it would be worth while to extend it to friendly societies, with which we are dealing under the present measure. There is a very large number of cases of real hardship in connection with these children, and I am sure that all sections of the House would desire that their case should be met without any fear of encouraging immorality, so that the child which has the misfortune to be born out of wedlock shall not be unduly penalised because of a misfortune which is not due to any fault of its own. With a view to getting some form of words, I therefore beg to move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I share the feelings of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil as to the view which Parliament should take of the interests and rights of a bastard child. Certainly I agree that those interests ought to be most carefully safeguarded and cherished by the laws of the country. I do not differ from the hon. Member in the least in that respect. I have less sympathy, however, for the parents, and the application of

  289
  the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act to this measure would really be very lop-sided. For instance, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that it the father's death entitles the children to a share in certain funds available for compensation, the bastard child equally with the other children, or if there be no other children, can obtain that share of compensation to make up for the loss of the breadwinner. But if this Amendment were accepted the Bill would not apply to the bastard child at all, who would be receiving no benefit. It would be the parent who would be receiving the premium on the death of the bastard child. That, I think, is quite a different thing.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point I put was that the illegitimate child cannot take out a policy on the mother or grandmother.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was turning my attention more to the other point of view—namely, that the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the parent to secure advantages from the death of the illegitimate child. I am bound to say I do not think it is at all on all fours with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act which secures for the child the real benefit. I am willing to admit that the aspect of the illegitimate child assuring the parent has not anything like the same force, but I do not think we should enable the parent to obtain the money.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I am sorry to hear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he is not disposed to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that the Workmen's Compensation Act determines not only that the child shall be benefited in the event of the killing or maiming of the father or mother, but also provides, so far as I understand it, that that father or mother should be benefited by the killing or maiming of the child. The determining word in the Workmen's Compensation Act is "dependent," and if the father or mother is dependent on the child, or the grandfather even then in the event of injury or death or accident the parents or grandfather are entitled to the benefit just as much as the child under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is precisely the proposal to extend the provisions in that Act to this Bill With ail due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have heard no reason why we should not apply the same principle as was accepted by the
  290
  House four years ago, and accepted readily, I may say, by the House. I hope, therefore, there will be reconsideration of this matter, and that the right hon. Gentleman may show the same generous spirit as was shown four years ago by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not want to deal with or discuss the merits of the particular question by raising any particular technicality in regard to the Amendment, but the Amendment has really a very substantial objection in this sense, that it could only do away with the bar of illegitimacy in the case of collecting societies and industrial assurance societies, and would leave out the vast majority of the regular friendly societies. I dare say the answer of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) would be, "Very well, recast it and make it applicable to all the friendly societies." That obviously ought to be done if the Amendment is adopted, and I think the House ought to know that this bar of illegitimacy does exist in the whole of the friendly societies of this country. If the law was amended with regard to one it should be with regard to all. Therefore, I think, the Amendment had better be withdrawn here. I do not think the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) was made in an unfriendly spirit. I have no doubt he will consider the whole matter between this and the Report stage.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the answer of the learned Solicitor-General is really no answer to the fact that there is a disability in connection with assurance. This is a proposal to cure that. Let us do that and then deal with the other cases and the general question as they arise. It seems to me we ought not, if there are facilities being given for the purpose of these assurances, which are very valuable to the working classes, to penalise either the father or the mother because at some remote period there was a mistake with regard to the date of the birth of the child. There is no doubt that there are a great many cases of that kind, and to perpetuate a disability of that kind is decidedly bad. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr, which I am bound to say carried conviction to my mind. I do not know whether these are quite the right words, and perhaps the words at the end of the Clause, "whether legitimate or illegitimate," applicable to all those relationships, would be better. The President of the Board of Trade said

  291
  that he rather sympathised with the idea of the child insuring the parent or the grandparent, but in such cases the illegitimate child would not be liable for the funeral expenses. The right hon. Gentleman added that he could not see his way to allow the parent to insure the illegitimate child. He gave the astonishing reason that if the illegitimate child died the parent would benefit. On the death of a child the parent is able to go to the society and get a few pounds, and why should the parents not be able to get that in the case of the illegitimate child? It is possible that there is just as much affection for that particular child, whether the child had been born a few days earlier or later. I really do think that the distinction that was drawn by the President of the Board of Trade is not a valid one, and that the reason given by the Solicitor-General is equally invalid. I hope the Government will see their way to accept these words or some reasonable words. The Amendment is eminently reasonable.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is quite fair either to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) or myself. I said purposely I did not think the answer I was going to make as to the difficulty of the words was an answer as to the merits. In my position, sitting here, I am bound to point out, and I am quite sure the hon. Member is quite willing to accept this, that if this is to be done at all that it ought to be done generally. I never let drop a single word which would indicate any rooted objections on my part to extending this. I ended by saying that if the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment he would lose nothing, that he would have an opportunity of moving it on Report, and before I sat down I said, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that the matter would receive consideration between this and Report.
  Mr. MADDISON: I hope before the right hon. Gentleman does consider these words, if it is his intention to do so, that he will really consider them from the point of view of public policy. I share with my hon. Friend the desire not to penalise the child because it happens to be illegitimate. That would be the very last thing I would desire. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not make it plain, and at the same time I think the right hon.
  292
  Gentleman's instinct was right when he approached this question from the point of view of the child itself. We may just as well face facts here. It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) to say that the mother of the illegitimate child has as much affection for it as the mother of the child born in wedlock. I am not going to discuss that, but what I do know is that amongst some of the poorer members of the working classes in some towns that I know very well there can be no doubt that there is a frightful disregard of illegitimate children. When one remembers the keenness of assurance companies to get business, one seriously doubts whether the encouragement given by altering the Clause would not really tell against the illegitimate children of the country. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton) referred to a case where there were 40 insurances. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the matter the most careful consideration before he makes any alteration. I doubt very much whether the friendly societies would desire such a change as that proposed. We must not be led away by the sentimental desire to do what is right and proper to the infant. The infant can obviously get no advantage; but there is a real danger of putting a premium on this sort of thing, and of adding to the callous disregard of the offspring of illegitimate connections which is a very sad feature of our social life.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I think we are losing sight of the real question under discussion. The point is not whether or not the child is illegitimate, but whether there is a legitimate claim to insure the child. If a child is illegitimate, and death overtakes it, surely it needs burial. We are not here specially to inquire into the conditions under which the child came into the world. In any case the child needs burial, and the father and mother would be disregarding the most sacred obligations if they did not provide for it. All that we desire is that the parents should have the same insurable interest in the child. There is no financial advantage to be gained, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, as the insurance is limited to the extent of the funeral expenses. Is it seriously suggested that that disregard of moral obligations to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) referred would be frightfully inceased if this particular Amendment were inserted?
  Mr. MADDISON: Forty insurances, or forty times the funeral expenses?
  Mr. WALSH: If this Bill becomes law that class of case will be rendered impossible. These children have to be buried, and it is surely a legitimate object that the parents should be provided with means whereby decent burial may be secured. The case is perfectly parallel with what has been done under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I think we are entitled to a more definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
  Mr. SHACKLETON: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Burnley should have referred in this case at all to my illustration of the 40 insurances. The fear he has in mind is already guarded against, as you cannot draw more than a certain amount for a child under a certain age, and you would be unable to get the necessary death certificates from the registrar. The point is really this. In scores of cases the eldest child is illegitimate. There may be six or seven brothers and sisters. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) has raised a point which is certainly new to a great many people. If inquiries were made at the assurance offices I believe it would be found that hitherto there has been no distinction made. Hundreds of thousands of these children are insured without any question being raised. But now that the point has been raised assurance companies will be expected to keep strictly within the law. For the first time you will be making a distinction between the eldest child and the other children in a family. We do not want that in family life, because there is just as much affection for the eldest as for the other children. I know that that is not the case the hon. Member for Burnley has in mind; but when he opposes an Amendment he must think what it means in other cases. You cannot restrict your action to the case of the young girl who gets landed and does not marry at all. Even in that case the mother is entitled to this provision, as she is in a worse position than the mother who gets married afterwards, because she has only herself to rely upon; the (scoundrel clears out, and she is landed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not turn a deaf ear to this Amendment. I do not see why he should permit a child to insure its mother or grandmother, and not allow the mother to insure the child. There ought to be an equal right, as there is a joint responsi-
  294
  bility. One never knows who will be the first to be called upon to meet this liability, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in spirit, if he cannot accept the exact words.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Rhondda): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment now that the question has been raised. We have been dealing with the matter for a long time as if these children belonged to nobody; but when it is realised that an enormous number are the eldest sons or daughters in families it changes the question entirely. We ask that the illegitimate child should be placed in exactly the same position under the law in this respect as the other children.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: One cannot help being impressed by the views which have been expressed so forcibly upon this melancholy aspect of our social life. In forming my opinion on the subject I have had only one idea before me, and that is the interest of the illegitimate child. If I thought there was any privilege or advantage which the child could otherwise secure, but of which it would be deprived by the non-acceptance of this Amendment, I would go the whole way to meet that point. I think the spirit in which the hon. Member moved his Amendment and other Gentlemen supported it showed them to be entirely in accord with the great drift of modern thought. It has always been thought desirable to limit child insurance in every way. That has been the past policy of Parliament, and it has been very strictly construed, and previous Parliaments have not been at all inclined to advance recklessly in this matter. I should like to point out that it is not merely a question of ethics, of morals, that we have to consider. We have also to consider the general structure of the law upon the subject as it stands at the present time. If public opinion and the House of Commons were to decide that in this case the safeguards which the law has hitherto enforced should be relaxed they can have the will to enforce that decision. It would be a very important provision. Even so, I think that we should be dealing with the subject in a lop-sided manner if we made this provision to apply only to collecting societies and left other friendly societies under the conditions that the State has hitherto thought it neces-

  295
  sary to enforce. There is one argument— a small one perhaps—and that is that all these bodies are to some extent growing restive if they think that greater consideration is being shown towards one or another than has been extended to themselves. On that ground, which has been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, as well as on the grounds that I am not yet convinced that the time has come that the Commons should take this step, I do not feel able to accept the Amendment. I have been impressed and surprised by what has been so forcibly put I forward by hon. Members, and I will give my best consideration to what they have said. But I must honestly say that for the present I think it would not be advisable to take this step.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have no option but to press this matter to a Division. I should have thought that the experience of the Government in another Bill in which the same question was raised would have been some guide to them, and I did not anticipate for one moment that there would be the slightest hesitation in accepting the substance of this Amendment. Strange how we look at the same question from different points of view! When I put down this Amendment, and a former Amendment to the Compensation Bill, I was not thinking of the eldest child of the family. For this reason: In Scotland if the parents marry after the birth of the child the child is legitimate. See what the circumstances are in England and Wales. A certain number of children are born illegitimate, who, had they been born in Scotland, would have been legitimate. That in itself is an anomaly which ought to be got rid of. But I repeat I was not thinking of the eldest child of a married couple. I was thinking of the case of a child of a deserted mother. Let the President of the Board of Trade just try and consider the circumstances of a woman who gives birth to a child of this kind. My hon. Friend below me expressed it, "That the scoundrel responsible for the act deserts her." She brings up the child until it is 10 or 12 years of age. She has surely suffered enough for any sin of which she has been guilty in bringing the child into the world without in addition being penalised to the extent of being required out of her earnings, usually very scanty, to pay the funeral expenses. Surely, in
  296
  spite of what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) says, it would not let loose the flood-gates of immorality amongst the working classes to give this poor mother the right to insure herself against the funeral expenses of her child. Take a still more common case, the case of an illegitimate child brought up by its grandparents after the mother marries. The grandparents are fond of the child, and care for it. There is no reason in that case at least of the child's life being unduly shortened in order to get the funeral money, as the hon. Member for Burnley thought would be the case in some instances. In that case the grandparent is not to be allowed to insure the child for funeral money. Reverse the procedure. Take the case of such a child grown to manhood, and caring for his mother—as often happens. That child is not allowed to take out an insurance to cover the funeral expenses of his own mother—of his grandparents, if they brought him up. The whole thing is illogical, absurd, and indefensible. I am really surprised at this time of day that any Member of the Government should attempt to justify that state of the law. As to the argument that this Bill only deals with a portion of the friendly societies, that can easily be met in one of two ways: either by a general clause in the Bill, making this Amendment applicable to all kindred societies, or, if that be not possible, by a very short amending Bill of one small clause applying this Amendment, if put into this Bill, to other societies coming within the scope of this measure. There need be no difficulty on that point. We have received not only no assurance from the Government, but the impression that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade has left in my mind is one of no hope whatever of sympathetic consideration being given to the terms of this Amendment. I should have been quite prepared to have left it to come up on the Report stage of the Bill but for the statement we have just listened to. Under these circumstances, if there is no hope given to us of the acceptance of this Amendment at a later stage, I shall certainly press the matter to a Division.
  Question put, "That those words he there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 913.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Jenkins, J.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Joyce, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Steadman, W. C

  Cameron, Robert

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Summerbell, T.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Cullinan, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dumphreys, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Grady, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glover, Thomas

  Pointer, J.

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

  Hancock, J. G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hay, Hon. Claude

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Barnes.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowlands, J.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Paul, Herbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, Sir John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hoopor, A. G.

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Schwann, Sir C E. (Manchester)

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Sears, J. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Everett, R. Lacoy

  Morse, L. L.

  Falconer, J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "a" ["An order for the conversion of the society into a company"] to insert the word "mutual."
  This and subsequent Amendments in my name have for their object the enabling of a collecting club to develop itself into an insurance company by a vote of the members. I have, after very careful consideration and consultation with a great many persons affected in the matter, come to the conclusion that we should lay down the general principle of majority vote.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "may" ["and the Court may make such an order unless"], to insert the words, "on it being shown that in a ballot vote of the members of the society not less than fifty-five per cent, of the total membership is in favour of I he conversion."
  I do not propose to press this, in view of the Amendment the President of the Board of Trade has on the Paper lower

  299
  down, provided I clearly understand its meaning. If his Amendment be accepted, the Clause would then read that the court requires to be satisfied that 55 per cent, of the members voted in favour of the transfer. We entirely agree with that, but would the President give us some idea of how the evidence is to be obtained? That would rather meet the point.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We intend that there shall be a poll, and I am going to move later on in Sub-section (4), after the word "satisfied" ["the Court is satisfied"], to insert the words "on a poll being taken." That will make the matter quite clear.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: I think the words "the Court is satisfied" are rather a safer protection than relegating it to the company to take their own poll. I think it would be safer to leave it for the Court to be satisfied that 55 per cent. agree rather than leave it to the company to take a poll.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: By my proposal both cases are provided for. The Court must be satisfied and a poll must be taken.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4) to leave out the word "unless" ["and the Court may make such an order unless"], and to insert instead thereof the word "if."
  In same Sub-section, after the word "satisfied" ["the Court is satisfied that one-fourth"], to insert the words "on a poll being taken."
  In same Sub-section, to leave out the word "one-fourth" ["the Court is satisfied that one-fourth "], and to insert instead thereof the words "fifty-five per cent."
  In the same Sub-section, to leave out the word "object" ["object to the conversion"], and to insert instead thereof the words: "over sixteen years of age agree."
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words: "and the Court may award reasonable costs of opposition."
  300
  If the opposition is to have costs, why not the promoters? Why allow costs in one case and not in the other? Now that the whole method of procedure has been changed, it appears to me that these words are no longer necessary.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Those words were put in by a careful draftsman, and they were inserted to make it clear to the ordinary layman that, in the event of there being an opposition, it would be taken, and it was intended to make it clear that they might get reasonable costs. The Court, however, has power over the costs and can give them either to the opposition or to the promoters. Under these circumstances we accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
  (2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and ten.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "January," and to insert instead thereof the word "July."
  Amendment agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  NOTE 6.—The columns headed "Business out of the United Kingdom," in the case of companies having their head office in the United Kingdom, apply only to business secured through agencies out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Note 6, to leave out the word "agencies," and to insert instead thereof the words "branch offices."
  I move this Amendment at the request of various assurance offices. It is most inconvenient and unnecessary that these returns should be made in respect of business secured through agencies, and it would meet with all the requirements of the law if they were made in respect of business secured through branch offices out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very difficult on a moment's notice to say what will be the effect of this Amendment, but I will consider it before the Report stage.
  Mr. HAY: I am quite agreeable to the right lion. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: We think the word "agencies" rather too wide.
  Sir T. P. WHITTAKER: The object is to ascertain what business is done out of the United Kingdom, and whether it is done through agencies or branches, the return ought not to be limited in any way.
  Mr. HAY: There is no intention in moving this Amendment to do anything which would in any way disguise the amount of business done abroad.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY Mr. STUART-WORTLEY moved, after the word "Kingdom" ["through agencies out of the United Kingdom"], to insert the words, "in countries where the company is required to make a special deposit of funds for the security of policy holders in those countries."
  The object of the Amendment is to limit the requirements, in this particular Note to those cases where business is secured abroad in countries which require a special deposit, and I think that is the only rational or scientific classification. There are many companies which have a small amount of business secured through agencies abroad where it would hardly repay the trouble of making a return, and that is why I move this Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of providing for a revenue account of the business within and out of the United Kingdom is to obtain statistical information which I think can be given with very little trouble by the companies, and which will be of considerable value. The Amendment would entirely destroy the1 value of this provision. I know the point the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but I really do not think the Amendment would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  NOTE 1.—When part of the assets of the company are specifically deposited, under
  302
  local laws, in various places out of the United Kingdom, as security to holders of policies there issued, each such place and the amount compulsorily lodged therein much be specified in respect of each class of business, except that in the case of fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Note 1, to leave out the words "except that in the case of fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited."
  You have, by this Bill, imposed a very definite and binding obligation upon a life office as to the assets they have available for British policy-holders, and I submit it is not reasonable to say that companies transacting either fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business abroad should be exempt from this obligation. This becomes all the more necessary having regard to the fact that in many foreign countries the Government insist upon large deposits being made to satisfy the claims that may arise in those countries before British policy-holders can share in the assets of the company. This thing has now obtained such dimensions, particularly in countries where fire insurance is of a speculative character and where the risks are of the most hazardous nature, that policy-holders in the United Kingdom are being more or less deluded by the offices. The announcements in their publications, by which they attract business in the United Kingdom, run to the effect that millions upon millions of sovereigns are available to satisfy the claims of British policy holders, whereas, as a matter of fact, most of those funds are locked up abroad, and are, in a large measure, under the control of foreign Governments. The position is all the more serious from the fact that it is alleged that these disclosures, which I believe are of great importance, are not necessary, because contracts with respect to fire insurance are of short duration. But let me remind the Committee that there is a tendency more and more to take out long period policies of fire insurance. Hon. Gentlemen conversant with these matters will know that in many cases such policies are taken out for a period of seven years, and, therefore, it is a matter of immediate concern to every policy holder in this kingdom that he should be in a posi-

  303
  tion to know what are the commitments of his company abroad I do not wish to weary the Committee with figures. There are one or two cases, however, which might be mentioned. I will not give names, but I can cite the case of companies which have deposits abroad to the amount of two millions and a half sterling, and yet they advertise that these funds are available for home policy holders, whereas, as a matter of fact, foreign policy holders have a preferential claim upon them. I know, too, of an advertisement in which a company tells its American policy holders that it has a huge sum available for them, and at the same time it is representing to its British policy holders that the same funds are available for them. It is nevertheless an undeniable fact that a vast proportion of these funds are held abroad under the control of foreign Governments, and are so held in order to satisfy the claims in respect of policies issued on property in those countries, and must be so utilised before the British policy holders can obtain a single shilling. I feel that now the business of insurance is being brought under the control of the British Government policy holders should have full knowledge of what business their companies are doing, and that it is only reasonable to insist that fire, accident, and employer's liability business should be put into a category which will enable the insured to know exactly what security he has when he pays a premium to cover a risk. It must not be forgotten that on the American Continent there are possibilities of calamities involving enormous loss to the companies such as are not likely to occur in Europe, and therefore, from the point of view of the British policy holder, it is all the more necessary in view of the fact that these calamities may sweep away nearly the whole of the assets of insurance companies in this country, that the information to which I have referred should be made available for the policy holders. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment I hope he will be willing on the Report stage to bring up words which will enable its object to be attained.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the fact that in the case of life insurance companies the funds which are hypothecated abroad have to be disclosed, and the hon. Gentleman wishes, not unreasonable, to make fire insurance companies subject to a similar
  304
  proviso. I cannot accept his Amendment because it would greatly widen the scope of my Bill. I should not have got so far with it had I cast my net too widely. Be it remembered that life risks are of long duration and are actual, whereas fire risks are annual, or nearly always so, and are but occasional. We are invited to ask fire companies to disclose their hypothecated deposits abroad. But even if the deposit were hypothecated they could close the business at the end of the year and bring home the funds, whereas those that are not hypothecated are no security at all. Non-hypothecation of foreign deposits would present no barrier to the money being brought home and transferred over here for the benefit of the British policy holder. There are, therefore, perfectly good reasons for not meting out absolutely the same treatment to fire and life companies. I am perfectly prepared to justify on its merits the course I have adopted. I am quite willing to admit also that this information, which we believe would do no injury or harm in the case of life companies, might cause a great deal of harm in the case of fire companies, and certainly such a demand would be very deeply resented by them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is rather cynical. It shows that the public have been neglected for the sake of powerful interests which are able to exercise pressure in this House. [Mr. CHURCHILL: "No, no."] It may be true that the risks accepted by life companies are certain and inevitable, and extend over a long time. It is also true that the risks accepted by fire companies are annual and occasional, but in the case of foreign risks there are natural phenomena which I think deserve special consideration, and it seems to me one of the most extraordinary parts of the history and genesis of tins Bill that there should be this preferential treatment.
  Sir HENRY KING: I really am quite surprised to find this attack coming from this side of the House on the British fire offices, and I venture to think there is no class of company in the world which stands so high as they do. They have been through catastrophe after catastrophe in all parts of the earth, and have emerged from them without any detriment to themselves or their clients. My hon. Friend spoke of the catastrophes of Chicago and San Francisco, and there is no doubt that nothing gave greater credit to the British fire offices

  305
  than the way those claims were met, when other companies were unable to pay them. What is there, after all, in the deposit of the American companies? They have to pay up fifty thousand dollars, and they have to keep their premiums in the country during the period for which the risk is run. That is for accident and fire policies, and I cannot see what is to be gained by this attempt to cast a slur upon the British fire companies and to suggest that there is any of them which could not pay its obligations at this moment if called upon to do so. If my hon. Friends could mention one case of a single fire company which had defaulted in any part of the world there might be something to be said, but British fire companies are pre-eminent in every part of the world for the admirable and honourable way in which they have met their obligations, and that alone should, I think, protect them from the attacks of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. HAY: I am very much surprised at the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade, because in effect he told us that he had been overpowered by the insurance combine or trust. That is the long and the short of it. I am afraid my hon. Friend behind me has not given an absolutely unbiassed, I will not say inaccurate, version of the situation. I have been associated with fire, and other forms of insurance almost since my 'teens, and I would remind him that if these companies to which he has referred have been so punctual in their payments abroad, it has been because they have in the past made a handsome profit out of the home business, and, if they had not, they would have found it very difficult in the case of Chicago to have met their liabilities. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the engagements, being only for one year, differentiates them is not a real one which covers the whole case, because there is an increasing tendency, especially in the case of large companies, to accept these fire risks, not for one year, but over a term of years. I can only regret that so excellent an opportunity of helping the presentation of the best and clearest information to the British public has not been seized by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly as the reason why he has not taken it is that he has given way to the menaces of the insurance trust.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LOUGH Mr. LOUGH moved to leave out, "Note 2.—If desired, a separate balance-sheet in
  306
  the above form may be rendered in respect of any particular fund," and to insert instead thereof, "Note 2.—A balance-sheet in the above form must be rendered in respect of each separate fund for which separate investments are made."
  Amendment agreed to.
  NOTE 3.—The balance-sheet must state how the values of the Stock Exchange securities are arrived at, and, on any occasion when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made, a certificate must be appended, signed by the same persons as sign the balance-sheet, to the effect that in their belief the assets set forth in the balance-sheet are in the aggregate fully of the value stated therein, less any investment reserve fund taken into account.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL moved to leave out the words, "on any occasion when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made," and at the end of the Note to add, "In the case of a company transacting life assurance business or bond investment business, this certificate is to be given on the occasion only when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, at the end, to insert the words "Companies established outside the United Kingdom must state the amount of assets in the hands of any trustee in the United Kingdom for the, benefit of British policy holders."
  This Amendment would require that a life assurance company doing business in the United Kingdom, but established elsewhere, shall state the amount of assets hypothecated in the United Kingdom for the benefit of British policy holders. It is necessary to do this, not for the purpose of comparing the amount of hypothecated assets with the liabilities accepted pari passu by the same company towards policy holders abroad, but for the purpose of enabling the British policy holder to form some kind of idea how far it is likely that in pursuing his claim, when it arises, it will be open to him to sue the company in British courts, and he will not be driven by the want of assets in this country to sue the company in foreign courts. I think that information is really the least which ought to be required by British policy holders. His position if he has to sue in a foreign court is a very inferior position

  307
  to what it would be if he could sue in a British court. It is not really the amount of assets that we want to know, but the extent of his liability to be dragged abroad and go through all the expense and difficulty which would be involved in pursuing his claim in the foreign country.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The proposal briefly is that a company established outside the United Kingdom should state the amount of assets in the hands of any trustee in the United Kingdom. If that means that the assets axe hypothecated here to the British shareholders, that would be contrary to the principles with regard to insurance companies on which we have always gone, that the whole of the assets are available for the whole of the shareholders. This principle of hypothecation would be an entirely novel departure in that respect. I believe it is overwhelmingly the opinion of those concerned in these businesses that the principle of hypothecation would not be a good one to introduce. Certainly the Lords Committee, which this Bill is the result of, recommended very strongly against it after careful investigation. If it is not to be hypothecated it is clearly removable at will, and therefore it might be possible for a very specious and effective return to be presented by these companies which the hon. Gentleman wishes to expose, and a return which will be very effective fox the purpose of deluding the public, and shortly afterwards the assets might be removed. The last reason I have against it is that the return would be a misleading one. There is no real relation between the solvency of a company and the geographical distribution of its assets. It is true there is the inconvenience as to suing, but that the Bill makes no worse, and to some extent it is minimised, by the new deposits which are required. But there is no real relation at all between the country where the deposits are and the security of the policy holders.
  Mr. HAY: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is most disappointing. He has scarcely dealt with the thing in the manner we expected. My right hon. Friend made out a very strong case. Here you have foreign or colonial life companies who come here and do a business which must involve sooner or later a claim, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do nothing to protect the British
  308
  policy-holder. We had in recent years a foreign life company transacting business in this country and robbing a large number of our fellow countrymen of the results of their thrift. It is worth while that I should give a few figures to show the magnitude of the evil which we propose to deal with by the Amendment. The company to which I allude commenced business in the United Kingdom in 1886, and it ceased taking new business in 1905. It was allowed by the Board of Trade to withdraw its deposit of £20,000 in 1906, and in 1908 it was put in the Receiver's hands in the country in which it was originally established. The policy holders in the United Kingdom and elsewhere did not receive a shilling unless their interest was protected by a special deposit, and as a result of the deposits in Canada policy holders in Canada will receive 80 per cent, from that special deposit and may get another 10 per cent. If these deposits are so volatile if they come to this country, why is it that they form an adequate and substantial security for policy holders who insure their lives in Canada? Surely the time has come when we should take a leaf out of the book of our Colonies, if not of foreign nations. The right hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders at this state of things, and is not making use of the Bill as an instrument whereby we can provide safeguards. Not only that, but these foreign and Colonial companies have a direct preference shown them by the Government as against the home offices. They are not obliged to pay 1s. 2d. Income Tax which those who insure here have to pay in respect of their assets which the tax gatherer can get at. If you made these foreign companies show what business they did in this country and their assets in the United Kingdom, you would by that fact get into the tax-gatherer's net money which now escapes it. You would improve the public revenue, and put foreign and Colonial companies on a fair and equal basis with home offices. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain of the attitude which has been taken up in any quarter of the House regarding this Bill. We have only, to use his own words, to have a little gingering-up to make this Bill effective. I am disappointed that he has shown such a weak back. A little determination on his part would enable him to make the Bill an instrument of value to all who are interested in thrift in this country.
  Mr. CARLILE: I hope that intending insurers in the country will note the

  309
  observations of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the result will be to make them ascertain which companies are registered in this country, decline to insure in foreign undertakings, and confine themselves to British companies, where their insurances are likely to be protected
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  and the liabilities under policies duly honoured when the time comes.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 914.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Fell, Arthur

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Hay and Mr. Carlile.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Alien, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pointer, J.

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Berridge, T. H. D

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brigg, Sir John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bright, J. A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Shackleton, David James

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Ches e)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Summerbell, T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, William

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walters, John Tudor

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walton, Joseph

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Massie, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Falconer, J.

  Morse, L. L.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Ferens, T. R.

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

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Fourth Schedule agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  (A.)—Form Applicable to Life Assurance Business.
  STATEMENT of the LIFE ASSURANCE and ANNUITY Business of the on the 19, to be signed by the Actuary.
  (The answers should be numbered to accord with the numbers of the corresponding questions. Statements of reassurances corresponding to the statements in respect of assurances are to be given throughout.) Separate statements are to be furnished in the replies to all the headings under this Schedule for business at other than European rates. Separate statements are to be also furnished throughout in respect of ordinary and industrial business respectively.
  1. The published table or tables of premiums for assurances for the whole term of life and for endowment assurances which are in use at the date above mentioned.
  Mr. LOUGHmoved to omit paragraph 1 and to insert instead thereof, "The rates of premium charged by the company for the various kinds of assurance transacted by it, with a statement of any exceptions allowed to such rates and of any special terms granted or allowances made to particular classes or groups of persons, and any discounts or rebates allowed to classes or individuals, and an explanation of the, manner in which such special terms, allowances, discounts, and rebates are dealt with in the revenue account and valuation statements.
  "A statement under this head is to be made by every company within six months from the commencement of this Act and on every occasion when a change is made in the rates or terms of assurance."
  The Clause, which I propose to amend, deals with the published tables of premiums of insurance which the insurance companies issue. My objection to these published tables is that in many cases they are not true tables. Very different rates are charged by some companies from those actually published in their lists. I therefore put down this Amendment that the companies should disclose their true charges, and if they give any large system of rebates to individuals or to classes that they should disclose these rebates, so that the published tables may be a true statement. There are many flagrant examples in the tables of many companies at the
  312
  present time. There is, for instance, one with which my right hon. Friend is well acquainted, whereby Civil servants get a discount of 15 per cent, off the tables published by very well-known companies. That practice amounts to this, that while one individual has got to pay £100 for certain benefits, a second individual has only to pay £85. In these mutual companies the man who pays £100 is not only paying for a certain amount on death, but for a certain share of the profits of the company, and the advantage which the other individual gets over him is in the nature of a secret commission, a matter to which this House has turned a very strict eye in recent years. My right hon. Friend says, I believe, that this is a matter of business, and that we ought to allow the companies to make bargains with each individual. But this is a special business regulated by Parliament. We provide in this Schedule for the publication of the table of premiums, and I demand that it should be a true table. This question has made good progress both in this and in other countries in recent years. We have had an Act to prevent secret commissions being paid, and we have had a Companies Amendment Act, passed in 1907 or 1908, under which all payments of commission or allowances from the regular charges of the company which are not disclosed in the prospectus are made illegal.
  This Amendment does not ask that this system of commissions should be prohibited. It only asks that it should be disclosed, so that every person who goes into a company at one price should know that there is a possibility of individuals and, perhaps, whole classes going in at another price. I think that the Amendment is a most moderate one. It is strictly limited to a disclosure and not to a prohibition of these practices. We do not often look for guidance in a matter of this kind to America. Yet in America, within the last year or two, a law has been passed that the tables actually published must be adhered to by all the societies, and it has been made a misdeameanour to publish false tables, as many of the companies do in this country. In Canada they are going to adopt a similar law. I do think it is time that the House of Commons should move in this matter. I do not think it is right to say that the insurance companies must all agree among themselves before you pass a provision of this kind into law. There is a large consensus of feeling among the insurance companies that some

  313
  step of this kind should be taken. We cannot expect unanimity, because some of these companies make large profits by giving these special allowances.
  It is for an independent authority like the House of Commons to take action, and I do think that the matter is one that ought now to be considered. I have put down a most moderate Amendment, but if it should not be accepted, I have a second barrel in the shape of another Amendment couched in such moderate terms that I am almost ashamed of it. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give my proposal consideration. I do not think it unfair that agents should have commission. Agents do their work, and they have a right to be paid for it; but I do object to secret arrangements whereby one individual, or a class or group of men, may share a benefit by paying a much smaller sum than the published tables show, and which most people pay. I am not asking that this practice should be made illegal, but that it should be disclosed, and if my right hon. Friend will not accept the first Amendment, then I would ask him to consider the second, which would apply only to future business, and would not apply to re-insurances. The second Amendment is couched in the most moderate way, and under all the circumstances I feel that the spirit of rectitude which has guided my right hon. Friend through the shoals and difficulties of the Bill will lead him to see whether what I ask is not right. If there should be anything wrong in the words of my Amendment, I hope he will promise to accept their spirit, and consider the matter with a view to bringing up a form of words on the Report stage.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has certainly pressed his views on this occasion in a most charming and caressive manner. I think there is a great deal in what my right hon. Friend says; I do not deny that at all; but I would ask the House to remember that I have tried as far as possible to restrict the number of questions to be asked, and to deal with the majority of interests affected. I have asked a certain number of very important questions, and I have kept their number to the minimum in order to cause the least inconvenience possible. There is a great division of opinon among the assurance companies upon this question. Some of the Scottish companies, whose position my right hon. Friend has expounded with great force, take a view strongly support-
  314
  ing that which he has put forward. On the other hand there is a great opposition, and I do not feel that I should have been considering the general interests of this very important legislation if I had attempted to deal with this question without considering that opposition. It is rather a matter for the companies to deal with themselves. It is a legitimate way of carrying on business, and I think it is a subject for them to deal with. I think there is an indication of a movement in public opinion which possibly would render legislation unnecessary. If I could meet my hon. Friend in any way, and if I thought I could do so without prejudice to the view I have expressed, 1 should be glad to do so, but in the meantime I will continue to carefully consider the matter until the Report stage.
  Mr. HAY: In this matter the companies cannot do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, because the Board of Trade are the only authority that can effectively deal with this question. The suggestion that the companies should be left to fight the matter out among themselves is not practicable, because no agreement can be come to among them, as was done in the case of secret commissions in other branches of business in this country. It is because of that very fact that the Board of Trade should lay down a rule to which the companies would be bound to conform. Anyone acquainted with assurance business knows that in respect of life assurance this question goes to the very root of the value of the returns presented to the Board of Trade by life offices. If a reader of them sees that an insurer pays 3 per cent, while as a matter of fact the company are only receiving a premium of 1 per cent., then these returns are absolutely illusory and become an absolute snare to the public. The payment of commission to an agent who introduces a number of policies is a payment made in respect of a clear and definite part of an agent's business But to give an agent's commission to a man who insures his own life and introduces no other business is to give a rebate which destroys the value of these Board of Trade Returns. Not only that, but the action of insurance brokers and insurance agents is of great value not merely to the companies, but to the public. They are thoroughly acquainted with all the intricacies of insurance, and they are able to give reliable advice to the assurers as to the companies whose arrangements afford the best security or the best type of insurance.

  315
  Insurance is a business which requires technical knowledge, and to all intents and purposes is a matter which can only be dealt with by experts. That being so, I think those agents ought to be protected against this illicit form of giving rebates, which certainly, it seems to me, makes the returns submitted to the Board of Trade such as do not give that true idea of the position of a company which should be afforded by the fact of the Department having accepted them.
  I hope that the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade referred to his intention to consider this will develop into a serious wish and that he will listen to the voice of reason in this matter, and will endeavour to find words which will give him authority to impose upon the companies the obligation, if they give any rebates, to show such rebate clearly in their papers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington alluded to the fact that assurances effected at special rates and rebates do not appear on the face of the policy. I venture earnestly to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to remember what his right hon. Friend said. If you allow this rebate to certain classes, say a group of Civil servants, or of bank clerks, you are really denying and depriving other persons of the assets which they are entitled to receive, and of the skilful management of the company in which they are assured. In this connection I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be guided solely by what the assurance companies think, but to think also of the general interests of the policy holders. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. LOUGH: I feel that I must rest satisfied with the very small amount of encouragement that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not observe much enthusiasm in the general body of the House, and, seeing that I do not get very much promise of support, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, in (A), at the end of paragraph 10, "The average rate of interest yielded by the assets, whether invested or uninvested, constituting the life assurance fund of the company, calculated upon the mean fund of
  316
  each year during the period since the last investigation, without deduction of income tax," to insert the words, "It must be stated whether or not the mean fund upon which the average rate of interest is calculated includes reversionary investments."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
  Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
  REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY UNDERWRITERS BEING MEMBERS OF LLOYD'S OR OF ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION OF UNDERWRITERS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRADE.

    (B)—As Respects Fire and Accident Insurance Business.
    1 Except as hereinafter provided, every underwriter shall comply with the following requirements:—
    (a) He shall deposit and keep deposited in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct a sum of two thousand pounds.
    Amendment made: After "pounds" to insert the words "in respect of each class of business."
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    2. An underwriter who carries on fire insurance or accident insurance business, may, in lieu of complying with the above requirements, elect to comply with the under-mentioned conditions:—

    (a) All premiums by or on behalf of the underwriter in respect of fire and accident insurance business carried on by him either alone or in conjunction with any other non-marine insurance business for which special requirements are not laid down in this Schedule shall be placed in a trust fund in accordance with the provisions of a trust deed approved by the Board of Trade:

    (b) He shall also furnish security to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade (or, if the Board so direct, to the satisfaction of the committee of the association), which shall be available solely to meet claims under policies issued by him in connection with such business.

    Amendment made: In paragraph (b) to leave out the words "such business," and to insert instead thereof the words "fire

    317
    and accident business and any other non-marine business carried on by him for which special requirements are not laid down in this Schedule."
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 9 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.—(33) 4 EDW., c. 24: THE WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT, 1904.
    Question proposed, "That this Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HAY: I desire to move an Amendment as a matter of form, and with a view to eliciting some information about wireless telegraphy. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General to give us some information about the agreement under this Act which he announced on 30th September, and the terms on which he is taking over certain stations of the Marconi Company. The impression has been gaining ground that the country has gained a good deal over that transaction. I do not wish in any way to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has not done what is advantageous to the public service, but I think, nevertheless, upon such information as I have been able to acquire, or such study as I have been able to give to the matter, that the advantages to the country are not half so great or——
    The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman seeks to move the omission of certain words in this Schedule? He is now talking, I understand, about a matter of administration that does not arise.
    Mr. HAY: I was just explaining the point which I was going to submit. What I desire to do is not to move that this Act be not renewed, because I hold that
    318
    the business which the right hon. Gentleman has transacted under the Act has produced a situation which ought to lead him to bring in another measure. If that is not in order, I would submit this: Has the right hon. Gentleman under this Act the power to do what he has done? Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act he spent £15,000 in acquiring certain rights from this company, and I do not believe that what he has bought for the £15,000 is worth 2d. He has merely got control of a number of minor patents, but I understand he has not got control or bought one of the most successful of the Marconi systems. Then these companies appear to have surrendered their coast stations and the licences for these coast stations, but they have retained the long-distance stations at Poldhu and Clifden, which are connected to the shores of this country and of America. Lloyds surrendered their stations and plant, and received the value of the plant. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether that plant is of any substantial value, and is the consideration the Government received adequate for what they gave for it? The right hon. Gentleman rather plumed himself upon the notion that he had done a valuable thing for the country when he prevented a monopoly growing up. I am not quite sure that he has done so. If you leave the most valuable portion of the business in the hands of the company, namely, the long-distance stations, you leave them with a valuable monopoly, although you get hold of the coast stations which may be a monopoly, but which are of no real commercial value. Has the right hon. Gentleman got any nearer to getting hold of these long-distance stations? Have the arrangements he has made given him any leverage or option to acquire these highly valuable stations?——
    The CHAIRMAN: That purely is a question of the administration of the Act. The hon. Member is entitled to say that certain things are undesirable because the result is unsatisfactory, but he is not entitled to deal with the administration of the Act.
    Mr. HAY: I do not wish to detain the House, or to transgress your ruling, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that he has once or twice informed the House that it would be necessary for him to introduce a measure dealing with wireless telegraphy which would give him larger powers. Not only that, but there is also the Radio-telegraph

    319
    Convention, and I should have thought he would have taken the opportunity this Session of dealing with these matters, and not leaving things in, I will not say a state of muddle, but in the state of uncertainty and indefiniteness in which we find them now. I believe this agreement may be of some value, but he has paid too much for little and left the valuable monopoly untouched. I do not believe it is of the great value the right hon. Gentleman thinks, and I certainly hope in the reply which he will give he will tell us it is his intention to bring in a measure which will give him greater authority and which will bring the legislation of this country thoroughly abreast of the situation created by the International Radiotelegraph Convention. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also inform us which countries are standing out of the Convention.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The hon. Member has asked me a question in regard to the extension of this Act, and why it has been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He has also asked me a question with regard to the purchase of the Marconi and Lloyds licences. The only reason why we have put this measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is that, so far, we have had no reason to alter the Act. It has carried out all the objects we had in view, and there has been no reason for making any change. It is highly probable that in view of the Railway and Telegraphic Convention, and in view of the purchase of the Marconi and Lloyds stations by the Government, we may have to alter the Act, and when that time arrives, whoever, may be my successor, will certainly have to introduce a more comprehensive measure to deal with the situation. Up to the present moment there has been no reason whatever for altering the Act, and it is simpler for the Government, instead of renewing it for a number of years, to put it amongst the measures in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the purchase of the Marconi stations is likely to lead to a monopoly. On the contrary the purchase is likely to prevent a monopoly in wireless telegraphy, and it is an advantage from the point of view of the Admiralty. The Admiralty are anxious that these stations should be in the hands of the Government, and I have
    320
    always said, both in this House and elsewhere, that it would be a mistake to allow a monopoly in wireless telegraphy to grow up. The hon. Member has objected to the terms of purchase. Does he recollect what occurred in the case of the telegraph and the telephone companies? In the former case about £11,000,000 were paid, and in the case of the telephones we have not yet come to arbitration, but it will probably amount to some millions. I think by purchasing for £15,000 we have not made a bad bargain at all. We have obtained all the wireless coast and ship stations both from Lloyd's and the Marconi Company, we have obtained the use of all the Marconi patents for 15 years, and, what is more, we have obtained a free hand to deal with these various licences by the best method from a strategic and commercial point of view. In my opinion the bargain we have made is a very satisfactory one. The hon. Member says that we have left out the long distance stations, and that is perfectly true. That question, however, does not come within the purview of the Post Office in the same way as the coastal and ship stations. We do not think the time has arrived for the purchase of the long distance stations, for the reason that while the ship-to-shore stations have a commercial value and are doing considerable commercial work the long distance stations, although successful, are not yet upon a commercial basis, and in no sense can a monopoly grow up in regard to them, because we are at liberty to start such stations ourselves. Therefore the question of monopoly does not really arise. I think it a great advantage that the Post Office should have possession of this new feature in our electrical communications, which, in my opinion, is going to have very great extensions in the next few years. It is a great advantage that we should have it at this early stage, and that, as I think, we should be able at a very cheap rate indeed to purchase these various licences and have full control of it. I do not think the Committee will think that in paying £15,000 for the land and the stations, the machinery, the licences, and the use of the patents we have given an extravagant sum. On the other hand, I consider we have made a very good bargain. I hope, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will be satisfied that so far as the Post Office is concerned we have made a very good business bargain with these companies.
    Mr. HAY: In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, may I ask whether it is true that the Marconi Company have refused to interchange messages with other vessels to prevent loss of life and property an. cases of disaster at sea?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think the hon Member is misinformed. It is exactly the opposite. The Marconi Company, I think very foolishly, objected very much to the Radio-Telegraph Convention and refused at that time to inter-communicate with other ships, but I am glad to say they have been brought to a better frame of mind since the Convention was passed, and they have agreed voluntarily—though if they had not agreed I should probably have had some opportunity of enforcing them—to give communication from their stations to Others under the Convention. Therefore, so far as they are now left in possession of stations, they are really carrying on their business under the Radio-Telegraph Convention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I desire to ask why the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 and the corresponding one of the same year are only renewed for nine months, while every other Bill in the Schedule is renewed for a year.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): The reason is a somewhat simple one. It is solely with a view to securing uniformity an regard to the period at which all these Bills terminate and are to be renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. All these Bills will now be uniform and end at the end of the year. The contributions to the Local Authorities will not be prejudiced in any way.
    Mr. CARLILE: The explanation is scarcely satisfactory. Of course, the Treasury cannot make grants without an Act of Parliament, and those who have benefited under these Acts hitherto will only have the three-fourths of the security they have had previously.
    Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Three-quarters for the first year and subsequently the usual amount for twelve months every time the Bill is renewed.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of his occupying the same position in the next Parliament, he will give effect to his pledge in past years that something should be done to evolve order out of chaos in
    322
    regard to these statutes. I have raised this question year after year, and on some occasions I have received a large measure of support. I remember that one night we debated these statutes for 27 hours. I do not think there is much chance of our doing so to-night, seeing that at this moment there is only one Unionist in the House. But those who cordially and most heartily supported my protest against this Bill on previous occasions have since got jobs and are sitting on the Government Benches. Anybody who looks at the Division Lists in previous years will find them adorned with such names as Churchill, Runciman, Pease, and Evans, the names of men who took an active and energetic part with me and made eloquent speeches in regard to the absurd manner in which this Bill is brought forward, but who now are not making the slightest effort to deal with this state of things. Under this Bill we re-enact 40 Bills. I got a register of the laws we are dealing with in connection with this Bill and I find that we are also concerned with 65 temporary laws. I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that no man sitting here to-night has the remotest idea of what laws we are going to pass in this Bill. There is, for instance, the Textile Manufactures (Ireland) Act, which is absolutely obsolete, for it prohibits manufacturers in Ireland from doing what every one of them is doing at the present time. Then there is the Ordnance Survey Act, 1841, which was passed to authorise a survey of Great Britain and Berwick-on-Tweed. Where is Berwick-on-Tweed if not in Great Britain? Can the Attorney-General tell me why it is called Great Britain and Berwick-on-Tweed? In any case that Bill was passed seventy years ago, and surely now the survey has been concluded. Then we have the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and with it a reference to 18 other Corrupt Practices Acts. What is the good of them? Corrupt practices still go on. I submit that these Acts ought to be consolidated.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): If the hon. Member objects to the inclusion of these Acts, he should have moved Amendments at the proper time. He cannot go through the whole Schedule and deal with them in detail now.
    Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I do not propose to deal with them in detail; I want to prove my contention that this is an archaic and absolutely impossible method of legislation. I am only referring to these

    323
    measures cursorily. There is the Act with regard to Locomotives on Turnpike Roads. I do not know where the turnpike loads are now to be found. In view of the obsolete character of many of these Acts I think that some thing really ought to be done to put this on a workmanlike basis. This House suffers from a surfeit of lawyers, good, bad, and indifferent. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury ask some half-dozen of them to sit down and separate the wheat from the chaff, to tell us which are good Bills and should be made permanent, and which are obsolete and should be dropped out of this Act altogether? Imagine the Ballot Act being treated as a temporary law, and our being asked solemnly year after year to enact that elections shall be conducted by ballot! I think the case for some sort of inquiry is overwhelming, and I would ask the Patronage Secretary to give some definite promise that if he holds his present position in the next Parliament—and I hope he may—he will take this matter.seriously into consideration with a view to producing a more workmanlike Bill than the present one.
    Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: In regard to next year, I am very sanguine that I shall be sitting on this side of the House. All I can say in reference to this matter as to the promises I have given in the past is that I conveyed to the hon. Member that I would see whether investigation could be made into the various Acts included in the Schedules of this Bill, but it was not worth hon. Members' time to be appointed on a Committee. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he is here next Session or in the next Parliament he should address a question to the Prime Minister, who will no doubt take into consideration any representations made on this subject.
    First Schedule, Second Schedule, and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Title of Officers, Servants, etc., to Superannuation Allowances, and Scale Thereof.)
  Subject to the provisions of this Act—
  (1) Any established officer or servant of
  324
  the first class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than fifteen years, and is not less than fifty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance, the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:
  Lords Amendment: After the word "life" ["to receive during life"], to insert the words "or incapacity."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the House that this and a very large number of the Amendments that follow are privileged Amendments, because they propose an additional gratuity for injuries, and some of them contain provisions for reckoning the amount of service, and impose further conditions in reference to pensions. About one-third of them are privileged Amendments.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: These Amendments were made, I take it, in furtherance of the objects of the Bill, but do not materially affect its character. They supply machinery which was, perhaps, to some extent, lacking in the form of the Bill as it left this House, and I move that the House, in accordance with numerous precedents, do not insist on its privilege in this case.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will make an entry in the JOURNAL.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

OATHS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POLICE BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT.—Motion made and question, "That the House do now adjourn" [Mr. Joseph Pease], put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minute? after Eleven o'clock

  Shipbuilding (United Kingdom, United States, France, and Germany).
  Shipbuilding (United Kingdom, United States, France, and Germany).
  Railway Couplings.
  Railway Couplings.
  Railway Rates.
  Railway Rates.
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
  Director of Irish Produce Shows.
  Director of Irish Produce Shows.
  Old Age Pension Claim, East Donegal.
  Old Age Pension Claim, East Donegal.
  Forbes Estate, Ray, West Donegal.
  Forbes Estate, Ray, West Donegal.
  M'Cann Estate, County Dublin.
  M'Cann Estate, County Dublin.
  Deputy-Lieutenants (Ireland).
  Deputy-Lieutenants (Ireland).
  King versus John L. Tease (Trial at Donegal Assizes).
  King versus John L. Tease (Trial at Donegal Assizes).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Secretary to Post Office (Sir Matthew Nathan's Salary).
  Secretary to Post Office (Sir Matthew Nathan's Salary).
  Finance Bill (Charges on Property Return).
  Finance Bill (Charges on Property Return).
  Trunk Telephones (Mullingar, Longford and Cavan).
  Trunk Telephones (Mullingar, Longford and Cavan).
  House of Commons Kitchen Committee.
  House of Commons Kitchen Committee.
  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Peruvian Amazon Company.
FINANCE BILL.
Petitions against;—of the Wholesale Wine and Spirit Trade Association of Edinburgh and Leith;—Inhabitants of Kenilworth—Southam;—Persons signing (5);—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PEERS AND THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War how many members of the House of Lords have given their services to the Territorial Force as Presidents, Chairmen, or in other capacities, and to move for a Return of the names of such Peers.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): The number of members of your Lordships' House who are serving on County Associations in various capacities, which I think is the information the noble Earl requires, is 115, made up as follows: Dukes, fifteen; Marquesses, nine; Earls, forty-four; Viscounts, nine; Bishop, one; Barons, thirty-seven.

FINANCE BILL.
Debate on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2a resumed (according to order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the very interesting speech which the noble Earl the Lord Steward delivered late last evening, he began with an observation which appeared to me rather to disparage the grave constitutional issue which your Lordships' House has now to consider, and he devoted his attention, as he said, rather to the dry facts of the Budget. My Lords, he went into great detail, but I am sorry to say that I do not think that all his facts are facts. Undoubtedly he thought they were facts, and undoubtedly they had been supplied by those painstaking gentlemen who help Ministers in distress with all sorts of information; but I think those of your Lordships, of which there are a good many present, who listened to the noble Lord are of opinion that his facts
926
required considerable correction. He seemed to think, for example, that the increment of value, of which he quoted instances drawn from various great urban communities in this country, bore no share in contributing to the taxation of the country. Of course, my Lords, if he had thought for a moment, he would have remembered that every pound which is added in the City of London, for example, to the value of land there, bears the burden of its increased rateable value to the rates, bears the burden of increased Income Tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, when the owner of it comes to die, bears the heavy burden of the Death Duties which his successor has to pay. I was not surprised, my Lords, as the noble Lord took, may I say, so imaginary a view of the facts of the case in that particular, that when he came to discuss the burden of taxation imposed by the Bill before your Lordships' House, he came to the conclusion that the increased burden was after all of a very moderate kind, not worthy of the amount of attention and trouble which your Lordships' House is giving to it on the present occasion.
I tried to make a mental calculation of the noble Lord's figures as he described them. I think he told us, for example, that agricultural land bore no increased taxation, and yet, when he began to give us an illustration and spoke of an estate which he knew intimately—an estate perhaps, I shall not be far wrong in thinking is to be found in Worcestershire, then the noble Earl, as far as I could calculate his figures, found that the increase of taxation would be thirty per cent. Well, my Lords, if you say that there is to be no taxation of agricultural land, and when the noble Lord who advances that contention instances agricultural property which he knows well, and we discover that the increase of taxation is thirty per cent. why then I think we have some standard upon which to calculate the accuracy of the noble Lord's conclusions. So he went on through realms of figures which he dealt with with his customary clearness and lucidity, and with regard to which, as far as I could make out, the increase of taxation varied between fifty and 100 per cent. This was the small increase, the insignificant increase, the Budget inflicts, which apparently the noble Earl hardly thought was worthy of the attention of your Lordships' House.

927
One other observation of the noble Earl attracted my attention. He seems to be persuaded that you can estimate the capacity of a man to bear the burden of taxation by the amount of his income. He said that a man who had £4,000 a year was not so rich as a man who had £5,000 a year, and he had, therefore, a shrewd suspicion that the man who had £5,000 a year could bear greater taxation than the man with £4,000 a year. That may be the shrewd suspicion of the noble Earl, but let me tell him that in numberless cases it is wholly inaccurate, as the noble Earl will himself recognise, if he will be good enough to follow me for a moment. A man with £5,000 a year might be a man with a large family. The man with £4,000 might be a bachelor. Which of the two is able to bear the greater burden of taxation? It is perfectly evident that the amount of a man's income is the most rough and ready test of the amount of taxation which he can bear to pay. But, my Lords, the case does not rest there. One man with £100,000 a year may live upon £2,000 a year and the remainder of his income may be invested in various works of public importance and utility. He may perhaps have lent it to the country to meet the charges for the administration of the country, or he may have put it into industrial enterprises and so ministered to the wealth and prosperity of the country. That is one way. Another man with £10,000 a year, a tenth part of the income of the first man I have instanced, may spend the whole £10,000 upon his own personal enjoyment and upon luxuries. Are we to say that the man who devotes nearly the whole of his income to public work or to industrial enterprise is a subject for greater taxation necessarily than the man of £10,000 a year who spends it all upon himself?
It is manifest, my Lords, that this theory of what is called taxing a man's superfluities and of calculating his superfluities upon the gross amount of his income is about the most deceptive criterion which we can adopt. If you want to tax a rich man because you think he has a better time than a poor man, you are quite right. I agree with you. By all means let us tax wealth; but do not let us try to arrive at the comparative amount of a man's wealth by his income. What you ought to tax is not a man's income, but rather his expenditure. Let all these intelligent
928
painstaking men on the Treasury Bench devote their ingenuity to discovering how in reality they can best tax a man's luxuries and that which he spends on himself, and they will have a far sounder criterion of taxation than the heavy increasing burdens which they heap upon the Income Tax and which they now offer for your Lordships' acceptance. Now, my Lords, whatever opinion we may have upon this heavy burden of Income Tax, and this heavy burden of Death Duties which the present Budget seeks to heap upon the taxpayers of this country, at any rate I think the great majority of your Lordships will agree that a man's wealth can certainly not be calculated by the particular investment in which he has placed his money, and that a man who has invested his money in land ought not to be taxed heavier than a man who has invested his money in anything else. That, my Lords, is of course the portion of the finance of the Budget which has received the greatest attention in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, and it is not a matter to be treated as lightly as the noble Earl treated it last night.
This particularising of a certain class of wealth has undoubtedly produced in the public mind a feeling of profound unrest, of profound distrust. I noticed that in his speech yesterday the Secretary for Scotland tried to minimise the effect which the present proposals have had upon those who are best qualified to judge of the money market of this country and of the feeling of the City of London. He had been furnished with a series of figures like the Lord Steward—I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord quite understood his own figures—but I say this with great respect to him, that he might have saved himself the trouble of describing them to your Lordships' House, because we did not want second-hand evidence on the point at all. We had got first-hand evidence. We had heard the speech already of one of the greatest authorities in the City of London. My noble friend who sits behind me, Lord Revelstoke, made a speech which created a profound impression upon your Lordships' House. He did not have to go to somebody's private secretary in order to get up his figures. He lives in the City of London; he knows every feature of the money market; and upon his great responsibility he stated to your Lordships' House what impression

929
the Budget had made upon the City of London.
I have ventured to make these observations upon the financial effect of the Budget, because I should be sorry if it should appear even that so humble a member of this Bench as myself approved of the Government proposals. But that is not the most important issue which your Lordships have to try in the present debate. What is that issue? That issue, my Lords, is this, whether or not your Lordships' House has the right and whether or not your Lordships' House has the duty to assent to the Motion of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and to decline to give your consent to the Finance Bill of the year. Now the noble Earl the Lord Steward did not deal with this issue last night; at least, I think he did not. If I mis-represent him, he shall correct me. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did deal with it. Was it only a false impression on my part—but I thought he dealt with it with some hesitation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then that was a mistake. But the noble and learned Lord left a good deal out. For instance, there were my noble friend's quotations from two leaders of your Lordships' House, two Liberal leaders, my Lords There was the quotation from ! Lord Spencer, and there was the quotation from Lord Ripon, both asserting the rights of your Lordships' House in this matter. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack made no reference to either one or the other. He did not deny that, in the mouths of the two most respected members of the great Party opposite, the lights of the House of Lords had been asserted. Did he differ from them? My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for us to go back even so far as the statement of Lord Spencer or the statement of Lord Ripon. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has in his mind the debate upon the Scottish Valuation Bill this time last year?
The noble and learned Lord delivered a very important speech upon the Second Reading of that Bill. It was full of that sweet reasonableness with which we are so familiar from the noble and learned Lord. He was most anxious that your Lordships' House should pass the Second Reading of
930
that Bill, and he used the argument, familiar in his mouth, that after all the Scottish Valuation Bill did not amount to very much, that it was only the machinery of valuation, and that there could be no harm in providing that machinery. "No," said the noble and learned Lord, "the important matter will come later." My Lords, the important matter the noble and learned Lord argued was not the machinery of valuation, but the Rating Bill which would follow on that machinery of valuation, and he proceeded to try and reassure my noble friends sitting on this side of the House that they were perfectly safe in passing the Valuation Bill, because there was the Rating Bill in the future still to be considered. What words did the noble and learned Lord use, speaking on March 25 of last year? This is how he dealt with it. He was aware that in some quarters of the House, Liberal quarters, I suppose, difficulties might be suggested when we reached the Rating Bill, if we ever did. The noble and learned Lord speaking of that Bill said this, "It is a Money Bill, we are told"—the Rating Bill. Your Lordships will mark those words. "Well, if a Money Bill is brought forward, this House has always the power to throw it out." In order that I may show your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord was treating this subject generally, and that he was not confining his attention to a particular class of Money Bills, I will read the words which immediately follow. The noble and learned Lord was quite aware of the familiar distinction which is made between rejecting and amending Money Bills, and the fact that he recalled it in his observations shows that he was dealing with the subject generally. He said: "It is the question of amending Money Bills; that is a question of privilege. But as to the question of throwing out Money Bills, your Lordships have the most ample powers."
That was the view of the noble and learned Lord in March, 1908. I will leave the noble and learned Lord to explain the change which has taken place in his opinions since the time when he was so anxious that your Lordships should pass the Valuation Bill until this moment when he is so anxious that your Lordships should not reject the Finance Bill. Now, this Scottish Valuation Bill is a Bill of the greatest importance in this controversy, because it is a Bill which your Lordships dealt with in the ordinary manner which you are accustomed to apply to any legislative measure.

931
It is a Bill which your Lordships claimed the right to reject if you pleased; which you did not in fact reject, but which you did amend, and your right to amend no one called in question. Further, it was a Bill of the greatest importance. The principle of it was not, in truth, confined to Scotland. The noble Earl the Leader of the House told us in the debate that if it were passed, it would, of course, afterwards be made to apply to England. It contained within itself very important ulterior results. For example, it was defended by members of the Government on the ground that it was important as leading up to legislation which should force unwilling sellers to part with their land, and I think at the time also it was defended by members of the Government upon the ground that it afforded a ready and reliable criterion for compensation when land was purchased by the State compulsorily.
All those ulterior consequences were contained in that Bill. It was, in fact, the forerunner of a complete series of Acts of Parliament of the most important and intricate character. These qualities in the Scottish Valuation Bill of last year are, of course, not confined to that particular Valuation Bill, but are to be found equally strongly in the Valuation Clauses of the Finance Bill which is at present under discussion. Those principles—the principle, that is to say, of universal valuation, the principle which that is intended to lead up to of compelling an unwilling seller to part with his land; the further principle which it is intended to lead up to, namely the affording of a proper criterion for the payment of the State in the case of compulsory purchase—all those consequences and principles have been reaffirmed by members of the Government as being contained in the Valuation Clauses of the Finance Bill which is now under discussion. Then the noble Earl the Lord Steward quoted last night the same passage from the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing as had been quoted by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack in the same speech to which I have already referred on the Second Reading of the Scottish Valuation Bill. That passage in the Report pointed out that one of the effects of the taxation of capital value would be to force unwilling sellers to part with their land.
Those subjects which the Scottish Valuation Bill contained, and which in that case
932
we were allowed to deal with, are contained in quite as great a measure in the present Bill with which we are not allowed to deal. How can that possibly be defended? How can any member of your Lordships' House—I do not care in what quarter of the House he sits—rise in his place and maintain that it is perfectly legitimate for your Lordships' House to deal with all these intricate principles, and with the clauses which are intended to carry them out, in the Scottish Valuation Bill of last year, and that your Lordships are absolutely precluded from having any say whatever to exactly the same proposals, only rather wider, which are contained in the Finance Bill of the present year? The thing is not arguable at all, my Lords. It is quite manifest, once it is admitted, as it was last year by the Government, that the Valuation Bill was an ordinary Bill capable of being discussed on the First and Second Readings, in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading in your Lordships' House, that we are bound, if there is any logic and consistency left in public life, to apply the same conclusions to the Bill which is at present under discussion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to offer the explanation for which he was good enough to ask in somewhat severe terms? When I addressed the House on Monday night, the House will bear me witness that I drew the most pointed distinction between Money Bills which were mixed up with other matters, or which were isolated and separate Bills by themselves on the one hand, and Money Bills which contained the Supply for the year on the other hand. My statement on Monday night was limited wholly to the Money Bills which dealt with the Supply for the year. The noble Lord may think I am right, or he may think I am wrong, but he has no right to suggest something more than inconsistency in what I said. Further than that, I adhere to every word I said with regard to the Scottish Valuation Bill last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I never suggested, as the noble and learned Lord seems to think, that there was any charge in my mouth against him other than inconsistency. I am perfectly well aware that the noble and learned Lord, and it is almost impertinence for me to say so, enjoys a loftiness and integrity of character which no other member of your Lordships' House surpasses. On the contrary,

933
It is because of the noble and learned Lord's high character and his great reputation in your Lordships' House, that I felt it to be my duty to correct the impression which I think the noble and learned Lord's speech left upon us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I of course most heartily accept the noble Marquess's explanation in the spirit in which he offers it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord's observations on the Second Reading of the Scottish Valuation Bill in March of last year were of a perfectly general character, because I have quoted his words accurately; and I think, in the discussions of that year, unless I am very much mistaken, noble Lords opposite were at pains to prove that in respect to the privileges of the House of Commons there was no distinction between one kind of Finance Bill and another. And I remember very well, in the discussion on the Amendments to the Old Age Pensions Bill, that an old Resolution of a corrupt Parliament of Charles II was trotted out by noble Lords opposite in order to show that we had no right to amend that Bill. This distinction, let me assure the noble and learned Lord, between the Finance Bill of the year and other Money Bills, although it might have been hinted at from this side of the House, was always repudiated from the other side of the House until the noble and learned Lord spoke the night before last. I was contending, when the noble and learned Lord interrupted me, although I do not complain of his interruption for a moment, that the precedent of the Valuation Bill of last year made it absolutely clear that the same measure of liberty in your Lordships' House which was conceded in regard to that Scottish Bill must, logically and consistently, be conceded in the case of the Valuation Clauses in the Finance Bill now under discussion.
Now, my Lords, I must say a word upon the Licensing Clauses. I am relieved of the necessity of going into the question of licensing, your Lordships will be glad to hear, except very lightly; because, in an admirable speech which my noble friend Lord Donoughmore made rather late last night, he dealt with the very point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. Therefore, I will touch upon it, if your Lordships will
934
allow me, in a very summary manner. The contention on the part of His Majesty's Government is that the Licensing Clauses are only a very ordinary extension of methods of taxation with which the country is perfectly familiar; that they are not in any way designed for any other purpose except that of raising revenue; and that they cannot be accused for a moment, with any shadow of justification, of infringing the privileges of your Lordships' House. But, my Lords, if that be so, if it be true that the Licensing Clauses are merely ordinary methods of taxation, how do the members of the Government sitting in your Lordships' House account for the kind of observations which were made to the country by their own colleagues after the rejection of the Licensing Bill last year? My noble friend Lord Donoughmore quoted several of His Majesty's Ministers in the admirable speech which he delivered last night. I am afraid I must repeat one of his quotations, but it shall only be one.
I want to cite to your Lordships the testimony of Mr. Winston Churchill, the President of the Board of Trade. I should like to remind your Lordships that the question which I am discussing is whether it is true or not true to say that the Licensing Clauses of the Bill of this year are or are not an attempt to evade the decision at which your Lordships' House arrived upon the Licensing Bill of last year. Mr. Winston Churchill, speaking, I am not quite sure whether it was immediately after the rejection of the Bill or not, but in July of last year—I am told that it was before, but by the tenor of the speech he was referring I to the action of your Lordships' House—used these words—"I say to our brewing friends"—the House is familiar with the refined style of the President of the Board of Trade—" when they are gathered together in deep consultation around the flowing bowl, when they are drinking the health of the House of Lords, when they are cheering for an Assembly which boasts that it will defy the will of the masses of the people, let them remember that Budgets are beyond the control of the House of Lords, and that if the licensed trade refuse the just and considerate provisions of a great temperance measure, they may easily find that they have leapt from the frying pan into the fire."
My Lords, is it not quite evident what the President of the Board of Trade meant? Why, there is not a Minister on that Front

935
Bench opposite who will deny it. What he meant when he spoke then was this: that it was no good for the liquor trade to look to the House of Lords to throw out the Licensing Bill, because if your Lordships' House did throw out the Licensing Bill the Government would resort to the Budget in order to give a harder measure even to the liquor trade by the provisions of the Budget than were proposed in the Licensing Bill itself. How can the noble and learned Lord come down to your Lordships' House on this Bill, and the Lord Steward, and all the other Ministers, and tell us that this Budget has nothing to do with the rejection of the Licensing Bill last year? Why! Ministers themselves prophesied that they would undertake the evasion of your Lordships' decision upon the Licensing Bill by putting it into the Budget. And they have done so. Why is it worth while to deny it? I cannot conceive why the noble and learned Lord and his friends spend so much time and trouble in denying a thing which is so very obvious.
My Lords, there is no accident about this. This is all designed. It is quite obvious what was going to happen months ago; and indeed anyone who listened with care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would see that it is not the rejection of this Finance Bill which troubles him. It is not the outrageous breach of the Constitution which we are told is what he cares so much about. It is the rejection of all the Bills that he objects to—not merely Bills protected by this alleged Resolution of the House of Commons' privileges, but all the other Bills which come before your Lordships from another place, and over which the power of your Lordships' House is undoubted. The noble and learned Lord assents to that; therefore it follows that the real issue is not whether your Lordships' House is or is not to have the right to reject a Finance Bill, but whether it is or is not to have the right to reject any Bill. That is the real issue. That is the issue which is really before the House and the country; and all this parade of old constitutional forms is merely so much make-believe to conceal the real issue which the Liberal Government desire to force upon the country.
Now, my Lords, that being so, let us apply the conclusion to which I have
936
ventured to bring your Lordships' House. The House of Lords is not to be allowed to amend or reject any Bill which the Commons insist upon. That is really the issue. Do any members of your Lordships' House approve of such a change? I doubt it. I doubt whether there is any man! There is the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who spoke last night. If he will allow me to say so with great respect, the noble Earl with all his ability is the victim of one or two fads. But, like other people with fads, he dislikes everybody else's fads, and there are several fads for which the Government have made themselves responsible which he very much dislikes, and he has used his power and his ability in your Lordships' House in order to try and correct those fads. If he has his way and this Finance Bill is passed, and the power of your Lordships' House to reject any Bill is thereby destroyed, he will have to put up with all the fads which come from the House of Commons.
Very well, I turn from the noble Earl to the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Birmingham. The right rev. Prelate has recommended your Lordships to pass this Bill. He is anxious for the re-adjustment of taxation. I think his ideal is the re-adjustment of wealth by means of taxation—a very dangerous doctrine, may I say with great respect, for anybody to preach; and, above all, a very dangerous doctrine to come from such a quarter without a very careful explanation of what is meant by it. My Lords, if you legalised picking pockets, that would be a re-adjustment of wealth by means of taxation. I do not think the right rev. Prelate realised, without explanation, how profoundly demoralising such an observation really is. Because, speaking with all his great authority and knowledge, he practically says to the masses of the people, who have got the power: "You have got covetous desires; gratify them; have a re-adjustment of wealth by means of taxation." That is the right rev. Prelate's ideal. But that is not what the right rev. Prelate is principally interested in. There are other things, and things for which I profoundly respect him. He wishes to see a reform of the Poor Law. He wishes for a just settlement of the education question. If your Lordships pass this Budget; if you assent to the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, you will not be allowed to have any voice in the

937
reform of the Poor Law. The truth is that almost any public measure can be expressed in terms of the Finance Bill or of the Appropriation Bill, but most of all the Poor Law. It is all a question of rates.
Then there is the Education Bill. Let me illustrate my point. The other day there was a decision by the Courts of Law in what is called the Swansea case. That was a decision that it was incumbent upon the local authority to pay Voluntary school teachers at the same rate as Council school teachers. It is essential that that equality should be maintained, or otherwise, of course, the Voluntary school system could be swept away in a moment. Nothing would be easier than to reverse the judgment in the Swansea case by a clause in the Appropriation Bill. You would merely have to say under the Appropriation Bill that there should be a certain sum of money allocated to Council school teachers which shall not be available for Voluntary school teachers, and the thing is done. The Swansea judgment is reversed on the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, supported by the Bishop of Birmingham. Your Lordships' House would have no voice in it whatever; you would have to accept it. My Lords, this is not theory, this is fact, because it has actually happened, not in the Swansea case, but in another case. There is a provision in a celebrated Act of Parliament that no grant of public money can be made for the building of schools. The education grants by the Education Acts are devoted to maintenance and so forth, but no grant can be given for the building of schools. That is as clear as possible in the Act of Parliament. But the other day the Government wanted to reverse that, and they did. That is a fact. They put it into the Appropriation Bill. It came up to your Lordships' House. I happened to be very much interested in these matters, and I took the opinion of the highest legal authority at my disposal as to whether that was legal, that the plain words of an Act of Parliament could be reversed by a provision of the Appropriation Bill. There was no doubt of his answer. He said, "Certainly; the Appropriation Act is an Act of Parliament just like any other; it cannot be questioned; it is an Act subsequent to the Education Act, and therefore it reversed the Education Act on that point." My Lords, it came up to your Lordships' House and the matter, although
938
of importance, was not of colossal importance and we thought that it was not worth while to provoke a constitutional crisis upon that alone, and therefore my noble friend who leads the Opposition was content to enter a protest on the subject. But the moral of the thing remains, and it is not only a theory; it is a fact, that any clause in any Act of Parliament can be reversed by either a clause in the Finance Bill, or a clause in the Appropriation Bill, and that when it is so reversed, according to the doctrine of the Government, it cannot be questioned in your Lordships' House; and there is no doubt that when it passes into law, these Acts are good law, and that the whole proceeding is complete.
Now, my Lords, is not this a very serious matter for your Lordships' House? I wonder how many of those noble Lords who had thought of voting with the Government in the Division which will conclude this debate have reflected upon what their vote really meant. What they are asked to do, as I have ventured to point out to your Lordships, is to rob your Lordships' House of any share in the legislation of this country upon which the House of Commons choose to insist. My Lords, what is our claim on our side of the House? It is a very moderate claim. We do not pretend to an absolute veto on legislation. No, all we do is to say, "If you insist upon this legislation of which we cannot approve, the country shall decide between us." Mr. Winston Churchill, in the quotation which I have read to your Lordships, spoke of the Lords defying the masses of the people. Why, we appeal to the masses of the people. The truth is that the Democratic Party opposite have never understood the logic of their own position. If they believe in the people, why do they not trust the people? If they think that the ultimate source of power rests with the people, why should they object to apply to that source of power for the assent of the people to any great Act? I noticed that the Secretary for Scotland dealt with this point last night, and I think he repudiated the idea that our form of government was plebiscitory; that is to say, he held that the will of the people was not to be expressed direct, but through Parliament. Yes, my Lords; I do not differ from him on the general case. By all means let the people speak through their instruments and not directly, except upon

939
great occasions. But if you take that view, the House of Lords is quite as much an instrument of the Constitution as is the House of Commons; and the two are necessary to make the complete whole.
My Lords, we stand by appealing to the considered judgment of the people. That is of vital importance; because it may be that in a moment of mistaken excitement the people may return a majority to the House of Commons which does not express their considered opinion upon every subject. There was the case, for example, in regard to the Education Bill. That Bill was produced just after the House of Commons came fresh from a General Election. It may be that the people were a little weary of what is called the denominational controversy, and perhaps they were a little indignant at the increase of the rates which followed on the Act of 1904. A majority of the House of Commons proposed the Education Bill. Your Lordships' House took measures by amending that Bill in vital particulars to prevent it passing in the form in which it had been proposed, and we had then the advantage of the considered judgment of the people. Is there any one of your Lordships who will say that the Education Bill of 1906 was really popular among the masses of the people? When the people began to consider it, when they saw in black and white what the proposals of the Bill were; when they recognised that the awful spectre of secular education was standing at the gate; when they realised that the wishes of the parents themselves might be flouted by the operation of the Bill, they began to think that these stupid Conservatives and those simple religious men were in the right of it, that it was necessary to take steps to preserve the religious education of the people, and that it was essential that the parents' rights should be vindicated. And so the more the Bill was considered the less it was liked; yet, but for your Lordships' House that Bill would have been passed into law. In the result it seems that the considered judgment of the people is essential to the working of our Constitution. To that considered judgment we appeal; to our masters, my Lords; yes and your (the Government's) masters too, and by that judgment we will abide.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it will be a matter of satisfaction to your Lordships,
940
in view of what we are anticipating, that my intervention in this debate will not detain your Lordships more than a very few minutes. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the controversy which this Bill raises, either as to the direct, that is to say the financial issues raised, or as to the indirect, or constitutional questions, which are implicitly involved in the vote that will be given. What I wish to do, on behalf of many Bishops who are absent and of a few who are here, is to state in the fewest possible words the position which they take, and take deliberately, in this matter. My Lords, I attach, and I know that many of your Lordships attach, real importance to the presence in Parliament of those who are not only the most ancient part of the Legislature, but are named first in the preamble to every Act of Parliament on the Statute Book—the Lords Spiritual. That the circumstances of their lives and the character of their daily work give them, of necessity, peculiar opportunties of knowing about and handling certain questions which arise, and which must arise, in every Legislature in the world is, I think, both undisputed and indisputable. If I look back along the range of the subjects in the discussion of which we Bishops have been privileged to bear a part, and sometimes an important part, during the fifteen years, to take those alone, that I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I find it to include practically all those questions—moral, religious, educational, social—with which this House has constantly to deal. They range from Poor Law Reform and Prison Reform to University or Ecclesiastical Reform, from sweating and overcrowding at home to the treatment of aborigines in Australia and West Africa and elsewhere; while in such matters as temperance and education it goes without saying that the Bishops are expected to be the mouthpiece of many thousands of people outside.
My Lords, I am satisfied as to the usefulness of that function, but I believe that its usefulness is enhanced, and that the weight attached to what is said from these Benches is augmented by the fact that, speaking generally, the Bishops have, in recent years at least, held themselves free from the ties of what is ordinarily known as Party allegiance. I am very far from denying that questions of a distinctly political character may arise, and do arise, in the treatment of which all the Bishops

941
may rightly and properly and consistently take full part, and, I think, it would be affectation to pretend that we are, not as citizens quite as well qualified as the average members of this House to form and express opinions on those questions. But I believe that, ordinarily speaking, at any rate, the Bishops act wisely in, as I have said, sitting loose to Party ties. This particular occasion, in which, so far as I can judge from some of the speeches we have listened to, it seems to be clearly decided that the Division is to have a strictly Party character, is, in my judgment and in the judgment of many Bishops who have spoken or written to me on the subject, one of the occasions on which we are right in standing aside. I will not hesitate to say that I personally—and here I speak for myself alone—regret that the Division is to have that character. But apparently, so it is. The direct issue is the question whether or not the money which is required for the expenditure—the increasing expenditure—of the country can or cannot be rightly raised in a particular way without a further appeal to the constituencies. The other grave issues, which are not obscurely involved, are indirect issues or consequences, after all.
My Lords, some Bishops are, and have always been, honourably associated with political ties on one side or the other. Your Lordships have heard speeches this week from some who might be so described; although I should be very far from saying that their speeches were of a purely political kind, and you may perhaps hear more. There is nothing more natural and right than that votes should be given in correspondence with such speeches. Again, nobody will imagine for a moment, that those Bishops who agree with me as to what is this week our duty in circumstances of peculiar difficulty desire even to criticise those Bishops who think otherwise. The reference which I have just made to social questions, and if anybody cares to look at them, the records of my own words and votes, such as they are, in this House will, I think, afford clear evidence that it is not because I and those who think with me are indifferent to the great social questions which are astir in England in connection with the life of the poor that we are taking the line we do take. I have tried to show that what we are doing we are doing deliberately, in the genuine belief that by adhering to an independent standpoint
942
we increase our power of contributing usefully to the solution of some of the greatest, deepest and most urgent problems which Parliament has continuously to consider and to decide.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I earnestly wish that the most rev. Primate, to whose weighty words we have just listened with so much attention, would throw the ægis of his doctrine of silence over myself, who am quite as dissociated from Party as any Prelate that sits upon the Bench behind him and perhaps more, I think, than some. I wish it because I never rose to address your Lordships with more reluctance than on the present occasion—partly from my sense of the awful gravity of the situation, by far the gravest that has occurred in my lifetime or in the lifetime of any man who has been born since 1832; partly from a sense of the personal difficulties that I feel in dealing with this question.
My Lords, my difficulties are two-fold. They are personal to myself and they are also difficulties connected with the line of policy which is proposed to be adopted by those behind me. Let me get rid of my personal difficulties at once, because a personal topic is apt to be less interesting to the audience than to the speaker himself. I have given utterance to opinions about this House, and more especially in regard to its relations to financial legislation, and have given them in the highest office that a subject can occupy under the Crown, which in my opinion prevent me from giving a vote to the noble Marquess, or even from giving an opinion favourable to the policy which is urged by those on the Bench behind me.
It is quite true that I attach not much weight to individual opinion. It is also true that I have observed that Ministers sitting on that Bench, when they are anxious to get a measure through this House, are apt to take a higher view of the privileges of the House of Commons with regard to finance—and I say this of both sides of the House, because we have the utterances of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, in our minds, and also, I think, the utterances of the late Marquess of Salisbury, whose son we have heard with so much pleasure and acceptance to-night—that Ministers are apt when they are anxious to press a Bill through

943
this House, to rate the privileges of the House of Commons much higher than they are apt to do in the cooler moments of Opposition. But I do think it is due both to that political honour and consistency which every man must try to preserve by his own standard and in his own way, and also more especially due to the great office which I filled when I uttered those opinions, that I should not do anything in contravention of them to-night.
My Lords, I have heard with great interest the subject argued from both sides of the House. I have heard the authoritative pronouncement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, delivered with so much clearness and ability on the first night of our debate, though it may, to some extent, be, not neutralised, but qualified by the quotation from his speech of last year to which we have just listened. While I think it is clear that the letter of the law is certain, that by the letter of the law it is competent to this House to reject a Finance Bill—I do not think that is questioned by any authority—while it is within the competence of the House, if it thinks fit, to reject a Finance Bill, I understand that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack draws a distinction, not merely one of expediency, which is obvious to us all, but also one between what he calls the law and the Constitution, by which, if I rightly comprehend him, I understand he means the letter of the Constitution and the practice, so to speak the common law of the Constitution under which this Constitution is carried on.
We hear a great deal—this is the first of my marginal notes—about the immemorial practice of centuries in allowing Financial Bills to pass through this House unopposed. It is not quite unbroken, but it is practically the practice of centuries. I have one historical observation to offer on that practice, and it is this—that it is only really valid after the year 1832, because up to that year the House of Lords had in practice the control of the House of Commons, both for themselves and the classes with which they were associated, and it was not, therefore, either probable or even possible that the House of Commons should send up a Budget Bill to this House which it would be inclined to take the extreme measure of rejecting. And if we take the precedent of 1832 and take the period since, we certainly have one grave precedent in the year 1860 or 1861 which shows that the practice has not been quite
944
unbroken. I therefore say that there are arguments on the other side with regard to the practice of the Constitution which should not be lost sight of in this discussion.
My Lords, I quite admit that the Budget of 1894, for which I was Ministerially responsible, though it was highly objectionable to the House of Lords, was allowed to pass through, not without discussion, but I think without anything like a Division. But I have always suspected that the House of Lords in dealing in that way with the Budget, had not obscurely in view the somewhat precarious position of the Government, and thought that even if they allowed it to pass through they would recover in a very short time by a General Election the authority to deal with financial affairs as best might seem to themselves. Then I think there is this further remark to be made—that to abnormal measures abnormal methods of defence may be offered. Take, for example, an instance in which a Finance Bill might, if the House of Lords thought fit, be dealt with, perhaps even summarily. I take the case of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who spoke last night and with so much ability worthy of his historic name. He expressed himself in no dubious terms in regard to our military and naval expenditure. Suppose the noble Earl, in the official position so long occupied by his grandfather as head of the Government, were to bring in a Budget or to authorise one to be brought in (because I fear in his circumstances he can never bring in a Budget himself) which lowered—in the tone of his speech last night—the defences of the country in a way in which the nation at large thought dangerous. On such an occasion I cannot but think that the House of Lords might be justified, supported by the authority of the nation, in rejecting such a financial Bill as that. That is the illustration I give of the possible exceptional measure which might demand a departure from the ordinary orthodox practice.
Now, my Lords, there is another point which I think has to be noticed in regard to the practice and not the letter of the Constitution. We are guided by maxims and unwritten axioms with regard to what is called the Constitution. There is one maxim so undoubted that we have learned—it has been burned into us by bitter experience—I mean the maxim that there is no taxation without representation in this country. The disregard of that maxim lost us the

945
United States, and we are not likely knowingly to offend against it again. What is the case with regard to the actual practice of that principle, that undoubted principle, of the English Constitution? Your Lordships are accused by your enemies of owning some enormous proportion of the land of England at this moment. Some put it at one-fifth, some at one-third, and I dare say, in the excitement of the election, as things grow warmer, you will be accused of owning the whole. But whatever your proportion may be, if it is anything like so high as it is put by persons outside opposed to your House, I think it is eminently to be regretted that so large a portion of the land, if it be large, should be held in so few hands.
But what have we to say about no taxation without representation. This one-fifth, one-third, or this entirety if you like, of the land of England held by the unfortunate people who sit in this House is to be taxed freely, abundantly, and increasingly without its having a word or a vote. I do not support those arguments myself. I am a man of peace and I have given too many hostages to fortune in regard to the position and attributes of this House to be able to unsay them on this occasion. But in listening to this discussion I have been forced to offer some qualifying reflections in regard to the extreme doctrines of the Government, to put some water, if I may so express myself, to the extremely strong Constitutional wine that we have been invited to drink. But, my Lords, however you may judge the position of the House, there is one supreme, indispensable condition of the exercise of any dormant power that it has been claimed to possess, and that is that it should only be exercised under exceptional circumstances by, so far as is known, the direct authority and with the express condonation of the nation itself. That is a doctrine which if I live to be a hundred I shall adhere to, I feel confident, with much more security and certainty than I can to some of those more official doctrines which I uttered when I sat on the Bench opposite.
I quite agree—and that is one of the public considerations which make me unable to vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess—that the Budget is vital. I quite agree that the Budget threatens to poison the very sources of our national supremacy. I have said abundantly all that I think on that point, and I am not going to repeat it to-day. But there is something
946
which in my mind, in view of the immediate future, in view even of the remote future, is more vital to this country than the Budget itself, and that is the strength, efficiency, and security of the Second Chamber. With regard to the Budget, I do not want to deal again with that rather hackneyed subject. Having occupied the attention of an intelligent audience with it in an atmosphere in which the thermometer marked seventy-five degrees, I am not likely to be anxious to return to it now.
Although I uttered many words on that occasion, I can conscientiously say that the days which have passed over me since then have not weakened in my mind one single syllable, or made me think of reversing or recalling one single syllable, of what I uttered on that occasion. Every day that has passed over my head since then has rather increased than diminished my sense of the danger of the measure which it is proposed Parliament should adopt. There are one or two things in passing that I wish to say with regard to it. I did not say them formerly; I may say them now. This Budget has the unpleasant aspect of being both crude and vindictive. I do not say that it is crude or vindictive; far be it from me to say anything of that kind, knowing that I shall be contradicted on the highest authority and told that it is neither the one nor the other. I say it appears to the naked eye of the casual observer to be both crude and vindictive.
If it be not crude—though we are told that no Budget has received one tithe of the attention which this Budget has—how are we to explain the frequent reversals of position, the standing first on one leg and then on the other, and finally on none, which has characterised the proceedings on this most ill-omened measure? If it be not crude, how are we to account for the 250 Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself thought it right to put down even on the Report stage? I would not say it is crude, but I will say this, to use a Tariff Reform metaphor which will appeal to both sides of this House, that never in the memory of man, in all the onerous proceedings which are charged against the great overproducing countries, has such a mass of raw material been dumped down in this country at any one time as when the Budget was introduced.

947
I know it is only to the outward eye that it is vindictive. I must say my noble friend Lord Salisbury to-night brought forward some reasons and some quotations, which made one think that even to a less passing eye than that of the casual observer it might seem to bear that character. Some might think that one part of it was directed against a considerable commercial interest, and a great many might think that the whole of it was more or less designed as a battering-ram against the doors of this House. But, acknowledging that it be not vindictive, I must be allowed to say that in the consideration of the measure by the Cabinet there must have been going on a great deal of what psychologists call unconscious cerebration when that measure was brought forward. That is not all that is to be said even at this juncture about the Budget.
The Budget has already done incalculable mischief. That cannot be denied except by some of the more Pretorian and devoted supporters of His Majesty's Government. It has already destroyed confidence in a remarkable degree. This country was not long ago the strong-box and the safe of Europe, to which every man outside this country sent his savings that they might be secure. That was an enormous mass of capital which was sent to England for security. I venture to ask—I see two great financial authorities near me—whether those millions have not already disappeared from this country? Those have been wantonly cast away. What is following? Many millions from the people of this country as well. I believe that all the great ships that go westward across the Atlantic are at this moment carrying bonds and stocks in ballast in order that they may be got away from the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government. This want of confidence is not merely confined to the reserves of money; it has also extended to every form of enterprise. No one is able to embark in any commercial undertaking for fear of the Government coming down and taking the proceeds without sharing the losses. I think we may say, to quote a well-known speech on a famous occasion, that we find every avenue of commercial enterprise blocked up because the Chancellor of the Exchequer stops the way. My Lords, the honest truth is that already your measure has spread over the country, like one great pervading miasma or fog, the disease of want of confidence
948
and want of credit, the most fatal disease which perhaps can affect a commercial nation like ours. We had abundant evidence of that kind in the able and authoritative speech of Lord Revelstoke the other night, to which I listened with so much pleasure; and we had from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne an additional proof which struck me as almost more remarkable than anything said by the head of the house of Baring. It was with regard to the British issues during the first ten months of this year. He showed, if I remember his figures aright, that they had sunk from fifty-five millions in 1908 to twenty millions for a similar period in 1909. Can there be conceived a more disastrous proof of the immediate and ruinous effect of the Budget on all commercial transactions than such a fact, and an undoubted fact, as that?
I was not at all comforted by the consolation administered in the oracular speech of the Secretary for Scotland delivered last night. He told us that the cause was clear—that there was undoubtedly a difference of thirty-five millions between the issues of last year and the issues of this year, but the reason was obvious. The thirty-five millions difference had all gone into private enterprise; although he was unable to cite any figures in support of his contention, and I think he would find it extremely difficult to do so. He found solace for himself, but I am sorry to say he completely failed in imparting it to me. I do not know what the pundits of the City thought when they read that explanation of this deficiency, but sure I am of this—that among the many reasons we have for congratulating ourselves on the accession of the noble Lord to this House there is one new one after last night, which is that under no circumstances can he ever be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is one extraordinary delusion which seems to underlie the arguments of the supporters of the Budget. It is that capital is a luxury and nothing but a luxury. You spend it on motor cars or "anything," I think one speaker said; I do not know what "anything" meant. They do not seem to understand that it is a base of prime necessity of this country either for peace or for war. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave us a poetical description of the Temple of Mammon, by which name he designated the City of

949
London; and I think he was a little ungrateful, if I may say so, to the City of London, which formerly gave such unflinching support to Lord John Russell in times of good and times of evil. He said the Temple of Mammon narrowed the mental horizon of those who worshipped in it. If in speaking of the Temple of Mammon he alluded to the fact that up to this time this country has been the great mart for the capital of the world, that it has been an enormous strength to it in peace and a security during war, that it has owed more to capital than to anything except the character and labour of the people—if he had appreciated these facts, I think he would have used expressions somewhat more mild with regard to that apparently noxious element in our national life. When I hear the noble Earl speak about the Temple of Mammon I cannot help thinking of the Temple of Janus, and let me assure the noble Earl that whether the doors of the Temple of Janus be open or shut, capital is equally indispensable to the welfare of this country. On one point I do offer him my humble agreement. I do think that, under the pressure of the great armaments which are eating out the heart of Europe, Europe is hurrying headlong to bankruptcy. I do believe it. I do think that, perhaps not in my time, but in the time of those who are yet young, we shall see bankruptcy produced by the insane competition of armaments winch is now eating out the hearts of the people. But that is only a digression. I come back to the immediate subject of the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
My Lords, I am, as I have amply proved, hostile to the Budget. I cannot, I think, be more hostile to the Budget than I am, but I am not willing to link the fortunes of the Second Chamber with opposition to the Budget. I find no fault with the Resolution of the noble Marquess, if he thought it right to have a Resolution at all, and I do not suppose that he had much choice in the matter. No doubt the impetus of his own forces carried him forward whether he wished it or not, and of course it may be fair to argue, as has been argued, that it is not a Resolution for the rejection of the Bill, but a method for bringing about an appeal to the people for their assent or negative to the Budget. There is nothing I should rejoice at so much as any reference of that kind if there were any constitutional means of obtaining it without mixing it
950
up with other issues foreign to it, and which may greatly impair the directness and validity of the decision. If, for example, you had the Referendum in this country—and I for my part believe that you will never arrive at a final solution of the question of the adjustment of differences between the two Houses without some form of Referendum—I would gladly vote that it should be applied on this occasion.
But you have no referendum when you go to a General Election. General Elections, whatever else their merits may be, are not conducted in a Palace of Truth. Have you any hope—for I confess that my hope is slender—that a distinction between your motion and a motion for indiscriminate rejection will be considered with cool impartiality by the people of this country. My Lords, you know very well that there is a considerable body of public opinion which is extremely hostile to the existence and to the attributes of this House. We must all be aware—and if we are not aware of it then we neither listen to nor read what is said and written—that the hereditary constitution of this House does lend itself to effective, even if it be unjust, satire and criticism when the merits of this House come to be discussed by the electorate. If you had thought it well in the time when it was open—and I hope it will be soon open again—to reform this House, then you would have been able possibly to bear the strain to be put on its vitality now. But I honestly confess—and I think your Lordships will allow me to say that I have been tolerably consistent in urging that reform in and out of season—that I do apprehend the result of an appeal to the country on an unreformed hereditary Second Chamber, mixed up with the promises of the Budget. I doubt whether you are choosing the best battlefield on which to risk the attributes and perhaps the existence of this House.
Let me make one practical suggestion. It is seldom in a debate of this kind that a practical suggestion is made. Is the mention of a practical suggestion languidly cheered by some noble Lord opposite an augury of his opinion that a practical suggestion is so badly needed because of this most impracticable Budget? The noble Marquess is a lord of many legions in this House. He can carry his Resolution by a majority which I do not like to compute,

951
but which will compare favourably with some of the Government majorities in the other House. I believe that the first basis of any reform of your Lordships' House will be some form of delegation such as is practised by the Scottish and Irish Peerage, or else some such reform as that which is indicated in the Report of your Lordships' Committee giving persons of certain qualifications alone the right to vote from among the Peers, and we found that there is an unexpectedly large number of them. Is it too late to ask the majority of this House to adopt in the coming Division some such reform as that, to take only the Peers who have those qualifications, or to delegate the duty to those whom they think well fitted to act as their champions on this occasion? There are some who will swell the majority—and I make the remark without the slightest wish to convey disrespect—who will not count for a great deal when their names are called over, for reasons which I do not think are uncomplimentary to themselves, if they will allow me to say so. Some of us are very young; I wish we all were. Some of us have not, from circumstances or taste, taken any part in public life. Their names will not greatly count in a Division; but if you chose to select 150 Peers from this majority and depute to them the right of voting for your Resolution, then you will produce a list of names quite as weighty in their collective number as any similar list of names that could be collected from the House of Commons, and which would carry a far greater weight with the country when it was reckoned up and estimated than the mere numerical force which you will be able to bring into the Lobby to-morrow night. I do not suppose my suggestion is likely to be adopted, but I do think that a self-denying ordinance would not be a bad thing, and I am as certain as I am of standing here that in the country such a list would have infinitely more weight than 400 or 500 names taken without any selection at all.
My Lords, I think you are playing for too heavy a stake on this occasion. I think that you are risking in your opposition to what I agree with you in thinking is an iniquitous and dangerous measure, the very existence of a Second Chamber. I do not pretend to be very greatly alarmed at the menaces which have been addressed to us on this and on other occasions. The House of Lords has lived on menaces ever
952
since I can recollect, and yet it seems to be in a tolerably thriving condition still. But I ask you to remember this. The menaces which were addressed to this House in old days were addressed by Statesmen who had at heart the balance of the constitutional forces in this country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly different school of opinion, who wish for a single Chamber and who set no value on the controlling and revising forces of a Second Chamber—a school of opinion which, if you like it and do not dread the word, is eminently revolutionary in essence, if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that fact when you weigh the consequences of the vote which you are to give to-morrow night. "Hang consequences," said my noble friend Lord Camperdown last night, "let them take care of themselves." That is a noble utterance—a Balaklava utterance. Nothing more intrepid could be said. But the truest courage in these matters weighs the consequences, not to the individual, but to the State, and thinks not once, but twice or thrice before it gives a vote which may involve such enormous constitutional consequences. I have often heard it said by many friends, "What is the use of the House of Lords if it cannot always vote according to its convictions?" My reply to that is that the House of Lords exercises enormous power without always voting on its convictions, and the power that it exercises was never so valuable or so much wanted as now.
The whole system of modern legislation is conducted on a principle now which makes the House of Lords absolutely invaluable to the Constitution of this country. The old idea as to Bills entertained by Mr. Gladstone and Statesmen of his stamp was to mature one or two great measures, not as this Budget has been matured, but in a very different oven, with the greatest care and circumspection, to concentrate their attention and forces upon them, and to send them up to this House in as perfect a condition as possible. Now the one idea is to produce as great an output of Bills as can be possibly produced by the overtasked Departments of the Crown, to get them through the House of Commons with as little discussion and as little inquiry as possible, and to shoot them into this Chamber like rubbish on a dustheap. My Lords, I venture to say that in the immature condition of the

953
legislation of the House of Commons you ought to watch very carefully and reserve very carefully the power that remains with you of revision and correction.
There is a question very near and dear to many of your Lordships as to which you have been able to effect in past times what has been welcomed by a large section of the people of this country. You have been able to resist the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin. I ask you to consider what will happen if you weaken your power of resistance by any unwise policy which you may adopt, or by any rash measures you may adopt, to that particular policy. Mr. Redmond the other day said—and his authority on such a point no one I can question—that the last remaining obstacle to Home Rule, the only remaining barrier to the establishment of Home Rule, is the House of Lords. Are you going to weaken that barrier? Are you going to risk that power of resistance, on a conflict with the House of Commons which will be represented on 10,000 platforms as a conflict with the people? Are you going to weaken that power of resistance by voting for the Resolution of my noble friend?
My Lords, there is one further consideration which I will venture to urge upon you. It is a practical one, and for that reason it has quite as much weight with me as any of those which I have adduced. Remember, that in hanging up or in rejecting the Budget the House of Lords is doing exactly what its enemies wish it to do. Now, I believe that in life it is a pretty safe maxim to ascertain what it is your enemy wishes you to do, and to do something very much unlike it. I confess I have no doubt, when I read the speeches delivered in various parts of the country, speeches unusual and unprecedented in my time as regards speeches by Cabinet Ministers, that they are meant to stir up and incite the House of Lords to do exactly the thing which the House of Lords meditates doing.
I confess that policy does not appeal to me. I should like a less heroic policy, which I think would have answered much better the majority of this House, but which I fear it is too late to ask the House to adopt, although I believe it to be the winning policy for those who are opposed to the Budget. I should have liked to see the
954
House of Lords pass this Finance Bill, not because I have a good opinion of it but because I have such an excessively bad opinion of it. I have such confidence in its demerits, when this Finance Bill is in action, that I should wish it to be judged by its performance after six or eight months of experience, and not by its promise as it will be held out at the polls. I believe that if you chose to allow the Budget Bill to take effect, and when the country had had a sufficient experience of its intolerable inquisitions, its intolerable bureaucracy, and, above all, the enormous loss of employment and capital which it must involve—a loss of employment which, I think, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack realised in his speech—and which must add enormously to the hideousness of the problem which the Budget will do nothing to solve—the problem of unemployment in this country: I believe that if you gave the country an experience of the Budget in operation you would achieve a victory when you next approach the polls which would surprise yourselves and would give you the power of revising the finance of this country by methods more in consonance with your own principles and your own commonsense. We should then have an anti-Socialist Government, a luxury which I cannot say we possess now. We should have a reformed Second Chamber, in the way not merely of purging it to some extent, and arriving at the choicest part of it by delegation and election, but also by renovating it by means of those external elements that must necessarily give strength to a Second Chamber—all that would have been achieved in the best and, in the non-Party sense, the most conservative interests of this United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that is not the line that the House is going to take. I am sorry—with all my heart I am sorry—that I cannot give a vote against the Budget on this occasion. My interest in this matter is mainly that of the Second Chamber, and I cannot stake all my hopes of its future utility and reform on the precarious and tumultuous chances, involved as they will be with many other irrelevant and scarcely honest issues—the tumultuous hazards of a General Election.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE: My Lords, I do not know whether the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down has had the effect upon noble Lords opposite of cold water being thrown down

955
their backs, or not. Noble Lords opposite made complaint on the first night of this debate that the Lord Chancellor in the advice which he gave your Lordships had been guilty of something in the way of threats. That was how noble Lords opposite were pleased to interpret his words; but it has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, speaking not by way of threat, but by way of kindness, that the composition of your Lordships' House is open to criticism. He said that if it had been reformed it might have stood the strain of the present constitutional issue. Then he told your Lordships that you had not chosen the best battlefield; and he went on to tell you very politely that though there are a great number of Peers who are going to vote in favour of the Motion and against the Budget, and although I thought at one time that he was going to congratulate your Lordships that you were going to get as large a majority here as the Government got in the other House, he then went on to say that as a matter of fact, a great number of those Peers did not count, and that the noble Lords ought to strengthen their position by choosing 150 of their number to represent them. Well, my Lords, I think that was very unkind of the noble Earl. Then he went on to say that your Lordships were risking too heavy a stake, that you were risking the very existence of the Second Chamber, and that your Lordships' House wanted to be overhauled and reconstructed. It sounded like a spring cleaning.
But, my Lords, what reasons does the noble Earl give for his hostility to the Budget? He says that the Budget is very dangerous; that it is very crude; and that it is very vindictive. I should like to remind the House that this Budget has been under discussion in the House of Commons for six months. It has been under discussion longer than any Bill I can recollect in my lifetime, and I was for a great many years in the House of Commons. The noble Earl, however, said that the Bill was very crude and very vindictive, but what did he give as an illustration of its crudeness? He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on the Report Stage brought up 250 Amendments. The noble Earl never was in the House of Commons, for if he had been, he would have known what that meant. When a big Bill is under discussion in Committee, all sorts of people, mostly the Opposition,
956
move Amendments and the Government accept those Amendments in principle, although as a rule they are not well drafted and will not fit into the Bill as it stands; and so the Minister in charge of the Bill says that he will re-draft it, himself incorporating their Amendments as his own and bringing them up on Report Stage. That is what happened with regard to this Bill, and so far from the Amendments being a sign of crudeness and rawness, they were very largely Amendments moved by members I of the Opposition and incorporated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his own Amendments, in order to meet the views of the Opposition.
The noble Earl went on to say that this Budget has already done incalculable damage. He said that commercial enterprise was stopped, and that there was a great loss of credit, all due to the Budget. I should admit at once that there are people in this country who are afraid of the Budget. Can you wonder at it? [Cries of "No."] No! Because most of you have not read the Budget. But can you wonder at it when you read a speech like that of the noble Earl. He is not one of the irresponsible Members who ought not to be allowed to vote in this House; yet here is a noble Earl who holds a high voice in the country, who has been the highest servant of the Crown, making the statements that he has made in this House What does he do to encourage confidence and to encourage credit? He says millions have gone abroad, that the foreign millions are gone, and that the home millions are going. Everything has gone abroad, and he says that ships to North America are leaving our shores ballasted with bonds and stocks and shares as cargo. My Lords, that is what is said by an ex-Prime Minister of England! People will read that statement to-morrow, and although we know very well that the noble Earl is merely jesting, there are thousands of people in the country who do not know who will read that statement in the newspapers to-morrow morning, and who do not know that he is only jesting. We are all aware that the noble Earl is very fond of coming to your Lordships' House and making speeches on all sides, but after all what is play to the noble Earl may mean death to other people. There are many people who may read what the noble Earl says and who may get frightened and sell out their stocks at a loss. Many people who

957
read that sort of thing will lose by it, and of all the Party opposite, there is not a single member of this House who will be more responsible for it than the noble Earl himself.
The noble Earl who has just sat down talked of unemployment. He said that the Budget was going to cause great unemployment, and that if noble Lords would only let it pass, it would cause so much more unemployment that some day or other noble Lords would get a majority in the other House of their own way of thinking. Why cannot the noble Earl give us some statistics for that statement? There has been a good deal of talk of unemployment in this House, but after all these are the statistics. Last September, in the great staple trades of this country as returned by the Trade Unions, the amount of unemployment was 7·4. We all know when winter comes on that unemployment is apt to increase in this country, but this year it did not. In October unemployment went down from 7·4 to 7·1. If you compare the state of things before the Budget with the state of things after the Budget, it works out thus: In October this year, after the Budget, the figure for unemployment was 7·1, whereas in October last year before the Budget it was 9·5. Let that be a little check on some noble Lords who have no personal experience in the matter, and who having no personal experience might at least be content to go to the official statistics.
Now, my Lords, I want to say a few words on the subject of capital going abroad, because that is a subject with which I have some personal practical acquaintance. There has been a great deal of talk of capital leaving the country. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Revelstoke, spoke of that the other night in his speech here. I am sorry I was unavoidably prevented from being here to listen to it. However, I read it carefully in the paper from end to end, and the noble Lord, to take his last point first—and I was very much struck with one remark that he made—said that all sorts of people came to him in the City and asked him his financial opinion as to what to buy, and that they always said to him "We do not want your opinion of anything at home; we want something good to buy abroad." Why do they, my Lords? The reason is perfectly obvious. I have no doubt that the noble Lord has
958
great general knowledge of all investments both at home and abroad. On many things he is a great specialist; he is a great specialist of Foreign Government and Foreign Municipal Bonds, and if I had the happiness of being in the position of having to ask the advice of the noble Lord myself, I should not go to him to ask his opinion with regard to home affairs, of which he only knows as much as other people. I should ask him his opinion with regard to good foreign investments, in which he is a specialist. Naturally, people who are seeking advice go to the man who is best able to give them advice on a particular subject. The noble Lord was careful to distinguish between the words "Capital drawn abroad" and "Capital driven abroad," and he was right to make that distinction. But if he says, of his own knowledge, that capital has been frightened abroad because of the Budget, I should, of course, accept his statement; but it is, I think, quite possible that if his statement is made generally—when we know that people in the responsible position of an ex-Prime Minister of England have been talking nonsense about bonds being shipped from these shores as ballast—I do not wonder that there are many people who attach importance to these statements and naturally are frightened. And I venture to say to your Lordships, that if these statements had not been made, after three months experience of the administration of the Budget any bonds that had been shipped away from this country by way of ballast would be shipped back again within three months. Now, I venture to ask your Lordships what is the difference between capital drawn abroad and capital driven abroad?
LORD REVELSTOKE: "Attracted" was the word I used.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE: I accept the correction. Capital attracted abroad, as I say, will no doubt come back again. But I want to go into this question of capital being driven abroad, because a good many people have been talking about capital invested abroad as if it was a terrible national disaster. There was a very interesting article—I do not want to inflict it upon your Lordships now—published a month or two ago in the Journal of the Statistical Society. It was a paper read by Mr. Paish, and there was a long discussion upon it. There was one thing on which all the speakers were agreed, which was, that every period of

959
a great export of national capital had been followed by a period of good trade. The statistics they worked out, I should imagine, were very difficult to arrive at; but they agreed that the figures were authoritative and more or less accurate. They said that in the seven years 1884 to 1890 British capital invested abroad—the noble Lord, I have no doubt, will call that attracted abroad—amounted to the sum of 400 millions, and that that was followed by a period of good trade. Then there were seven years in which very little capital went abroad—those seven years included the South African war, when there was great national extravagance in this country, and when money that might have been allowed to accumulate for investment was fired away in powder and shot—not a very profitable way of investing money as a rule. In those years only 100 millions were invested abroad. Then from the year 1904—your Lordships will particularly note the year 1904, because the Tory Government were in office in that year—capital had been saved up again, and there was capital to go abroad—in the four and a-half years since 1904 we have actually invested abroad 400 millions, and a good deal of it has been invested abroad during the time the Conservative Government were in office. Has the loss of that capital injured this country? Is it a thing to deplore, or is it a thing to rejoice at?
I noticed the other day that the Prime Minister in a speech he made said that capital being invested abroad was a fine thing for the trade of this country. When you talk, as the noble Lord opposite did, of capital being driven abroad and attracted abroad—I put this to your Lordships as business men—what does it matter whether it goes abroad because it is attracted or because it is driven as long as you have ample capital left in this country. I believe one of the greatest authorities in the world on capital going abroad, Lord Rothschild, will speak to-night, and I must say I am looking forward very much to hearing what he has to say on that point. I do not see him in the House at present, but I should like to hear his answer to this question whether there is any scarcity of capital in this country for any sound and decently remunerative investment? My Lords, I shall be surprised to hear that question answered in the affirmative, for my own experience is distinctly the reverse, although I would not for one moment attempt to set up my experience on such a point against
960
the experience of two of the greatest authorities in the world. I would, however, ask them this question: will they get up and say, of their own experience, that they do know to-day of thoroughly sound concerns in Great Britain where large sums of money might be invested with advantage for security's sake at a decent rate of interest; are they aware of any sound concern in this country that is wanting capital and cannot get it? I can only say that no such cases have come my way, and I believe that for any sound concern showing a chance of profit, that capital would be found for it at home and found a great deal easier than money for investment abroad. With regard to the investment of capital in this country, people sometimes talk as if there was no limit to the scope or to the amount of money that can be invested in this country and invested to advantage; but, my Lords, you must consider the difference between old countries and new countries. Our land here is not a pampas with a few people scattered about it and none of the amenities of civilisation. We have got here in existence already practically all the great undertakings for which capital can be used with advantage. What do you want capital for? You want capital for the construction of railways, tramways, waterworks, electric light undertakings, docks and harbours and great industrial works of that sort. My Lords, this country has got all those. It is supplied with them in every place where there is population enough to make them pay, and it is supplied with them very often in places which are too small for them to pay. In other words this country has got the great bulk of the capital it needs employed in order that the existing inhabitants of the country may make their living.
How can you use fresh capital in this country to advantage? I hope your Lordships will bear with me because this is a point which has been dealt with very frequently in the course of the debate. Fresh capital can only be used to advantage, first of all, when there is a great increase of population; and, secondly, when you get some new want invented. The population of this country increases at the rate of about 300,000 a year. Of course, if you were to take an agricultural field and to plant those 300,000 people down upon it you might be able to reckon after a short time what amount of capital they would require for their needs. They would want a bit of railway; they would want tramways;

961
they would want industries; and capital would be requited to establish shops and stores and factories of all kinds. I do not know how much they would want—it might be as much as £20,000,000 or £30,000,000—but that is not the way in which the people of this country require their large amounts of capital. The population of a country does not increase all in one place. There may be an increase of 1,000 in one of the bigger cities, 500 in another, and 100 in some little town somewhere else. The increment of the population is spread about, all over the country and the capital is subscribed little by little and mainly by private people. I saw a speech of Mr. George Wyndham's on this subject some time ago in which he gave something which he called statistics. No one, I think, has been able to find out where he got them, but he worked out that, over a certain period, out of £16,000,000 invested in Great Britain only £2,000,000 were invested in industrial concerns. My Lords, I do think we ought to be a little, shy of statistics by Mr. George Wyndham when we remember that we have recently been bothered in this House for some time by the Irish Land Bill owing to the fact that Mr. George Wyndham cannot do a sum. Every figure he had in his Bill was wrong.
When your Lordships remember that the increase of the population is spread about over a very wide field you must agree that the capital required for that increased population is spread about over a very wide field also. If a town, for example, increases by 1,000 people it simply means that the shopkeepers in the place—the boot-makers, the tailors, the grocers, and so on—have all added a new wing to their shops and extended their business and that the necessary capital for that purpose has come in from small private people all over the country. Therefore, my Lords, it is absolutely impossible for anybody living to arrive at any true conclusion as to the amount of capital invested at home by taking the lists of the public issues that come out in the newspapers week by week, because in the case of a foreign concern that wants capital investors in Great Britain know nothing about it and the concern can only get its money by advertising largely and explaining what it is; whereas, if it is a small local concern it can get its money locally from the people who live near by and know all about it. My Lords, there are two ways in which openings are
962
made for the investment of capital at home: one is the increase of population and the other is the starting of a new industry, and there is little doubt that new industries will be started. Some years ago there was the great bicycle industry. That found money readily enough; a great deal too readily for some shareholders. Then more recently there has been the great motor industry. Money was found readily enough for that. Those industries show, as I put it to your Lordships just now, that any concern that offers reasonable prospects of a profitable return in Great Britain can get all the money it requires, and unfortunately because people are so anxious to invest their money in this country rather than abroad a great many concerns get money to the misfortune of the public. It shows that while British investors may through their agents search the world for investments they will never neglect any opportunity of a remunerative chance of investment at their own doors.
I want to come now to the investment of money abroad, because we have been told about money being driven abroad and attracted abroad as if that were a misfortune to the country. The money that goes abroad is invested practically in two great directions: in industrial concerns, things like railways and tramways, and also in Government and municipal loans. I can speak myself with regard to industrial concerns abroad and I should very much like if the noble Lord opposite, Lord Rothschild, who is going to speak later, would tell us whether, in his opinion, the money that is lent to foreign Governments and foreign municipalities ruin or increase British trade. His opinion would be immensely interesting on that point, both to your Lordships' House and to the people of the country. I have not enough experience to speak on it myself, and I should like to hear one of the great authorities on it, but I should think that the noble Lord would probably be able to show you that in the case of foreign loans issued in this country, trade followed the loan. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to give you some facts as to some foreign investments which I have before me and which I have been able absolutely to check myself. When we hear of this country being ruined by capital going abroad, I may say that I asked the secretary of a railway company with which I am connected to take a good large sum of money,

963
a sum large enough to be able to strike an average with regard to, because if he had only taken a million pounds it might have been said that that would not show a very good average. He therefore took a sum of twelve million pounds which had been sent abroad for railways in South America and worked out what had actually happened to it. Roughly, it came to this; and this is what the noble Lord calls money being drawn abroad, and what the noble Earl on the Cross Benches would call the ruin of the country. Thirty-three percent, of it, or four million pounds, went abroad, not in the shape of money but in the shape of materials—rails, rolling-stock, engines, wagons and so on—every shilling of it being the produce of British labour. Four per cent. of it went in foreign materials. I have not been able to check that exactly, but if I had been able to do so I have no doubt that I should find cases where those foreign materials were not bought from any wish to deal with foreigners, or because the foreigners sold a better article or a cheaper article, but because at the time the English manufacturers were so full of work that we could not buy an engine from them or a wagon sometimes for less than eighteen months ahead.
The noble Marquess said the other day that he was in favour of a tariff on foreign articles. Cheapness is not everything. A five per cent. or a ten per cent. increase on goods is not much. But what will happen here? Suppose you have Tariff Reform and put up the price of materials by, say, five per cent. What are we to do? The markets of the world are open to us. We shall have to go abroad and buy a great deal of that which is now bought at home. And we shall have to do that for two reasons; first, because our shareholders will want the concern to pay, and second, a stronger reason still, because the Government of the country where the railways are situated, if they found you buying things dearly in England when we could buy them cheap in other countries, would be down on us and say "If you can afford to fritter our money away in that manner you must reduce your rates." What becomes of the rest of the money? Directly or indirectly, probably indirectly, it has gone abroad in cash. Does that do no good to this country. First of all, the investors do not do badly, for, as a whole, these foreign railways, especially in South
964
American countries, have been a good field for British investors. But there are many other advantages. They employ people here. First, there is the staff of people in the offices, a large staff of people who are very fairly paid. Then you have openings for a great many Englishmen in these other countries. Nearly all the heads of the departments in these foreign concerns are Englishmen, many of them receiving salaries higher, I believe, than some Cabinet Ministers. They are always remitting money home, and wherever they live these men are practically agents for the recommendation of British goods abroad. The last advantage which the investment of this money abroad gives is a great one. All these concerns practically want renewing from time to time. Certainly a railway, every year, to carry on its work and its running, must buy rails and sleepers and engines and wagons and carriages, and all the rest of it, and where do they come to for these things? To this country, and they employ labour here. That money you are sending abroad which the noble Earl considers is a disaster, and which other people think is a thing to deplore—that money is what keeps your miners employed in South Wales, it keeps your steel-workers busy, and your engine and wagon builders employed. All those men are kept employed mainly, if not entirely, by this great investment of British capital abroad. Therefore, I think the Prime Minister was more than justified when he said that these great investments abroad were not things to be deplored, but were really the great cause of the building up of British trade in this country.
Before I sit down there is just a word or two I should like to say on another subject. The noble Marquess who began the discussion this evening said that the rejection of this Bill is really a democratic proceeding; it is an appeal to the masses of the people by "whose judgment we will abide." I do not know what the result of this election is going to be, and I am the last person to attempt to prophesy; but it would be interesting, suppose there was a Government majority returned as a result of the election, to hear the noble Marquess speaking in this House on the result of that appeal to the people "by whose opinions and whose judgment he will abide." But he left himself a loophole. It is to be "their considered opinion "that he means to abide by. What does

965
he mean by "their considered opinion?" I suppose he meant if they returned a judgment in favour of this House, that he would accept that as "their considered opinion"; but if they returned a judgment the other way, then that, would not be "their considered opinion," and they must be sent back to think it over for another year. But, at any rate, he said it is a democratic proposal.
It has been argued in this House that the rejection of this Budget is just like the rejection of any other Bill; that you can send it to the country; but there is this difference between sending the Budget and any other Bill to the country. You may veto a Licensing Bill; you may veto an Education Bill or any other Bill, but you do not cause a General Election. When you reject a Budget there must be a General Election. I noticed that the Lord Chancellor corrected himself in his speech the other night. He said there must be a General Election, "at least, if the Crown so decides." But you, my Lords, are well aware that the Government of the country cannot be carried on without money. These 160 millions have to be found by somebody, and if you reject the Budget the Crown must decide upon a General Election. I do not want to speak about the constitutional aspect of the question; but what has been up till now the constitutional practice about dissolutions? Dissolutions of the House of Commons have come for two reasons; by the operation of the Septennial Act, or they have come as an act of the Crown. You may gloss over it as you may, slur it over as you will; there is no doubt whatever that if this House rejects this Bill, and the people approve of its action, you have got, from this time on, the right to dissolve Parliament once a year if you like. Once a year you can reject the Budget and send the members of the House of Commons to the country. In other words, you have taken into your hands the prerogative of the Crown.
Another thing I observe that noble Lords argue. They say they do not want to choose the taxation of this country; because that is the business of the House of Commons. All they want to do it to veto unjust legislation. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches twice during his speech pointed out that different people could not bring in Budgets. He deplored the fact
966
that Earl Russell should never have an opportunity of bringing in a Budget, but he congratulated himself that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland could never bring in a Budget. Why could they not? If the rejection of this Budget is carried and approved of by the country, why should any House of Commons waste its time and its health for six months down below there, drawing up Budgets? It is much more simple that the action should take place where the power is. You say you only want to veto the Budget. It is just as if a doctor said to you when you were ill, "I won't choose your food for you. You shall eat what you like; but I will veto some things. You shall not eat flesh, or fowl, or fruit, and various other things." But by this power of veto he could soon get you down to thin soup and water gruel. Would it be exactly the same thing after this, if the country approves this proposed action on the part of your Lordships? Every House of Commons and every Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to get money. They will only waste their time after this in bringing in any legislation you do not like about Budgets. They will know you do not like taxes on liquor. They will know you do not like taxes on land. They will only bring up something they know you will pass. They will tax everybody except the publicans. They will tax everybody except the landlords. And they will be quite right, because the power will be in this House, and the thing will be settled on those Benches opposite. If you are successful in this proposal, you are taking to yourselves the power of taxation. The noble Earl has given you a warning to which I think you would be wise to listen. I do not think anybody on this side of the House or any friend on that side, or any adviser outside will give you such faithful counsel as the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. He more than hinted to you—in fact, he told you that you were taking into your hands a job that is too big for you. I do not know whether you will take that warning, and I do not intend to prophesy; but by this proposal of yours to-night, you are taking two things into your hands. With one hand you are grasping at one of the chief prerogatives of the Crown and with the other you are striking down the chief privilege of the people.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has

967
addressed us with his usual ability and force, but he has also addressed us with, perhaps, rather more than his usual scorn for those who, like myself, are unfortunate enough to be unable to accept either his facts or his conclusions. I thought he was rather unjust in some of his criticisms of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Revelstoke, but perhaps he ought not to be blamed for that, as he has told us he did not hear that speech. If he had had the good fortune to hear one of the most eloquent speeches delivered in this House for a long time, he might have understood it. As it is, he has addressed a long and eloquent argument to this House to prove what, I will not say no great financial authority, but no quite ordinary man like myself, has ever disputed, and what my noble friend in his speech most emphatically called attention to. He has addressed a long and eloquent argument to us to convince us that it is to the advantage of this country to invest capital abroad. Well, who has ever denied it? That was the point which was brought out perfectly clearly by the noble Lord. It is an advantage to us to invest capital abroad—as long as it is not more wanted in this country. The noble Lord has assured us that in his experience there is no such thing at the present time as a profitable British enterprise which has any difficulty in finding capital. I can only say he is extraordinarily fortunate in his experience. Even in my own very limited experience of such matters I have been brought face to face, not with one or two, but with quite a number of cases in recent times in which money was not forthcoming for enterprises in this country where, at ordinary times, I believe it would have been forthcoming.
The noble Lord tells us—and he is, no doubt, quite right in telling us—that we must not judge the total investment of capital in this country merely from the figures of the new issues. He says a great deal of capital is quietly invested, not through the stock market, but by private individuals in private ways. Perfectly true, but it is reasonable to suppose that there is a certain proportion between the capital invested publicly through the stock markets and that privately invested—that there is a certain permanent relation between the two; and if, as a matter of fact, we find that the amount of public issues undergoes a great and astonishing and unaccountable reduction, it is a legitimate
968
inference that there is a reduction going on all round in the amount of capital invested. The noble Lord was very merry at the expense of Mr. Wyndham for producing some statistics, for which he said he did not know what possible authority Mr. Wyndham could have. Well, Mr. Wyndham has the reasonably good authority of the Bankers' Magazine. His figure of sixteen millions, with which the noble Lord was not acquainted, is the figure of the English investments—that is, of the public issues during the first nine months of the present year—and I have given reasons, I think, why we may regard those public issues as a fair indication of the general trend of investment.
I should like to call particular attention once more to these figures, because they are very interesting. There has been a gradual tendency to decline for a considerable number of years in the proportion of our public investments in this country as compared with public investments abroad. By public investments I mean investments made through the stock market and not privately; I do not mean investments in the loans of public bodies. I observe that during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908 the proportion of British investments in this country to the total was respectively forty per cent., thirty-one per cent.—that was in 1905—now we come to the period of the present Government—thirty per cent., twenty-five per cent., and twenty-six per cent; after that we come to this year, with the present Budget, ten per cent. I think we may leave this point as it has been put by the noble Lord who sits behind me, and whose argument remains unshaken in any single particular by the speech to which we have just listened.
The subject which we have been discussing for three nights is one so vast, the measure before us is one so comprehensive—so many Bills rolled into one—and the ulterior issues which depend upon your decision are so grave, that it is impossible for any speaker to deal with more than a very small portion of the case. If I do not refer to-night to many of those arguments of a broad economic and political order which have been adduced in support of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, it is not because I do not agree with them, but I think I should be more considerate for the time of the House if I were to confine

969
myself to one or two points of which I have special experience.
There is one aspect of this measure which has a certain fascination for me, a fascination which most of your Lordships cannot be expected to feel. I am an old tax-gatherer, and in that capacity I feel a sort of professional interest in so huge an engine of taxation. It is fifteen years since I was called upon, in my then capacity of Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the framing of what was considered at the time a very large financial measure—I mean what has been known as the Death Duty Budget of Sir William Harcourt. That Budget had been under consideration for more than a year. It was the principal Government measure of the session; it took months to pass it, and it strained to the uttermost the capacities of the leading officials of my then Department. It also greatly taxed the time and energy of the Government draftsmen of that day, Sir Henry Jenkins—a man of very great ability, for whose memory I have the deepest respect—as well as of the Law Officers of the Crown. Yet, compared with the Finance Bill of the present year, it might be called almost a trivial measure. I remember it was severely criticised at the time for its alleged complexity and unintelligibility. I am afraid that Finance Hills always do appear complex and unintelligible to the layman. But I will venture to say that, whether those criticisms were justified or not, it was a model of simplicity, intelligibility, and coherence as compared with the measure by which we are at present confronted.
To say that is not to disparage in any way the ability of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of those who have assisted him. I think that ability is manifestly very great. But he has attempted a task which really it was impossible to perform, or at any rate to perform properly in a single year. It was a simple impossibility efficiently to bring about the enactment of all these new and complicated taxes. It may be said that for the immense size and unwieldiness of the present Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is not to blame; that the multiplicity and severity of these new imposts is simply the necessary result of the great deficit for the year. I think that contention will not hold water for one
970
moment. Sums as large, or very nearly as large, as those raised by taxation in this Budget have been raised within quite recent times in the course of a single year by financial measures less complex, less controversial, and infinitely less meddlesome and harrassing than those contained in the Bill now before us. The difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were undoubtedly great, but he has gone out of his way to increase them. Is it not an unheard-of thing that a Government which finds itself confronted with the necessity of putting a burden of thirteen or fourteen millions upon the taxpayer in a single year should choose that occasion of all others to introduce a whole bevy of new taxes, not required, and not even available, for the services of the particular year for which it is already bound to provide these huge sums?
I may be told that it is necessary to look ahead, and that every Chancellor of the Exchequer has to think a little beyond the present year. Well, I admit that: But if it is necessary to look ahead, what was the justification for throwing away between three and four millions of revenue last year at the very moment when you were committing the country to an additional expenditure of eight millions a year for ever? We hear a great deal in this debate of constitutional precedent. I wonder what is the constitutional precedent for the manner in which the Government have dealt with the business of granting annually aids and supplies to His Majesty. Last year they committed the country to a vast new expenditure for which they refused to provide, while at the same time giving up a very useful source of revenue. This year they are piling up superfluous taxation in order to meet problematical future expenditure. They are putting on taxation for objects which not only have not been approved by, but have never even been submitted to, the House of Commons, much less to the country, and which exist only in the most nebulous form even in their own minds. It is these proceedings, so unusual, so abnormal, and fraught with such possibilities of future danger, which have forced us to take a line of action which, though perfectly legitimate, is certainly also unusual, and which, I believe, no man would agree to take without the greatest reluctance and regret, but which is certainly less unconstitutional than the action which has provoked it.

971
The whole immense fabric of the land taxes, costly and complicated and unworkable as I believe those provisions are, are going to give only £50,000 net this year to the Exchequer. Nay, more, two of the most contentious of these taxes—I mean the tax on unearned increment, sound in principle, though as a local and not a national impost—and the Undeveloped Land Duty, which is wholly bad—these two are actually going to cost more during the present year than they will bring in. But these are not the only questionable taxes that are to be imposed upon us which will bring in nothing this year. There is another item which is expected to yield nothing this year, but is to yield £1,370,000 next year, and rather over £2,000,000 in future years. This is the item which is euphemistically described as the "revision"—revision is a good word—of the Legacy and Succession Duties. The revision consists in raising a three per cent. rate to five per cent.; five and six per cent. to ten per cent.; and in sweeping away altogether—I greatly regret this—the exemption enjoyed by lineals and husbands and wives from the payment of the Legacy Duty, they having in the past escaped with the already sufficiently heavy payment of Estate Duty. In my humble judgment this is one of the very worst features of the Death Duty clauses, as the Death Duty clauses are among the worst features of the Budget. I fully admit that it is not this or that tax, but it is the cumulative effect of these repeated onslaughts on capital which is fraught with so much danger to the national prosperity, to enterprise, and to employment.
But I would venture to say a few words on the Death Duty clauses specially, because this is a subject with which I am peculiarly familiar. I am not going to recite particular instances of hardship, although I might give many illustrations; but it is not the personal but the national aspect of this taxation, its effect upon enterprise, its tendency to check enterprise, and diminish employment which are the considerations which cause me solicitude. Do we realise, my Lords, the Rake's Progress in which we have been engaged for the last twenty years in overstraining this particular source of revenue? When Sir William Harcourt introduced the Budget of 1894 the Death Duties stood at a little under £10,000,000. He estimated that he was going to increase them by £4,000,000—
972
from £10,000,000 to £14,000,000. As a matter of fact, owing partly to the fact that he had underestimated the effect of his duties and partly to the fact that these duties have been greatly increased again only two years ago, they now stand at £19,000,000. If the proposals of the present Budget were adopted they would stand a few years hence, if there is no under-calculation again, at £26,500,000. From £10,000 000 to £26,500,000 in less than twenty years is a rather startling advance.
But, my Lords, that is not the whole story. The ominous fact is that the well from which we are drawing so very freely is not one of increasing abundance. If you take the amount of property liable to Estate Duty as shown by the Inland Revenue returns it shows, for the last ten years at any rate, no advance whatsoever. The accumulated wealth of this country, so far as it can be judged from these figures—and I know of none that are more fairly indicative, all statistics being, of course, liable to a certain amount of error and having to be read with a certain amount of judgment—I know nowhere in our published statistics, figures better indicative of the state of the accumulated wealth of the country. But the accumulated wealth as shown in those figures is not remarkably progressive. It is alarmingly stationary. Let any one run his eye over these statistics as he will find them on page 48 of the annual report of the Inland Revenue, and he cannot come to any other conclusion than that there is no tendency shown by those figures either in one direction or the other. The accumulated wealth of the nation seems to be on something like a dead level—a very disquieting fact when we consider, on the one hand, the growth of the population, and on the other the enormous increase during these very years in the total wealth of the world.
My Lords, if this revenue is showing the vast increase to which I have just called attention, it is not because capital is increasing, but it is simply because a larger proportion of it is being absorbed by the State. That is a process which cannot go on without ultimately diminishing capital itself. It is a feature of this age that there is the greatest conflict of opinion on all questions of public finance. There is no principle, however time-honoured, which is advanced by one set of pundits, but you can easily find another set of pundits to

973
contradict it. But there is at least one fiscal principle still unchallenged, one which I will venture to put forward as still undisputed and indisputable, and that is that when any source of revenue ceases to show expansion it is bad policy to increase your demands upon that particular source unless there is absolutely no other source to which you can have recourse. Such a proceeding is clearly suicidal; in common language, it is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Well, now, there is one source of revenue which we have abused so much already that an increase of rate no longer produces a proportionate or anything like a proportionate increase of yield. I refer to the Liquor Duties. It is true that the Government now say that they are very glad that the addition to the liquor duties which they have made is only bringing in half as much as they estimated. Its moral excellence—such is the argument—compensates for its financial absurdity. But even they cannot say that of the over-taxation of capital. Why, even Mr. Keir Hardie and his friends do not object to capital; they only want to abolish the capitalist. The Death Duties are popular in some quarters because they are regarded as means of transferring capital from the individual to the State, but their effect is not to transfer capital as capital, but simply to spend it. The whole question is whether we can afford to spend so much capital. My Lords, the answer to that question lies in a nutshell. May I put it in this way? If these periodic fines on capital, which is what the Death Duties amount to, are so moderate in amount that the sum taken by the State can on the average be replaced between fine and fine by accumulation, then they are a convenient and justifiable method of raising revenue; but if they are so heavy that capital cannot recover between fine and fine, then they are a wasteful and ruinous method of raising it. Now, looking at the figures, as I have looked at them over and over again, I can only say that it is evident to me, speaking as a financier and statistician—if I have the slightest claim to respect in either of those characters—that we have reached the utmost limit in this particular line of taxation which is compatible with not causing a diminution in the object taxed. If that is so, then the enormous additional burden now contemplated, twice, or very nearly twice, as great as that made by Sir William Harcourt in
974
1894, is bound to push us over the line on to the slope which leads down to national impoverishment.
There is another weighty argument against the increase of these particular duties. I have not time to go into it at length, but I will try to indicate it in a sentence or two. At the time when these duties were increased by Sir William Harcourt, there was no differentiation in the Income Tax between earned incomes and incomes derived from property. But if just, it is both equitable and financially sound, that incomes derived from property should contribute to the national expenditure at a somewhat higher rate than earned incomes. The effect of the Death Duties, which may be regarded as equivalent to an Income Tax on incomes derived from property, was to establish that differentiation. But since then we have differentiated on the Income Tax itself. Therefore you now have this differentiation twice over. I think there was a strong case when differentiation was introduced into the Income Tax for revising the Death Duties, not in that sense of revision of which I have given your Lordships an instance to-night, but in the opposite direction. But there certainly is a very strong case indeed against the present proposal to move in the opposite direction of greatly increasing them. I think that proposal is as indefensible in equity as it is unsound in finance.
I have dwelt so long on one particular point that I cannot go through the series of these new taxes. They are all bad. But they are not all equally bad, or rather, they are not all bad for the same reason. Some, like the additional Income Tax, are not bad in themselves, but I should like to have seen them kept in reserve for great, unforeseeable emergencies. I must say I look with some alarm on the tendency to exhaust these invaluable reserves in absolutely normal times. But the worst of it is that all these bad taxes are quite unnecessary. It would have been perfectly possible, in my opinion, to raise the whole of the £13,000,000, which are being raised by taxation, by import duties. Yes, not only without injury to business and employment, but with actual benefit to both. I know that the possibility of doing this is called in question, though it is astonishing to me that those who call it in question never seem to take the trouble of actually investigating what is done in this direction in foreign countries. For my

975
part, I am unaffected by these ex parte arguments, and I am prepared, at the proper time and place, to deal with them in detail. All I will say to your Lordships to-night is that I should very much like to try, and I hold that, before the country is committed to a wrong road in this matter of vital importance, it should at least have the opportunity of deciding whether it would not prefer to take the right one. I should like this House to be instrumental in giving it that opportunity.
As for the contention that in doing so we shall be transcending our powers, and that because, if we suspend this particular Finance Bill, therefore we should make it a practice of treating similarly all such Bills in future with which we do not happen to agree, it seems to me a patent absurdity. We have always had this right. We have never exercised it. But we have always distinctly reserved to ourselves the right to exercise it. That right has been admitted over and over again even by Liberal Statesmen, precisely because they recognised that there might be once in many years a Budget of such an exceptional and extraordinary character that this House could not be expected not to demur to it. That exceptional occasion has now arisen. How exceptional it is is constantly and vehemently pressed upon us by the author of this Budget himself. He never ceases to proclaim that it is not the immediate financial problem which he is so much concerned about as the social revolution which he is initiating. If his words mean anything, we must regard him as otherwise than a friend to the institution of the private ownership of land. There are those behind him who avowedly are enemies to the private ownership of anything. If we wish to maintain that principle of private ownership, if we believe that the country is not prepared for the threatened gigantic change, we cannot shrink from the conflict which is now forced upon us.
I would say a very few words in conclusion with regard to the confusion and the loss of revenue which it is alleged will arise from the contemplated action on the part of this House. The noble Marquess who moved the Amendment said that my noble friend, Lord Welby, had not made his flesh creep by his gloomy prognostications on this subject. Well, I am not surprised at that. Lord Welby is a master of finance, none better, but even all his
976
ability could make nothing of so poor a case. It seems to be forgotten that all these terrible consequences which are to arise if the Budget does not succeed in passing this House would equally have arisen if it had failed to pass the House of Commons, as other Budgets, even within our own time, have failed to pass that House. Is it therefore contended that the House of Commons has no right to reject a Budget after it has once accepted the Resolutions upon which it was founded? What is the extent of the possible mischief? It is said that the Income Tax and the Tea Duty could not be collected. Yes, that is perfectly true. There might be a short interval during which they could not be collected, or could not be legally collected. But everybody knows that whatever Government is in power they would be legalised before the end of the financial year. During the interval between the dissolution of one Parliament and the assembling of another nobody could be compelled to pay, but why anybody should want not to pay when it is perfectly certain he will be compelled to pay before the end of the financial year, I for one cannot for the life of me imagine.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The Tea Duties, could you collect them?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I will deal with that point. It may be that there will be an attempt to clear a large quantity of tea—I think that is what the noble Lord is referring to—in the interval between the dissolution of one Parliament and the passing of the Resolutions by another. As a matter of fact, I believe that there would be considerable practical difficulties standing in the way of the dealers over that clearance. The practice, I understand, is for the shippers and the proprietors of gardens to warehouse the tea free on its arrival in this country. The dealers who buy it from them pay, in the first instance, only a deposit. They then leave the tea in the warehouses until they want it, drawing it out in comparatively small quantities as required. When they draw it out they have to pay the balance of the sum due by them for the tea. It would be highly inconvenient for the dealers to draw out a great deal more than they could quickly sell, because they would have to put up the money which they could only slowly recover from their customers, and at the same time they would be embarrassed in finding storehouse room other than that

977
to which they are accustomed. I do not mean to say that even these considerations would prevent them from attempting it if they saw a chance of escaping the duty altogether; but inasmuch as a record can be kept, indeed must legally be kept, of all the tea as it goes out, I do not see how they could hope to escape altogether when the tax was subsequently legalised, and, therefore, I do not believe they would be tempted to face these inconveniences.
But it may be said, How about the additional duties on spirits, on tobacco, and so forth? If this measure or a similar one ultimately becomes law, those duties will have to be paid; and if it does not become law they will no longer have to be paid, as we contend that they ought not to be. But the amount of these duties from now to the end of the financial year will in any case not be very considerable. It may be asked, what of the additional duties already paid, if they are not finally confirmed by Act of Parliament? I see no reason why they should be repaid. The importers have already transferred the burden to the consumers, and if the duties were repaid, they would not be repaid to the people who had borne the burden; it would be simply putting money into the pockets of the importers. As a matter of fact there is a good precedent for not repaying them. In 1902, when the coin duty was imposed, the, duty on maize was 5d. in the Resolution, but in the Bill it was reduced to 2½d. Nevertheless, the difference was only repaid in those cases in which it could be shown that the person paying the duty had not already recovered it from some party to whom he had transferred the maize. That seems to me a perfectly just proceeding which forms a precedent for the present case. I am not arguing that there would not be a certain amount of inconvenience, that there might not be a slight leakage of revenue. But I do say that any such inconvenience and loss will be comparatively so trivial that it cannot be weighed in the balance for one moment against the high political and financial considerations which have been adduced in this House, in support of the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
In the impressive speech to which we listened to-night the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, while condemning the Budget in terms even more severe than I should venture to employ, nevertheless
978
urged and almost implored your Lordships not to take a course that might be fatal because of the misconstruction to which you would be exposed and the danger which such a course would involve to your Lordships' House. I am sure of those misconstructions. I recognise the danger. But, though I hardly venture to oppose my authority or lack of authority, to a Statesman whose opinion justly carries such weight with your Lordships as does that of the noble Earl, I must say that I think that the course which he recommended would be deadly to the reputation of this House in the country. If we believe, as he believes and as I believe, that this Budget if passed would indict injury of the most serious kind upon the gravest national interests, then I cannot justify to myself the course of passing it. Nor do I believe that the people of this country would think better of a body of men who, holding these convictions, did pass this Budget. To my mind the position is a very simple one. If the Budget is not an abnormally bad one, I think we ought to pass it, as we have in silence passed some pretty bad Budgets in previous years. But if in our opinion it really is abnormally bad, if it is a measure having the most far-reaching consequences of a disastrous kind, how can we allow the country to suffer those disasters which we clearly foresee? With a perfect sense of the gravity of the position, with a deep feeling of the responsibility which rests on every individual member of this House in the present crisis, but with a clear conscience and a great faith that our action and the motives which have prompted it will be justly and fairly judged by our fellow-countrymen, I shall give my vote in support of the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock, and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD WEARDALE: Before your Lordships adjourned you enjoyed listening to the noble Viscount whose experience in many positions of great responsibility and in connection with affairs of State give his utterances a very particular importance. But I doubt very much whether on any previous occasion he has had a task so interesting as the one which he performed with so much ability to-night. It is due to him that the curtain has been lifted, and that we are made aware of the influences behind the noble

979
Marquess who leads the Opposition, which undoubtedly have been sufficiently potent to induce him to take the very remarkable and unprecedented action which he proposes to this House in order, I will not say to refuse the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but to postpone, at all events, its full consideration by the House until the judgment of the country has been obtained upon it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, in the course of his interesting speech, made the remarkable avowal that it was, from his point of view, hardly necessary to consider in great detail the different proposals for taxation which are contained in the Finance Bill. We were not unprepared for this attitude on the part of the noble Viscount. I have in my possession an extract from a recent speech of the noble Viscount in which he said that from his point of view, the worst feature of all about the Budget was that it was intended to side-track Tariff Reform; that it was a bad solution of the financial difficulty, expressly designed to preclude the adoption of a good solution. After such a declaration as that, we could hardly expect from the noble Viscount an unprejudiced examination of the contents of the Finance Bill, and I was not therefore surprised that, after one or two very interesting criticisms of a few of its provisions, he passed from them with a statement that on the whole everyone of the proposals in the Bill was bad and was impossible as a solution of our financial difficulties; that there was only one solution of our financial difficulties, and that that was in the direction of Tariff Reform.
I would commend that observation to my noble friends Lord Rosebery, Lord Cromer, and Lord St. Aldwyn, and others who, while objecting to this Budget, as many of them do with great vehemence, have hitherto declared their absolute adherence to the great principles of Free Trade, who have never bowed the knee to Baal and have rejected what we at all events on this side consider the fallacious doctrines of Tariff Reform.
The noble Viscount really cast aside the Budget as a sort of worthless document which contained within it no feature whatever which, even subject to modification, could possibly be utilised for the purpose of establishing our financial equilibrium. After such an attitude I really think it is hardly necessary for me to follow
980
the noble Viscount in detail in connection with the criticisms he did make. But I would make this sole observation, that the noble Viscount made one remark which is of an invaluable character when we remember the various controversies that surround the whole question of Tariff Reform. It will be remembered that some questions were addressed to the noble Viscount in reference to the difficulties that would arise in the case of the postponement of the Finance Bill in consequence of the duties already paid upon certain imported articles, tea and so on. The noble Viscount gave us an explanation, which, in view of his having been head of a great department in connection with the Customs and also with the Treasury, we listened to with much interest. He made this remarkable slip—he will perhaps regret it subsequently when he remembers it—that there would be no difficulty in coming to an accommodation upon the matter because the importers of those articles have introduced the bulk of their various imports and have already passed the duties on to the consumer. Well, I welcome that declaration because at least it amounts to this, that we have one of the foremost exponents of Tariff Reform in this House admitting the contention, from which we have never for one moment swerved, that barring certain rare cases in exceptional circumstances and in minor degree all these duties ultimately fall upon the consumer and upon the consumer alone.
I am sure we have all listened with the greatest interest and in many respects with pleasure, to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, who has unfortunately found himself unable to act on this occasion, as, I am sorry to say, on some other occasions, with the great Party which he had once the honour of leading. We regret our differences of opinion with him, but we cannot, unfortunately, abandon our view that in this matter of the Budget we are taking the only line which is consistent with our Liberal faith, and that is the line of Free Trade, and that the Budget, whatever may be said with regard to certain of its details, at all events reposes upon the principle which, as a Party, we have always upheld and which, I trust, we shall never relinquish.
The very interesting debate which has taken place I would venture to say has been somewhat discursive in many particulars

981
because the Budget has been, in some of the speeches, the very last subject which has been considered or discussed. Now, I am going to ask you to allow me to deal for a short time with the Budget, and with the objections which have been raised to it. As I said, this Budget has been drawn on Free Trade principles. Everybody knows that we have to deal with a very great expenditure and I suppose no one will deny that that expenditure must be met in some way or other. I confess that in considerable degree I share the apprehensions which were so ably expressed by Earl Russell last night with regard to the lavish, and, in my opinion, generally wanton expenditure which has taken place in connection with our bloated armaments. I view that with alarm; I might say with quite as much alarm as was expressed this afternoon by Earl Rosebery, who said that eventually they would lead to the bankruptcy of Europe. I regret extremely that it has not been the proud privilege of the people of this country to lead the way in a policy of proper economy in these directions and that we have not been able to maintain the great traditions of the Liberal Party on the subject of economy. But be that as it may, the main question we have to consider now and at all times is how to provide for the financial necessities of the year. I observed that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his opening speech, summarised his objections to the Budget as it is drawn under six heads. Now, five of those heads may be really grouped under one. It may be said that they were a general objection to any further taxation of land. Land was already burdened; land, I might almost say, was sacred; land must be subjected to no further taxation. Then there was a sixth objection, namely that these taxes were based upon a Socialistic fallacy.
Let me take these taxes more or less seriatim. In the first place, let me explain that while I speak of a Free Trade Budget, I speak of a principle which I conceive to be necessary to Free Trade or to Liberalism, and that is a Budget based upon the principle of equality of sacrifice. That, I conceive to be the foundation of this Budget as it must be of all Liberal Budgets—equality of sacrifice. Well, in what respect does this Budget in any way vitiate this principle, and in what other kind of respect is there any suggestion or suspicion of this charge of Socialism? Let us take the Income Tax and the Death Duties. I must remark in connection with
982
this matter that the noble Viscount who denounced the Budget root and branch, who said that every tax and every proposal in it was equally bad, seems entirely to have forgotten the existence of one distinguished Statesman who, I imagine, is his leader, and that is Mr. Balfour. Mr. Balfour has publicly given his acquiescence to, at all events, two of the Budget's methods of taxation. He has admitted the necessity under the circumstances of the increased Income Tax and of the increased Death Duties. We all know that those duties are already high. We all recognise that the charge upon us is considerable. None of us like to pay increased taxation. I do not suppose that even the richest among us, any more than the poorest, welcome any increased annual charge, but we have to bear in mind the circumstances of the case, and the necessities of the hour; and both those conditions, it seems to me, impose upon us the sacrifice which we are called upon to make, and which are comprised under the increased taxation in the Income Tax and the Death Duties. Those duties proceed upon the very principle which I have ventured to enunciate—equality of sacrifice. You have the smaller incomes paying less and the larger incomes, particularly those derived from invested wealth and not from earnings, paying more. Is that an unjust principle upon which to proceed? I confess that the Death Duties are a subject upon which many of us enter with some what mixed feelings, because those who have arrived at my time of life have no expectation of inheriting wealth and therefore it is more a question of what is going to happen with what we possess when we die, and upon that subject I can only say that those persons of the younger generation who happen to have the good fortune of inheriting whatever we may be able to leave them surely have no ground of complaint if they have to pay some contribution to the national requirements in proportion to the sums that they receive.
I pass from that to the Licence Duties. The Licence Duties deal with what I imagine must be recognised, and fairly recognised, as one of the great monopolies of the State, a monopoly which has grown up under the ægis of the State and which has grown to proportions which some of us regard with great apprehension and with grave misgivings. That monopoly is the great liquor traffic of which Earl Rosebery, at an earlier period of his career, spoke as threatening to strangle the State unless the State was prepared to strangle it.

983
And he was perfectly right. The liquor traffic has grown up under the protection of the State which has created a vast monopoly and I suppose no one in this House will deny that large fortunes have been made out of it; that immense accretions of capital have been created and have gone into the pockets of those who were so fortunate, if we may use the term, as to be engaged in it in its prosperous period. In that prosperous period no doubt large numbers of those who were engaged in this particular trade thought the opportunity good to transfer their holdings to bodies of shareholders. I much sympathise with those unfortunate shareholders. I regret the position in which they find themselves; but I say with all emphasis that it is no part of the duty of the State to intervene between shareholders, however confiding, and the consequences of their own credulity or folly. It may be perfectly true that loss will fall upon certain people in connection with this matter, but the principle itself is a just one. It is a just principle which says that the State should resume a portion of the wealth which the State too lavishly allowed to be created, and all I can say is that I, as a friend of temperance, will rejoice if the great monopoly has, to a certain extent, to draw in its horns and to further a certain restriction of the opportunities for drinking and for that intemperance which is one of the gravest evils affecting our national life. Does not that increase of Licence Duties also proceed upon the same principle of equality of sacrifice? Does it not also maintain that principle in the proposal that the smaller houses, the less productive houses, should pay the least charge for licences, and that those who have the greatest revenue and which enjoy the greatest profits from this trade should pay the largest Licence Duties? It seems to me that with regard to the Licence Duties, just in the same way as with regard to the Income Tax and Death Duties, the Budget proceeds upon lines which are just, and which, at all events commend themselves to the Liberal Party.
Now we come to the Land Taxes. With regard to those taxes it may have been observed by those who had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the noble Viscount, Viscount Milner, that in the course of that speech he gave a sort of timid acquiescence in, a half-hearted approval of, the Increment Duty, but in regard to the Undeveloped Land Tax he said it was a bad tax. He did not
984
even discuss it. With respect to the Increment Duty I would merely remark that the question of the taxation of land values is, I was going to say, almost as old as this House. At all events, it is as old as most of us remember. I had the honour of being for a great many years a member of the House of Commons, and I can hardly recall a single year in all that period when I did not receive representations, when I did not attend deputations, when I did not go to meetings, having reference to this question of the taxation of land values. There was not a year when, even on the part of the most Tory Town Councils and the most Conservative municipalities we did not receive representations all tending to this, that the unearned increment in urban land ought to be subjected to taxation.
I must make some excuse to the House if I call attention for one brief moment to the fact that during the course of this debate there has been almost unmeasured denunciation of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consequence of the speeches which he made at Limehouse and at Newcastle. I am certainly in no sense an apologist for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is well able to take care of himself. I am only speaking in the interests of what I may call common justice and I ask this House this simple question. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in connection with these land taxes, which has not been said before? I am old enough to remember a meeting, a meeting at which I was present, of the Allotments Association, of which the President at that time was my excellent friend Mr. Jesse Collings. That meeting was addressed by a distinguished Statesman whose continued illness we all deplore and in whose sickness we fully sympathise. The subject discussed on that occasion was this very question of the unearned increment in urban land; and it gave rise to a speech from which, perhaps, the House will permit me to quote an extract. What did Mr. Joseph Chamberlain say on that occasion, in January, 1886, in reference to land taxation? He said—
"What does that mean? It means that at this moment the trade of the country is burdened with an annual tax of £2,000,000, which is the price which commerce pays to landlowners for the privilege of improving their property. I think myself that the time has come when this form of ransom should cease, and that it should no longer be considered one of the rights of property to go on blackmailing the public whenever their wants and necessities require them to enter into a bargain."

985
I do not want for one moment to criticise the language of the right hon. gentleman. On the contrary, I cordially agreed with it at the time, as I cordially agree with it to-day. But all I would ask you is how can you turn and stigmatise the language of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in no one single syllable, as far as I know, has gone beyond the declarations of Mr. Chamberlain, now the friend of hon. members opposite, on that occasion in 1886? It seems to me that in this matter, if noble Lords will excuse me for saying so, there is a great deal of cant. We have to deal, undoubtedly, with a serious situation. We have got to find money and large amounts of money under very exceptional difficulties. We have to find it at a time when, no doubt, trade is bad and when circumstances are unfavourable to increased taxation. But I applaud the courage with which the Government have tackled this difficult dilemma and have endeavoured to deal with it, as I think, on right and proper lines.
I know it is said that this Budget is going to do all sorts of terrible things. It is undermining credit; it is driving capital abroad; it is destroying confidence: I heard with great pleasure, although I disagree with every syllable of it, the excellent speech made by the noble Lords Lord Revelstoke, in which he expounded that theory with great ability and, I have no doubt, with the most absolute conviction. But I ask the noble Lord, as I ask all your Lordships, this question. Is it not a fact that quite apart from the considerations which were advanced by the noble Lord, namely the contention that various influences are at work driving capital abroad and so on—is it not a fact that the most important consideration was left altogether out of the purview of the noble Lord? Is it not a fact quite apart from every other circumstance that we have, unfortunately, to deal with the situation arising out of the fact that we were engaged not long ago—although, happily, the circumstances have so far changed that we have almost forgotten it—in a war in South Africa, in which we spent £240,000,000 or £250,000,000?
It cannot be supposed that our resources of capital can be depleted by so large a sum as that without its having an effect upon our national credit. One of the principal contentions which was advanced by the noble Lord was that there was a depreciation
986
in British securities. But is it, after all, unreasonable to expect such a depreciation when you have had this exceptional demand upon the national credit? There is also the fact that, in addition to all other matters, we had an Act, the Irish Land Purchase Act, which was passed by the late Conservative Government and with regard to which I have no criticism to offer, which made an enormous demand upon our national credit, which I believe has already absorbed countless millions and which, when it is completely satisfied will, I believe, have required from us no less than £180,000,000 or £190,000,000. In face of that obligation, only partially satisfied, and of the apprehension which is naturally due to the possibilities of further demand in that respect, is it unnatural that there should be a depreciation in British Government securities? When I am told that in the Bank parlour, the sacred precincts of which I do not for one moment suggest I can approach, great apprehension is entertained with regard to the situation of British credit, I may, as a humble investor, be permitted to say that I believe that the apprehensions of that Bank parlour are confined to a very limited circle.
I turn now to the last question and, perhaps, in the minds of some noble Lords, the most interesting. This Budget is attacked as being a Socialistic Budget. The noble Marquess who opened the debate has publicly declared his belief that the principles of this Budget are Socialistic. My Lords, we desire to make our situation with regard to this matter absolutely clear. What is meant by "Socialistic"? Of course it may be said that any programme, which embraces the sort of social progress and social reform in which gentlemen of liberal views on both sides of this House and in every other Assembly would be prepared to participate, is Socialism. But when I speak of Socialism I want it to be clearly understood that I speak of what may be called "revolutionary Socialism." By "revolutionary Socialism" I mean that class of Socialism which is identified with the doctrines of Karl Marx, and with what is generally understood as German Socialism. Happily, until this date, that kind of Socialism had but a very small foothold in this country. That was due to the fortunate circumstance that the Liberal Party in this country had always understood the obligation of advancing

987
with the times; had always felt how necessary it was to push forward social progress and social reform in order to meet the growing demands of the always extending community. The day has come when, unfortunately, we are face to face with this situation, that circumstances are going, I am afraid, to give to that kind of Socialism of which I have spoken a much larger extension in this country. That international Socialism which existed, as I say, in such small and limited circles here could not feed upon a soil which was happily impregnated with the principles of Free Trade, the principles which enabled the most humble of our fellow citizens to obtain all their necessaries of life under the most favourable conditions and at the cheapest rate. The position is now about to be changed. The issue for them is really one as between Fiscal Reform and Free Trade.
Fiscal Reform has been represented to us as something very different from Tariff Reform in foreign countries or from Protection as we knew it. We are told it is to be scientific. I have great suspicion of the term "scientific" in connection with this matter. Is there a country in the world where science is so carefully nourished, where science has such widespread application, where science is applied in so many and ingenious forms as in Germany. Germany enjoys a "scientific tariff," and I ask you who are in favour of a policy which I am endeavouring to combat, to cast your eyes over to Germany, and to ask yourselves what is the result of the "scientific tariff" in Germany? Why, the very revolutionary Socialism which you apprehend here has grown in Germany to almost portentous dimensions. The Socialist vote in Germany is growing year by year. It has grown from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 and I am informed on the best authority that it is likely to attain no less a number than 4,000,000 or even 5,000,000 at the next election in Germany. That is Socialism bred upon Protection. I am aware that there are noble Lords opposite who say that there is something to be borrowed from Germany in the sense that there is in Germany an Income Tax which is comprehensive; and I am told that some of the Conservative Free Traders believe that a comprehensive Income Tax without any kind of exclusion would possibly terminate our financial difficulties. In Germany every citizen who earns the sum of 18 s. a week pays Income Tax.
988
But what is the situation of the unfortunate German worker? There are 22,000,000 of them—I speak of both sexes—who earn less than 18 s. a week—22,000,000 of these unfortunate people earning less than 18 s. a week and yet it is suggested that we should cast our eyes over the water! The noble Viscount invites us to take our example from Germany and to introduce into this country a system of Fiscal Reform which means undoubtedly the embarrassment of the poor, because it means making them pay more for all they use, for all they eat; as it would also mean the destruction of the life-blood of our national prosperity and commerce. That is the policy which is recommended to us by noble Lords opposite.
"Let us have," the noble Viscount declared this afternoon, "a free hand to try a scientific tariff." I regret that the noble Viscount, even under the possible consequences of future developments, can never be the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the future; but I should think that, even if he were, his task would be a sorry one. To introduce Tariff Reform into this country, and to assume that it would in any way stem the tide of revolutionary Socialism, I believe to be an absolute chimera, and those who entertain it are doomed to disappointment.
I have only one further observation to make. The action which is suggested by the noble Marquess, the action which is about to be taken by your Lordships' House is, I assume, one which is supposed to be by those who are about to support it a highly ingenious device for attracting the electors. It is imagined that the electors will say, "Oh, what a democratic House of Lords this is. It has deferred to the judgment of the electors the final verdict upon the Budget." I conceive that there never was a greater illusion than that. It is not your Lordships' function to decide what will be the particular conclusion or the particular points which will be referred to the electors. That has always been, and will be now, the duty and the obligation of the Government of the day and of the Party which is now in power. Do you suppose for one moment that it would be merely the consideration of whether this Budget should be allowed to pass into law or not? Such a situation is impossible.
You have raised a grave constitutional question. You have flouted the almost immemorial practice of this House with

989
regard to finance. Perhaps I may be excused for reminding your Lordships of the immortal words of my great kinsman Lord Chatham, who said that the power of the purse was deposited solely within the control of the Commons. For 200 years that great principle has remained inviolate. For 200 years it has never been seriously assailed. Do you suppose for one moment that when the electors of this country are consulted they will merely give their verdict, "Aye" or "No," upon the question of the Budget. My Lords, they will give their verdict upon another question. They will give their verdict, and rightly give their verdict, upon the question whether the power of the purse is to remain permanently as it should remain, in the hands of the Commons; whether that great privilege, that great possession, which, in the words of Lord Chatham, was essential to our liberty—whether that great privilege and that great right is to be taken from them and to be transferred to this House. That will be the question which the electorate will be called upon to decide. Your Lordships cannot make the issues. You cannot propound the particular questions which the electors will be called upon to answer. I say to you, although, perhaps, I have no special claim to speak with so much frankness on this subject, that when that verdict is given it will be given in favour of two objects. It will be given first of all in favour of the principles contained in this Budget. But, above all, it will be given in favour of the commanding principle that the power of the purse, that the great privileges of the Commons, shall no longer rest upon custom, which you have broken, but shall be made certain, shall be secured by an enactment which shall re-establish on a sounder basis the present relations between the two Houses of Parliament.
I thank the House for listening to me with the kind consideration it has shown. I can only say that I hope in what I have said I have offended no member of it. At all events I have stated with sincerity and with the warmth of feeling which I entertain with regard to these high constitutional matters, the grave issue which will not be decided by your vote upon this Bill, but which will shortly be decided by the greater vote of the people of this country.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I
990
wish to speak in support of the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the Leader of the Opposition. If I had any previous doubts on this matter, which I confess I never had, as to the policy of supporting this Amendment, those doubts would have been completely removed after having heard the strong and the forcible arguments of the noble Marquess as to his reasons for submitting this Amendment to your Lordships' House. I feel sure that the noble Marquess will receive the loyal support, not only of the majority of his followers on this side of the House, but of a great many on the other side of the House. No one can reasonably doubt that the advice that the noble Marquess has tended to us on this question, has been dictated by the most disinterested conception of public duty. I think he was perfectly justified when he asked if we passed this Budget what guarantee have we that there will not be included in future Budgets either a Home Rule Bill or a Welsh Disestablishment Bill? As your Lordships are aware, this House has of late been frequently assailed by certain violent members of His Majesty's Government who have been good enough to tell us what is likely to happen if we hesitate to pass this Bill into law. They have told us that such action would involve an appeal to the country and that the result of that appeal might mean the ending or the mending of your Lordships' House. In politics, as in individual life, the right has often to be undertaken with a scorn of consequences. But I believe the electorate generally—speaking at any rate, for the county of Kent where I think I know their feelings on this question fairly well—will approve the proposed action of your Lordships' House in submitting the entire issue to the popular vote and acting with a single eye to the good of the country and of the Empire. In fact I believe they expect us to take that action. I believe, too, that your Lordships' House will be all the more respected throughout the country for contemptuously disregarding the threats that have been indulged in against us, and that the hope of certain members of His Majesty's Government that by passing this Amendment a great storm of national indignation will be raised against us will be once more rudely disappointed.
For I cannot believe for one moment that the country as a whole is likely to quarrel with us for exercising the elementary and indispensable function of a Second Chamber.

991
I am perfectly aware that noble Lords on the other side assert that this House has no such function. I think the noble Marquess clearly disproved that idea. Surely I am justified in asking those noble Lords opposite who hold that view, to tell us what they regard as the chief duty of a Second Chamber in a democratic country. Surely it is to take care that principles such as are involved in this Budget shall not be passed into law without the people of this country having the opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon them. I contend that the principles involved in this Budget constitute an entirely new departure from orthodox Liberal finance—a departure for which no one can truthfully say a mandate was given at the last General Election. Therefore, it appears to me that in taking such a course we shall only be giving the nation the opportunity to decide its own destiny. In the course of this debate many arguments have been brought forward against this measure. To my mind the strongest objections to it are these. First, I believe it is the only occasion when a Budget has been introduced into the House of Commons mainly for the purpose of penalising political opponents and at the same time bribing political supporters of the Government by the incorporation of a Land Bill and a Licensing Bill in this measure.
My second objection to the measure is that it has been cunningly devised as a vehicle for Socialistic revolution; for no one can deny that this measure adopts in principle the doctrines of the extreme Socialistic Party, whilst it provides at the same time all the machinery that is necessary for carrying those doctrines into effect at any time hereafter. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks such tactics clever. In my opinion they are far too clever to succeed, for I do not think for one moment that the country is likely to oblige him by helping forward such ingenious tactics in politics. Hitherto, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been regarded as the custodian of the public purse and as holding that office in order to safeguard the financial interests of the country. Apparently that is to be no more. Anyhow, I believe that the country as a whole well remember the services that have been rendered by your Lordships' House in rejecting a few years ago the Home Rule Bill, and I believe they are equally satisfied with us for faithfully
992
dealing with the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill. Most of your Lordships on this side of the House, at any rate, will agree that a Budget always has been, and should be, a financial measure for the purpose of providing the needs of the year and nothing else, a measure which your Lordships' House as a rule passes as a matter of course in the same way as an auditor passes the accounts of a public company. But I maintain that this measure contains a great deal more than that. It not only contains a Licensing Bill but it contains a Land Valuation Bill and a Land Nationalisation Bill as well. There can be little doubt that the two great national problems that this country has to decide at the present moment are national defence and unemployment. The first can only be attained by ensuring that our first line of defence is kept up to the two-Power standard, which the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on November 19, 1908, meant this—" a preponderance of ten per cent. over the combined strength in capital ships of the two largest navies." It is quite certain that this cannot be achieved if we in this country spend on new construction less than one-half of what the two next strongest navies are spending. Is it to be wondered at that many of our Naval officers have constantly been asked by Foreign Naval officers this question, "What is coming to England in letting her Navy drop off as it is and not seeing, or not wanting to see, that Germany is going on by leaps and bounds until in 1911 she will equal you in first-class battleships and cruisers?"
It will be in the recollection of your Lordships' House that when this Budget was first introduced we were told that the increased burden of taxation was owing to the increased expenditure on the Navy; but this Budget only provides, or has earmarked for that purpose £3,000,000, which is to be found out of the Sinking Fund, whilst the second contingent of four Dreadnoughts, which we are told are about to be put down, is to be charged to next year's Budget. Therefore, I think no one can say this Budget does anything for national defence.
We now come to that other national question of unemployment. I maintain until anybody on the other side can show me to the contrary, that this Budget will increase that evil rather than diminish it. No one, I think, can deny this fact,

993
that in no other great civilised country in the world does unemployment prevail to such an extent as it does in the United Kingdom. What is the reason for that? There can be no reason except that we of all the great countries in the world still continue to persist in that system falsely called Free Trade, which is primarily the cause of the working classes in this country suffering from unfair competition. Lord Curzon, in a very strong and forcible speech on this question the other day, appears to have hit the right nail on the head when he asked, "Are we never to take toll of the foreigner; are all other countries fools because they flourish by declining to follow our example? "
It is for this reason that we on this side of the House advocate a change in our fiscal policy by means of a scientific tariff, which does not mean in any sort of way Protection any more than Free Trade means free imports. I would, therefore, like to ask any member of His Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House to tell us how this Budget will be able to cure that disease from which British labour has long been suffering, namely the evil of unemployment. I ask that question because I believe it will have the opposite effect. That is what the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, said last night—it will greatly accentuate the disease by the imposition on novel principles of new duties on capital. No one, I think, can deny this point, that it is upon capital and its undiminished security that the working classes must rely for their wages and employment. And as Lord Curzon said in the same speech, with which I fully agree, what the British workman wants at the present time is work. "Where is it," he asks, "in the fiery rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?" It is the one thing that is absent. It is primarily for those reasons to which I have alluded that I believe your Lordships' House will gain rather than lose popularity in the country by submitting this portentous measure to the electors. It is for this reason, too, that I shall without the least hesitation have pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before I take the liberty of addressing you on the Motion before your Lordships I wish to say a few words with, regard to a speech delivered by Lord Weardale. First of all
994
I may say I took that speech as an answer to Lord Milner, who can take very good care of himself. Lord Milner being a Tariff Reformer and Lord Weardale being a Free Trader, I took that speech as being entirely framed on those lines and on those principles. But there was one thing Lord Weardale said in his speech that I wish to call your Lordships' attention to. He said that the great principle of the Liberal Party was economy. Now, we are all perfectly aware that the Liberal Party went to the polls pledged to economy. They gained many votes on that understanding. I will only speak of one measure, and that is the Old Age Pensions Act. I know in my country that is not a very economical measure. I think the Liberal Party have had to pay for the experience of Old Age Pensions as applied to Ireland, from what I read in the papers.
Then Lord Weardale went on to talk about the equality of sacrifice, and that motto ran through the whole of his speech—"equality of sacrifice." Well, my answer to that is that I think both the poor and the rich are being sacrificed under the Liberal Government's Budget. Lord Weardale said that Tariff Reform will make the poor people of this country pay more for all they use and all they eat. [Hear, hear.] Members say "Hear, hear." All they eat! Well, we have heard that before. I wonder whether your Lordships remember the speech Lord Goschen made in this House when the duty of a shilling per quarter was put on wheat. He took that duty when it was attacked and when it was said the poor man would pay more for his food, and he reduced the bag down to loaves and pointed out that it was a fraction of a farthing more which the poor man had to pay for his loaf. What then becomes of that argument? All that is suggested—I am not going to make a Tariff Reform speech—is that there should be 2s. put on corn. I will pass from that because it is not my business to deal with that question.
The Amendment before your Lordships' House is so plain that I venture to say it will be clearly understood by every elector not only in this country but in the country which I come from. The House in adopting the Amendment is adhering to the principle which it has adhered to for many years, that is, that it can refuse to read a second time a Budget and a Finance Bill. And we are fortified in this principle by the precedent

995
of Parliamentary custom. Now, I allude with all deference to the words of the Lord Chancellor. He said—
"Every year all the Estates of the Realm combined to pay homage to the rights of the House of Commons in regard to money Bills. The Crown itself acknowledges their power."
But may I put it that the Commons, as one of the Estates of the Realm, have, on more than one occasion, admitted the right of the House of Lords to reject or even amend a Money Bill. If I pursue that subject further I should like to quote some words of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, who declared that nothing to be found in Parliamentary journals or the history of Parliamentary proceedings showed that our right to reject Money Bills had been questioned. We had no right whatever to amend a Money Bill, Lord Lyndhurst said. I should like to quote the words of one of the great Leaders of the Liberal Party, Mr. Gladstone, a name that we all in Ireland remember very well indeed. Mr. Gladstone said on May 16, 1861—
"The powers of this House must remain greater on the whole than those of the House of Lords, but I believe that to infringe the privileges of the House of Lords or to cripple the functions of that august Assembly would he as fatal to the balance of the Constitution as would be the loss of the privileges of this House itself."
Then Mr. Gladstone again, speaking much later, in 1894, said in the House of Commons, addressing the Speaker—
"No doubt, sir, there is a higher authority than the House of Commons; it is the authority of the nation that must in the last resort decide."
Well, what are the terms of this Motion? The terms of this Motion are that we leave it to the nation to decide whether this Budget is to be accepted by the nation or not. I should like again to address the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and mention some words of his with the greatest respect. He was speaking of the Constitution and the law, and he said according to law we can reject the Budget but according to the Constitution he did not think we could. And he said—
"The difference between what can be done according to law and what can be done in accordance with the Constitution under which we live is notorious and fundamental. The law definitely fixes rules. What would happen if all the Estates of the Realm were to carry out in freedom all the powers that the law entrusts to them? The Crown has enormous powers, which by the Constitution for centuries have not been used."
But, my Lords, the powers of the House of
996
Lords have really been exercised for centuries, and they have been exercised with effect. I do not think I need pursue that subject any further, but I should like to say something further upon the Motion. The Motion is no actual rejection, as I said before, because the electors will have to decide upon this question. Lord Weardale warned us—I have often heard the warning before—to the effect that something dreadful would happen if we were to do this. We are not living in the times of 1831 when the whole country was convulsed with revolution in consequence of the Lords not passing the Reform Bill, when Bristol was nearly burnt down and was saved by the pluck and energy of a Captain of Yeomanry. We are not living in those times, and I am not in the least disturbed or frightened by those terrible threats which emanate from noble Lords opposite. In Ireland we are often threatened. We live sometimes in an atmosphere of threats, but I ask what can be fairer, and after all what can be more democratic if we appeal to the sovereign power which is lodged in the collective body of the people?
Many of us begin to think that the Government are shrinking from facing the people on this question, and I believe they fear it immensely. And the noble Lord alluded to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, he made a celebrated speech not far from here, namely down at Limehouse, and he denounced noble Lords, Dukes and other members of this House in no unmeasured terms. Lord Willoughby De Broke gave expression to a word which I thoroughly agree with when he said there was a certain amount, I think he said, of vulgarity in that speech. I do not say the whole speech was in that tone, but there was a certain amount of it. No doubt it suited the Limehouse audience. Let me remind your Lordships of a verse in the Ingoldsby Legends which I will read to you. The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically cursed the Dukes. He said on another occasion, I believe, that they were more expensive than Dreadnoughts. In one of the Ingoldsby Legends, "The Jackdaw of Rheims," the words run thus—
"Never was heard such a terrible curse.
But what gave rise to no little surprise,
Nobody seemed one penny the worse."
Well, I think the by-elections are rather straws which show the way the wind blows and indicate to us and make us believe that the voters in the country are beginning rather to grasp the inward meaning of this

997
somewhat intricate Budget. I think before the writs are issued many noble Lords in this House will endeavour to make them grasp not only the intricate meaning but the inward meaning of many of the intricacies of this Budget.
I should like to allude to another matter which the noble Lord opposite made a great point of, that is the Socialistic side in the Budget. He alluded to the Socialism of Karl Marx and the Socialism in Germany. He said because there was Protection in that country Socialism had increased to an enormous extent. I may venture humbly to remark that the Socialistic wedge is being gently tapped in this country. I should like to produce a little evidence to that effect to the supporters of the Government opposite. Mr. Winston Churchill, speaking on September 6, 1909, said—
"The Budget was the first conscious attempt on the part of the State to build up a better and more scientific organisation of society for the benefit of the workers of the country."
That is a very mild form of Socialism. Now we come to what Mr. Keir Hardie said at Saltley, near Birmingham, on September 18, 1909—
"Members of the Labour Party were supporting the Budget knowing it was the first step towards the ideal they had in view, the absorption by the community for the use of the community of all unearned incomes, whether from land or capital."
I think the wedge was beginning to get another tap there. And then we had Mr. Keir Hardie again, but I won't quote that. But I will quote Mr. Ross Clynes, the Socialist member for North East Manchester. He is reported in the Manchester Guardian to have said—
"I think it is pretty well driven home here—that ' Ministers as well as the rank and file are now compelled to talk of matters which Socialists had forced to the front, and Mr. Lloyd George's Limehouse speech was famous because all its economic and Socialist items were copied substantially from the speeches of obscure street corner talkers who had been spreading the views of the Labour Party for years. As the policeman says, "from information received," I think it is a long step and a step and a jump in the direction of Socialism pure and simple.'"
I have only read these extracts in order to prove what the Socialists and the Liberal Party think of the Budget. I think it is quite fair that I have done so. They are supporters of noble Lords opposite and their utterances appear in the public Press from which I have quoted.
Now we are told that if we reject this Bill the whole financial provisions of the country
998
will be thrown into confusion. May I remind your Lordships what the noble Marquess said in his speech? I have not the exact words but I know the meaning of them. He said if there was any difficulty on that score he would be quite ready to meet the noble Lords opposite and the Government in passing any measure that would tide over any difficulties of that sort. We are forced to hear that the English Constitution is on the edge of a precipice and that we are about to hurl it over. But those who wish to pass this Budget have in their minds that fear which they choose to call discretion. We lay claim to discretion, too, and it is born in the Amendment before the House. I take it that it is not born of fear but of uprightness. I ask you, "Is this House so out of touch with the national spirit that we are doing something against that spirit?" I do not think so. It will be decided out of this House whether the people will accept the Budget or not, whether the country will accept Socialism as embodied in it and approved of by the Socialist Party, or whether they will adopt bureaucracy by instalment as embodied in this Bill. When I speak of bureaucracy I speak of that army of followers who will be living on good salaries and will be able to exercise on every taxpayer power of a most inquisitorial and despotic character.
Now there was something very important the Lord Chancellor said. It has not been alluded to before in this debate and I should like to allude to it. He said—
"In my opinion it is impossible any Liberal Government should ever again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured against a repetition of the treatment such as our measures have had to undergo for the last four years."
Of course, it is a very easy—I would not dare to do it—to dismiss that most important statement with cheap sarcasm. But what are the measures we have rejected? The Education Bill and the Licensing Bill—two very important measures no doubt. But if the country had been behind the Liberal Government on those two questions our "cup," so often mentioned, would have been filled up long ago, and the constitutional issue would not have come now; it would have come then. But it did not come and the country has settled down very quietly to enjoy the Old Age Pensions which were given to it.
There was one speech made last night by Lord Russell, who spoke in no

999
unmeasured terms of the Budget, to to which I will refer. He spoke of the uneconomical policy of the Liberal party—the Army was too big, the Navy was too big, and too much money was spent upon them. He said the aristocrats in the Reign of Terror were not afraid of the guillotine but the knife fell none the less, and the action which your Lordships are now taking was, he believed, the beginning of the end of those understandings in the Constitution between the two Houses. He went on to say he would rejoice to see the veto of this House swept away. I am sure the noble Lord would miss his House of Lords. I am sure he would miss coming down and making those clever speeches which we all enjoy and appreciate and listen to, and I might say that in the long and protracted session, kept up by the Liberal Party now, Trafalgar Square or Hyde Park would be a chilly place to speak in if he had not this Chamber. I listened with a great deal of attention to Lord Rosebery's speech. I think we all listened to-day with the very greatest attention to him; but what came across me when I had heard the end of that speech was this—I felt it was most inconclusive. I wish the noble Earl was here to listen to what I have to say. [Lord Rosebery here took his seat.] I was saying I always listen with the greatest respect when Lord Rosebery speaks. He lectured your Lordships' House, but the result of that lecture had this effect upon me, that I did not take very careful notes of the lecturer. He denounced the Budget up hill and down dale. He has denounced it before in public; but he said he would not vote for the Amendment before your Lordships' House. I leave my Lord Rosebery there.
Perhaps your Lordships will think me somewhat indiscreet if I go on to allude to other speeches, but I must allude to the one made by Lord St. David's. I took particular care to be in the House and listen to every word of it. He dealt largely with finance. He is quite capable of doing so. He also dealt with Protection and Tariff Reform. He said men were kept employed making engines and wagons for South America, and if Tariff Reform came what would become of all that work those men made? What he said with regard to South America was all very well, but he must remember that notwithstanding his efforts in South America there is a great deal of unemployment still in this
1000
country. I have digressed, as an Irishman would say, before I have even got on to the road.
I have to put before you the case of Ireland, as it is affected by the Budget. Now the policy which has been carried out with regard to that country in finance is that the tenant has been financed by State aid, under various Land Acts, for the purchase of his farm, and the landlords have been assisted in the same manner, especially by the 1903 Act. The total sums advanced to the tenants have amounted, since the first Land Act was passed, to £62,303,490. I do not see Lord St. David's here to challenge these figures. The capital and interest, I must remind you is being paid back to the uttermost farthing. We are often told, and we feel it very much, that a great deal of English taxpayers' money has been paid over to Ireland without any chance of it coming back. I notice noble Lords are laughing. The truth of the matter is that every penny—I am talking quite seriously—is paid back, and the Treasury will get its own and get its own over and over again.
I wish now to deal with the effect of the Budget on the Irish farmer. You must remember that the Irish farmer has been made a freeholder by State aid. Now you are getting your money back. I speak of the English taxpayer. I am a taxpayer myself as much as anyone else in the House. You are getting your money back by slow degrees, but under this Budget how do you mulct this man, having made him a freeholder? The present duty on the conveyance or transfer on sale of any property is ten per cent. That is increased to twenty per cent. On conveyance on transfers by voluntary disposition the fixed duty is ten per cent. That is increased to twenty per cent. For leases the stamp duties vary according to the rent and the period of the lease. That is doubled. Income Tax does not affect the farmer very much; he is very often not rich enough to pay it. Now we come to the Death Duties. A great many farmers who will have to pay Death Duties will hardly realise what the former Death Duties were. They have had no experience of what the Death Duties were under former Acts. The Death Duties are insidious, far-reaching and unfair. The farmers are ill-prepared to meet the heavy demands for Death Duties. The payment of those Death

1001
Duties will frequently entail the immediate sale of cattle or other stock at a time when that stock is less ready for market. They may also have to hand over a portion of their lands to the Revenue Commission in payment of the liability under this Budget. Now one cannot conceive anything more outrageous to a class you are creating in that country who have been financed to become peasant proprietors, than that they should, if they cannot pay the Death Duties, have to hand over a portion of their farms, perhaps reducing them to the level of a congested holding. I commend that statement to the noble Earl who had charge of, and so thoroughly well carried out in this House, the Irish Land Bill that we have lately dealt with.
There is a fresh valuation to be taken of the whole of the United Kingdom. Every purchasing tenant, whose total assets—no allowance being made for duties, money, stock, furniture, and land crops—are determined by valuers, will have, if the estimates come to £500 or over, to pay, first a competitive value for his land, and secondly on the capitalised value of the purchase annuity. That is most unjust, and it is extortionate to charge a tenant duty on the competitive value of his farm. The general valuation of the whole of Ireland is prescribed by Clause 26, and the cost will be enormous. But what will touch the Irish farmer, and what he will resent—and I think I should feel I was right in telling him to resent it—is the sort of inquisitorial questions of the valuers which will have to be answered by him. If he does not answer them he is under a penalty, I think, of £50. We know what Ireland is, at least I do. I think the people who go and ask these questions and search for the information will not have a very pleasant time. And the man who seeks to recover the £50—well I pity him if he goes into the district.
Now with regard to the Legacy Duties. The Legacy Duties to a brother or sister are raised from the present rate of three per cent. to a duty of five per cent. I am analysing the Bill to a certain extent, my Lords. Other relations under the Bill, except those I have mentioned, are treated as strangers, and a legacy is charged at the rate of ten per cent. Now, let me summarise what the farmers will have to put up with in Ireland. A large body of them who have hitherto paid nothing will
1002
be subject to Death Duties; many others will pay a higher valuation, a higher scale of taxes, and those taxes are a special burden on Irish farmers as compared with English, or Scottish farmers, as the latter, first, are not owners, and, second, have not a saleable interest in their farms. The duty on transfers of land is doubled; whether the duty falls on the buyer or seller is immaterial because a farmer has to pay in all cases. I think I need say no more about that.
I may mention incidentally that almost every public body in Ireland has passed resolutions against the Budget and calling upon your Lordships' House to throw it out. That is something from the point of view of a Unionist, as I am, to remember. I do not anticipate that there will be, as we have been asked to believe, a revolution or that the action of your Lordships' House is revolutionary. I may be singular in my opinions; but I think Mr. John Bull will eat his Christmas dinner and kiss his wife when the time comes, and spend as merry a Christmas as the times will allow. And when the time arrives he will proceed to indulge in a General Election. What the result of that will be none can tell. Many prophecies have been made, but I am not going to prophesy. Speaking for myself and my fellow countrymen I hope we shall go back to Ireland with a little Land Bill peeping out of our pockets. I wish I had the latest edition of it. I give my vote for this Amendment on the ground that it is clear and comprehensible and eminently suited to the circumstances in which your Lordships' House finds itself. We have been forced into it by the action of His Majesty's Government. I do not fear the result. I do not think noble Lords whom I have had the honour of addressing, and who have listened to me with patience, fear the result either.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, Lord Weardale, in a speech which was full of vigour and enthusiasm, called attention to a point which I think was well worthy of notice. He pointed out that in the attack all down the line which has been made upon the Budget noble Lords, in their anxiety and eagerness to denounce the Budget from every point of view, seemed to have forgotten that there is such a person in existence as Mr. Arthur Balfour, and also

1003
the fact that he is the recognised leader of the policy of His Majesty's Opposition. As far as we understand the responsible attitude of the Leader of the Opposition it is this—he seems to have no very great objection to the Income Tax, the Super Tax, or the additional Death Duties. He thinks they are legitimate and irresistible, of course provided the financial difficulty is sufficient to justify them. And I think he takes credit—and justly takes credit—for the fact that in the Commons' House of Parliament there was latterly no serious opposition and no serious divisions taken against those Taxes. Very well; the objection on principle seems to be whittled down to the Liquor and the Land Taxes. As regards the Liquor Taxes I am not qualified to speak, and I shall not detain your Lordships one moment with them. They were ably explained and defended last night by noble Lords on this side of the House, and that leaves us solely and entirely with the land.
Well, the attitude of noble Lords opposite is clear and distinct. We do not cavil and we do not quarrel with it. It seems to me they say to us, "If you put a sacrilegious hand on the land, that is Socialism pure and simple, which we mean to resist to the utmost of our power." As regards land, of course we know that land is divided into two sections. There is the urban land and the agricultural land. The question of the urban land was so well dealt with last night by Lord Pentland and Earl Beauchamp that it is unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships a single moment in going over any of the old ground again. May I say a few words—I promise they will be very few—simply on the question of agricultural land? It is with that the office I have the honour to hold is so closely connected. I will first deal with the burdens which speakers in the debate during the last three nights have alluded to as having been placed by the Budget on the agricultural industry.
Perhaps I may be permitted to take as one instance the remarks of a member of Parliament whom everybody holds in the highest respect and esteem—I mean Mr. Walter Long. Mr. Long, who is a fair, honourable, and upright political opponent, gave it as his deliberate opinion in the Commons' House of Parliament that the Budget was especially destructive to land, and that its general effect would be to
1004
depreciate land as a security. I do not think he is alone in that opinion. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House have expressed the same opinion themselves. He gave several concrete instances of the difficulties under which landowners are at present placed, and thereby implied that it was very unfair to put any extra burdens upon people who were already in a very difficult and delicate condition. He gave a concrete instance. I will name two. He said that in an estate of £900 a year, the owner was extremely fortunate if he could get £400 to put into his pocket. In an estate of £10,000 a year the utmost that the owner could rely upon would be about £4,000. That is to say, the working expenses of management and the burdens on an agricultural estate would come to something like sixty per cent. of the gross income. And some other people have gone even further than that. A great authority on agricultural matters, Mr. Pretyman, and the Duke of Montrose, have gone so far as to say that the charges would come up to seventy-five, almost eighty per cent.; and ruinous balance sheets were published in the daily Press some time ago telling the same unfortunate and miserable tale. But I maintain—and I think I can prove—that though this may be the result of the management of estates in this country, as they are at present, it cannot possibly be considered that these returns are fair returns of the real value of land. I cannot help suspecting that noble Lords who are landowners are aware of this, and that may have something to do with the extreme and violent opposition to which has been subjected the Government proposal for the valuation of land at the expense of the State.
May I take a concrete instance? I should like to refer to a book that was published in the year 1897 by the Duke of Bedford, and I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the Duke of Bedford is one of the best, if not the best, of all the good landlords in England. In his book, which he was rash enough to write, he calls attention to an estate called the Thorney Estate, in Cambridgeshire. It is some of the finest land in England—land which was reclaimed when the great Bedford level was reclaimed by the Duke's great ancestor, the Earl of Bedford. It is practically about 23,000 acres—one of the finest estates in England. There is no house on the estate, no mansion, no game;

1005
there is no upkeep of gardens, or upkeep of any description. He described it as an estate which did not pay its way, which was a source of perpetual expense, and which was practically unsaleable, and per se insolvent on the points of income and expenditure. We have it from him that in 1895 there was a deficit; it brought in nothing—23,000 acres of land brought in nothing, but there was a deficit of £441 upon it. Income Tax, which then was at 8d., we are told was paid on the estate, and that was £160 a year. In 1897, as your Lordships are aware, the country was fortunate enough to be governed by a glorious Conservative Government, and that Government lasted until 1905, when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government came in. We have it on the authority of my noble friend Lord Onslow that, though agriculture was at its lowest ebb, so little notice was taken by the Conservative Government of the day that only six hours of the time of the House of Commons were devoted to agricultural questions. That was in six years. It was either five hours in six years or six hours in five years, I am not quite certain which. Evidently agriculture under a Conservative Government seemed almost so hopeless as to be hardly worth talking about. In 1905, ten years afterwards, the present Liberal Government came into power, and, as I had the honour of saying in this House some time ago, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at once took up the land question in earnest.
We have been in office now for four years, and in this, the fourth year, a Budget has been introduced which, if we are to believe one-hundredth part of what we are told, is going to bring the most utter ruin and distress on the country that the mind of man can possibly conceive A most amazing thing has happened. We have been in office, as I have said, four years. In this Budget year, in this disastrous year when securities were falling to nothing, when there was no confidence, when nobody would buy and when securities were going out as ballast to different countries; in this year of catastrophe and woe and sorrow a most amazing thing happened. The noble Duke put this unsaleable estate of Thorney into market. I bid for it at once on behalf of the Crown. I suppose I shall be told that is putting in the thin end of the wedge for the nationalisation of land. Well, I bid for that property at once. I was very courteously
1006
treated, but my offer was received with the contempt it deserved. In this year I had the estate valued by the Crown valuer. I offered for this unsaleable property the fair market value that was put upon it, and my offer was not listened to for one single moment. And that estate in this year of woe, that unsaleable estate, was sold for three-quarters of a million sterling. That is the most amazing thing that can possibly be conceived. Just think what that means! Three-quarters of a million sterling at four per cent. means £30,000 a year. This estate, which, under a Conservative Government, was unsaleable and produced a deficit of £441 a year, under a Liberal Government has been sold and brings in to its fortunate owner an increase of income of £30,000 a year. Everybody knows that the Income Tax at 1s. on three-quarters of a million is £1,500 a year, to that £1,500 a year Income Tax is paid on that unsaleable estate instead of £160 as it was in 1895. It of course goes to the payment of the Old Age Pensions and that line of battleships which everybody is of opinion is necessary for the defence of the country. Yet we are told in the face of this by Mr. Walter Long that the Budget has depreciated land as a security; and not only that, we have been told this afternoon by no less a person than an ex-Liberal Prime Minister of England that this Budget blocked up every channel of enterprise and has entirely destroyed the confidence of the country.
I dare say I shall be told "Oh, this is another attack on the Dukes." It is nothing of the kind. It is simply a statement of fact. And it is not only in this individual instance that there is a rise in the value of land. Far from it, we all know that several very large estates have been sold lately. We all know that the value of land is rising and rents are rising. I was told by a friend of mine who has a large estate in Dorsetshire that if he had a farm to let now there were twenty applications for it, and farms let at £300 a year will fetch from £400 to £420 a year. There is a great demand for farms, and in Essex the value of land has advanced from twenty-five to forty per cent. in the last three years. I will give one instance, and one instance only. In 1904, 380 acres were bought for £3,600. The county council to-day have offered £6,000 for that land, and the offer has been refused. The county council wanted it for small holdings, and the owner asked £8,000. Probably it will go to arbitration,

1007
and some arrangement will be made, probably between the two prices.
Then, as for land having gone down, look at the demand there is for land all over England as regards small holdings. This is all in your Lordships' knowledge. It shows that land is going up. I am perfectly certain that in a House the members of which we are told own from one-third to one-fifth of the land of England that is a very important thing for a Minister of Agriculture to be able to say. Over a million has been spent by county councils ill the last sixteen months in buying agricultural land, and rents are going up all round. Well, I suppose from the merriment these facts have been met with in this House noble Lords opposite think I am making Party capital out of this rise in land. I suppose they would say, "No doubt land is going up, but what has that to do with you; what on earth have you and your Government had to do with this rise in land?" I suppose it will be said, "We have had better seasons and there is general improvement all round." Better seasons! I should like my friend Lord Onslow, when he meets the Farmers' Club next week, to say we have had better seasons. [Cries of 'Better prices."] We have had two bad harvests. The prices of sheep was never so low.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: And wool never so dear.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Will the noble Earl say how much the price of wheat has risen?
EARL CARRINGTON: There is a certain improvement in prices—[Cries of "Wheat."]—but it is absurd to say that that improvement in prices can be responsible for the enormous advance in the value of land. That is out of the question. No sensible man would try to argue that. I don't want to put the thing too high in any way, but I do say—and I am positive I am speaking the actual truth—that there is more confidence in agricultural land and in farming all round on account of the land policy of His Majesty's Government. You deny it, but we do not take any credit for this. You must remember that nothing we can do in this House, nothing that those who sit on this side of the House can do, can be without the gracious permission of your Lordships' House, so that everything we do on this side of course is through your
1008
gracious permission. As men of honour and principle you surely would not, in the interests of the country, allow us to pass measures which you think detrimental to the good of the country.
As I am challenged on this I am sure the House, which is always so good-natured to me, will allow me for a moment to state my case. Look at the Land Tenure Bill. It was entirely through your kindness we were enabled to get that Bill—the Farmers' Charter Bill—through. What does that give to the farmers? For the first time it gives the farmers security against eviction for religious, social, sporting or political reasons. Then, as regards small holdings, what have you allowed us to do? You have allowed us for the first time to have an impartial, practical, fair, and inexpensive Land Court for the determination of the rent and the price of land which is compulsorily acquired by local bodies, against which there is no appeal. That is an immense advance for good as we think, and it is entirely owing to your Lordships' permission that that great advance was allowed to be put on the Statute Book. Then as to the Housing Bill. I acknowledge your Lordships were not very much pleased with that Bill, but you have allowed it to pass. In it the same principle is allowed as regards rural houses; and the compulsory purchase of land has been recognised, in spite of the vigorous protest of a minority in Ireland.
Perhaps your Lordships may think you have gone too far. Perhaps you think we want pulling up a bit, and that may be the object of what you are doing at the present moment. I must say you have temporarily knocked on the head the Development Grant I had the honour of introducing in this House, and you are knocking on the head the benefits to agriculture which would be secured by the Budget. But although Liberal legislation has been most severely handled by your Lordships' House as regards education and temperance and other matters, I have to offer my sincere and grateful thanks to noble Lords opposite for the way in which agricultural Bills have been treated. I have had the honour to introduce in this House fifteen Agricultural Bills, and fourteen of those Bills have been added to the Statute Book, and if it had not been for an unfortunate misunderstanding and interference I think I should have carried the Hops Bill through this House and the other

1009
House as well, and then every single one of the Hills I had in three years introduced would have been passed into law.
I hope I am not detaining the House too long. May I for one moment point out what the Budget does for agriculture, this Budget which is going to ruin it? There is no additional duty on earned incomes under £2,000 a year, and I should think there are very few of your Lordships' tenants who return profits at that sum. What have we done for your Lordships? Landlords' allowances are increased from twelve and a-half to twenty-five per cent., and that can be spent on repairs, insurance, management and maintenance. Maintenance, as your Lordships know, includes replacement, and replacement is a word in the Bill which means rebuilding farmhouses, cottages and buildings, putting up fences, &c, and that is a direct incentive for landowners to rebuild the cottages on their estates and so to avoid patching up those miserable insanitary hovels which even under certain circumstances on the best and most generously managed estates, still unfortunately exist, and which are found to be so untenantable and so insanitary that they have to be pulled down by the order of the local authority. Well, there is the matter of the Super Tax—£600,000; that goes to road improvement. There are the Death Duties. For the first time, under Clause 56, they can be paid in land. Instead of having to raise money on the estate you can pay in kind—pay in land. Timber is only chargeable when sold. As regards the Land Taxes I need not take up one moment of your Lordships' time, because last night my noble friend Lord Beauchamp pointed out that none of those taxes apply to agricultural land at all. The relief of rates by the grant of half the Land Taxes and the Mineral Rights Duties amounts to a quarter of a million this year and probably would go on increasing.
When the deficit was first discussed in public the whole of the Liberal Party, aye, and the Labour Party as well, were unanimous on one point. They said "If it is wrong to tax food—and every single one of us agrees that it is a wicked and a cruel wrong to tax the food of the people—it is equally wrong to tax the land that grows that food." The Chancellor of the Exchequer was determined on that point, the Cabinet was unanimous on that point, and therefore the Budget was drawn on
1010
lines as favourable as possible to the landlords, to the tenant farmers, and to the small holders. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on the 9th of June to the agricultural industry? He said—
"I want £16,000,000 from you. I estimate to get by extra Death Duties £480,000; in extra Income Tax I estimate to get £280,000, and with the new Super Tax in addition £120,000. I think that you—that is the agricultural interest—ought to contribute to the new taxes £880,000, but per contra—as the bankers say—I shall relieve you by giving on the other hand a relief to the Road Tax—that is for road improvements—£600,000 and for the Agricultural Development Grant £250,000; so that if you deduct the £850,000 from £880,000 you will find the extra taxation you will have to pay practically as an interest is £30,000."
Well, but in the last days of June Mr. Lloyd-George went further, and he said—
"There are provisions in the Budget which will safeguard the agricultural interest, and I say if those provisions are not sufficiently strong I am prepared to accept any Amendment which will make that perfectly clear."
The House of Commons took him at his word—a Liberal Minister's pledge is his word and bond—and the land clauses were debated for thirty-five days in the House of Commons. There was no guillotine, and there was very little of the closure. This, I think, hardly bears out my noble friend Lord Rosebery's statement that measures were shot into this House with as little inquiry as possible. Both sides, the great Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, the agriculturists on both sides, gave every assistance, and on the 30th of September the following concessions were announced as the result of deliberations. Mr. Lloyd-George reduced the extra Death Duties from £480,000 to £450,000. He then wiped out at once the whole of the additional Income Tax of 2d. in the pound, which came, as you remember, to £280,000, by giving relief to agricultural landlords under Schedule A; and to such a liberal extent did he do this that when it works out it will be found that he positively gave the agricultural landlords of this country a bonus of £95,000 in addition. These are Treasury figures, absolutely correct. He also reduced the Super Tax from £120,000 to £78,000, and therefore your Lordships will see that the total reduction brings down the additional taxation on the agricultural interest for national purposes from £880,000, as it was in June, to £443,000.
But this is not all. Your Lordships will remember that he promised to assist the

1011
agricultural interest by the Road Grant and the Development Grant—that is, by £850,000. The agricultural interest at the present moment under the proposed Budget is to pay in extra taxes £443,000. Take £443,000 from £850,000 which is given by the Government, and the agricultural interest in this year comes out £407,000 on the right side, although we had to raise £16,000,000 for "Dreadnoughts" and Old Age Pensions. Yet we are told—solemnly told by Mr. Walter Long, who no doubt believes every word he says, that the Budget is especially destructive to land and landed interest! I leave the case there. I have nothing more to say, good or indifferent. I leave the case there for the public to judge it on its merits. These figures are Treasury figures. They cannot be shaken, and they are perfectly accurate.
In conclusion I should like to say I can perfectly understand—anybody can perfectly understand—the objection to this vindictive Budget, as you may like to call it, of the vested interests, of the millionaires, of the brewers, of the urban landlords, and of the mine owners. A tax is disagreeable to everybody, and I can quite understand that even vested interests object to these taxes, and will do everything they possibly can to put the burden on other shoulders. But when the agricultural interest and the farmers realise the position that is being thrown away by the rejection of this Budget; when they realise this position—and the farmers are a hard-headed lot of men—they will not allow themselves to be led away by the unreasonable fears and sophistries of Mr. Long and his friends. They will see with us that our proposals in the Budget—all the proposals in the Budget—are just and fair, and especially just and fair towards the great national industry which I have the honour to represent. And I feel certain that the agricultural industry will not support noble Lords opposite, when it knows the real state of the case, in your attempt, by destroying the people's Budget, to precipitate a national crisis the gravity of which it is impossible to over-estimate, and the consequences of which it is impossible to foretell or to foresee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, we are always delighted with the breezy optimism of the President of the Board of Agriculture, not the less because that optimism takes the form of a confident
1012
belief in the omnipotent powers for good of the Liberal Party and of the Liberal Government. The noble Earl has produced figures to your Lordships by which he has striven to show that the result of the Budget would be relief to the landowners. He has told your Lordships that the value of land was advancing by leaps and bounds, notwithstanding the fact that the harvest has not been particularly good. One or two of my noble friends asked him whether he had any information as to the effect of prices upon the value of land, but the noble Earl did not tell us how far it was the effect of the undoubted rise in the price of agricultural produce. He was content to say that he had passed fourteen out of fifteen Bills that he had introduced to Parliament, and he seemed to rest upon that foundation the increasing prosperity of agriculture. I remember some years ago when Her late Majesty Queen Victoria took part in a review of the troops on their return from the Egyptian Campaign, there was an exceptionally dense fog, but just as Her Majesty drove up to the saluting point the fog lifted in a marvellous manner, and everybody said it was due to the exertions of the Liberal Government. The noble Lord has paid the compliment to noble Lords sitting on this side of the House that we have assisted him by piloting his measures through Parliament. I think there was a vein of irony running through his remarks; they sounded like the sentiments of those careful people who do not attribute everything to themselves, but who remark, when anything happens to their satisfaction, that it was through the mercy of Providence and the oversight of the devil. The noble Lord produced some figures by which he hoped to show that the result of the Budget would be a relief to the landowners of this country. I am at a loss to see how that is to be the result, if that particular form of investment has to pay Income Tax, possibly Super Tax, increased Death Duties, increased Succession Duties, Increment Value, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty. It seems to me impossible to see how, under those circumstances, the Budget is going to be a relief.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the noble Earl should confine himself to the agricultural increase.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The landlords of this country are the owners of land of different kinds and will all have to bear these taxes or some of them. It is

1013
no answer to say because there are no extra burdens put on agricultural land that landowners as a class will not have to bear additional burdens. Of course they will. Is it not reasonable to suppose that if there are opportunities of transferring the burden from landlords to tenants an endeavour will be made to do so? Those who will feel the burden more than any others in the course of a very short time would be the tenant farmers and small holders in whom the noble Earl is so greatly interested. He said nothing about the valuation proposals contained in the Budget. If there is to be no taxation levied upon agricultural land, why in the name of fortune should the Government want to have it valued at all? I want to know why it should not be quite sufficient for the purposes of the Government that a declaration should be made by a land owner that his land is agricultural land not exceeding £50 an acre in value, and that he should then enjoy exemption from valuation. This valuation will be a very severe and onerous tax. The Government now propose that the valuation should be made by Government valuers. But these young gentlemen receiving £500 a year will not have their valuations accepted by every landowner. It will be necessary to employ other valuers to test the decisions arrived at by the government valuers. I will not pursue further the question of the land taxes because the hour is late, and it is a subject with which many are more competent to deal than myself.
I should like to refer to another aspect of the question—I mean the constitutional aspect. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack commands the respect and admiration of all members of this House, and therefore I am very glad that we are able to accept wholly and unreservedly the declaration he made on the first evening of the debate. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that the noble and learned Lord had on a previous occasion declared that this House had a perfect right to reject a Money Bill. If I heard the noble and learned Lord aright it was exactly what he repeated on the opening night, but he accompanied it by a further declaration that we must look also, and even more, to custom, usage, and convention. Lord Rosebery has said that we are governed more in this country by custom than by law. That is perfectly true, but who was the first to break through
1014
this custom which has been hitherto honourably observed? I venture to say it was the Government. Custom forbade your Lordships to alter a Money Bill, but it also forbade the House of Commons to put into a Money Bill anything but the provisions for the current expenditure of the year. But what has happened this year? The Government have put into the Finance Bill a Valuation Bill, which is not going to bring in any revenue, and a Licensing Bill, or, at any rate, vindictive legislation, which has for its object the extermination of the publican. If one party therefore, breaks through a well-understood practice I do not think it lies in their mouths to make complaint when the noble Marquess asks your Lordships to differ from the procedure which has been followed in former years.
Now what is the issue that lies before us? It is not a question affecting the interpretation of the Constitution, neither is it whether indirect taxation should be substituted for direct taxation. The issue really amounts to a challenge on the part of noble Lords opposite that this House has no right to determine when there shall be a General Election. This has been said on several previous occasions. It was said when your Lordships threw out the Education Bill, but we have it on the authority of one of the leaders of the Nonconformist party—Sir Robert Perks—that they never wanted that Bill, and that it was perfectly distasteful to them. No General Election took place at our dictation then. Your Lordships also threw out the Licensing Bill. That Bill may have died either in Berkeley-square or in this House, but it died "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung," and it cannot be said that your Lordships dictated a General Election then. Now this Finance Bill embodies the principle of both of those measures, in addition to the Supplies of the year. The duty of this House is a very delicate and a very difficult one. A General Election takes place but very seldom, and it is difficult to know what the country thinks of many measures put before it by the Government. Your Lordships are rather in the position of thought-readers. You have to judge as best you can whether the country is in sympathy or not with the measures placed before this House. I do not believe for a moment that the country was in sympathy with the Government either in respect of the Licensing or Education

1015
Bills. Why did not they put it to the test? The test was applied in 1895 when your Lordships rejected the Home Rule Bill, and on that occasion your Lordships proved to be very accurate thought-readers and to have accurately interpreted the opinion of the country.
The noble Earl opposite used language which I will not describe as minatory, but it was calculated to cause you to pause before taking a step further. We have been told that things cannot be as they were, and that no quarter will be given. The Secretary for Scotland yesterday said that there was a raging, tearing propaganda in the country. My Lords, there is a raging, tearing propaganda going on in the country against your Lordships' House. But what is the penalty to be meted out which may be "altogether disproportionate to our offence?" Is it that there will be a reform of this House? We have had a Committee sitting which agreed that reform was desirable. Is it that there should be some Referendum to the people other than that of a General Election? Lord Rosebery has said that he, for one, would welcome some such proposition. The Committee expressed regret that it was not within the terms of their reference. Or is it a proposal that there shall be but one Chamber and that the Second Chamber shall be swept away altogether? If that is the proposal noble Lords opposite are going to put before the country, I hope they will present it without delay, for I am satisfied that, whatever may be the views of this country about the Budget or the constitution of your Lordships' House, there cannot be two opinions that this country will not stand a single Chamber. The proposal made by the late Prime Minister really amounted to a claim that, however old a Parliament may be, it must represent in all things the will of the people. That is a preposterous position to take up. It is not the view of the great Statesmen of the past. Burke said "the virtue, spirit, and essence of the House of Commons consisted in its being the express image of the nation." Was the House of Commons of 1895 the "express image of the nation"? I think not. The intention of that resolution is that when once a General Election is over the interests of the country are to be handed over to the Ministers for the time being and no control is to be held over them by another House of Parliament.
I am not one of those who minimise
1016
the gravity of the step to be taken in throwing out this Finance Bill, but I venture to say that that step is not so grave a one as would be the demand that in a Finance Bill may be embodied matters which are not concerned with the provision of Supplies necessary for the year. This House does not set up any claim to control the personnel of the Ministry of the Crown. It does not initiate and it does not claim to alter Finance Bills. But it does claim to stand between the people and rash and vast changes, whether made under cover of a Finance Bill or in any other way—changes that may destroy the slowly-built-up fabric of our national credit, which may drive the accumulated savings of the people to other lands to provide employment for foreigners instead of for Englishmen, and which are designed to establish a system of land nationalisation that may corrupt the whole system of Government and debase the people by making them dependent on those whom they have elected, instead of upon energy and enterprise. It is because we feel that no other course is open to us that most of those sitting on this side of the House will give our vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess; and we believe that we shall receive the support of the country in maintaining the right of this House to oppose changes which we believe to be detrimental to the country, until such time as the people shall, if they so will, endorse the action of His Majesty's Government.
LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, this question is such an important one that it cannot be treated too lightly, and I will venture to detain your Lordships for a few minutes even at this late hour. This Bill bristles with a number of obligations in the shape of new taxes. Taxes at all times are very objectionable, for whatever purpose they are needed. The great need in this instance has been the large expenditure made on the Navy and the enormous expense we have incurred in Old Age Pensions. Our expenses are increasing very rapidly year by year. They are stated this year at 165 millions, and the estimated revenue at 148 millions, which means that there is a deficit of about seventeen millions to be met. When we enter into these obligations the next duty that faces us is to provide funds with which to meet them, and to my mind the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met them is a perfectly fair one.

1017
Old age pensions are popular on both sides of the House. The necessity of making provision for the aged poor has been discussed in the country for a number of years. It was advocated by Mr. Chamberlain, whose absence from the other House we all deplore, and especially the cause of it; he was about the first to introduce this great question, but following upon that he introduced the question of Tariff Reform. Tariff Reform, according to Mr. Chamberlain's view, is the only remedy by which the country can meet all the obligations they have incurred. That question at the time created a great sensation on account of the personality of the man who brought it forward. Had it been advocated by any less notable person than Mr. Chamberlain the country as a whole would have pooh-poohed it. The best definition of Mr. Chamberlain's policy is, I think, given in the Daily Mail Year Book for 1907, and there it is given in a short space. Mr. Chamberlain endeavoured to show that from his point of view the duties he proposed to impose were such as would not cause inconvenience to any sections of the community, yet on the whole they would not affect the working classes more than to the extent of 2d. per annum. The question was fully discussed throughout the country, and Mr. Chamberlain, as you are aware, made very able speeches; he selected certain trades and illustrated them as dying trades, and as trades that would be driven to other countries because other countries levied heavy duties upon our produce and dumped their materials into this country to our detriment free of duty. As a matter of fact, almost every industry pointed out by Mr. Chamberlain as a dying industry revived as soon as it was so selected. Then there is another remarkable little table given in the book to which I have referred, and I should like to call the attention of your Lordships to it. It shows that in the twenty years from 1880 to 1900 the cost of food fell from 120 to 101, and the cost of clothing fell from 168 to 98. On the other hand, rent in London rose from eighty-seven to 100 per cent.; rent in other large towns increased from eighty-five to 100 per cent., and rent in Great Britain, excluding London, rose from seventy-nine to 100 per cent. These items show that the advantages derived from cheap food were counterbalanced by the great increase in rent. I have quoted these figures because the Daily Mail has been a strong advocate of Tariff Reform throughout.
1018
In the excellent debates we have had on the Finance Bill it is to be noted that those who object to the taxes do not suggest how the revenue is to be increased so as to meet the obligations. We have been told that Tariff Reform is the only alternative. I have been a Free Trader ever since I understood anything of Free trade. I have followed this question very closely, and have given a great deal of time to it. I have tried to look at it from an impartial point of view, especially when strong cases are made out that some industries are affected by the dumping on these shores of materials from other countres at a cheaper rate than we can produce them. Tariff Reformers tell us that it is not their intention to levy a tax on raw material. But we have to recognise that what is a manufactured article in one particular instance would be a raw material for other purposes. There is no country in the world that dumps so large a quantity of goods as we do, because we are a manufacturing nation, and without demands from other nations for goods, either of a raw or manufactured nature, it would be impossible for us to carry on our manufactures and give employment to the people in the way we do at present.
We are frequently referred to America and Germany. It is well known that the number of unemployed in both of those countries has been far greater than in this country, and that the cost of living in both countries is very much higher. I have had several letters from persons who were in my employ before they went to America, imploring me to advance the money to let them return to the Old Country. During the last two years in America the number of men out of employment has been between fifty and seventy-five per cent. greater than in this country. Trade, however, is reviving there now. The financial disturbances which occurred two years ago were of a very far-reaching nature, their ramifications seriously affected every European nation; they affected American trade very much more seriously than anything has affected trade in our country. I feel confident that we should not derive benefit if we adopted Tariff Reform; this country has been so prosperous during the last fifty years under Free Trade that I think the adoption of Tariff Reform would be most detrimental and dangerous.
Leaving that on one side, I have noticed since the present Government came into power the great difficulty of passing Bills

1019
through your Lordships' House. Whatever has been proposed has been criticised, frequently unduly, from a purely Party point of view, and not upon its merits. Take, for instance, many of the remarks made in this debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to meet the wishes of a large number of deputations that have waited upon him representing the different trades of the country, and especially the agricultural interest, and they have been met in such a way that now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is charged with having brought in a Bill that he had not fully considered. He has made concessions in order to meet the requirements of the different trades. I have given the question close attention, and the proposals are such as I can very heartily endorse. I have attended some of the meetings of bankers in the City where very strong views have been expressed upon certain questions, especially with regard to the Stamp Duties. These duties have been modified in such a way that I think now they may be considered in every respect satisfactory.
I was very glad to hear the strong speech made by my noble friend Lord St. David's, who has had a large experience of the employment of capital in foreign countries and has been largely connected with the shipping trade. We have nothing to fear in this Budget from the transfer of British capital to other countries. No money will be driven away unless it can be proved that investors will get a better return. I listened with close attention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech when he introduced his Budget. I did not quite agree with some of the proposals put forward at that time, especially with regard to the tax upon ungotten minerals. I think the tax that is now put upon minerals is a fair one. Some mineral property owners act very fairly towards their lessees, but there are others who do not meet their lessees as they should do. I was sorry to hear the uncomplimentary references that have been made about Dukes. We have a Duke in our neighbourhood who owns a large mineral property. I have had to do with him both in buying land for public purposes, and also in my private capacity. I must give him and his agents the credit for having met every case in a most liberal and business-like manner. There was a large colliery in the neighbourhood owned by the Duke of Beaufort, and those who took the colliery spent a large amount
1020
of money upon it. The colliery was unremunerative for a number of years, and the royalty was 9d. per ton. Representations were made to the agent, and the Duke of Beaufort very generously reduced the royalty to one-half, and from that time the colliery has been successful and has given employment to a large number of people. That is an example by a noble Duke which many other lessors of minerals might well follow.
The tax on royalties is a very small one, and I think it ought to have been very much larger, especially when we consider that when a colliery is sunk in a district the value of the surface land, which was not previously worth more than 5s. or 6s. per acre, is advanced at once to £4 or £5 per acre. The royalty owner contributes nothing to the rates and taxes of the district but pockets all the profits, and the only contribution he at present makes is to the Income Tax. On the other hand, the lessees and the men who work in the collieries have to build their own houses; they have to pay a very high ground rent; they spend money on building cottages; they have short leases; they have to effect sanitary reforms, and to go to the cost of getting water to supply their houses; and at the end the landlord has the full benefit of the whole expenditure and the poor lessees are sent empty away. To my mind that is iniquitous. I think that the amount now claimed from the royalty owner is a small one, and I cannot help thinking that when the principle is debated you must put it under the head of what is frequently termed "the thin end of the wedge." I have no doubt that at present the amount charged on royalties is small, and not fair to those who work the minerals. I had intended to refer to other questions of great importance, but many of them have been debated. Therefore, I will not delay your Lordships longer but will conclude by saying that I support the Budget most heartily.
Debate again adjourned till To-morrow.

TRUSTEES' ACCOUNTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 227.)
House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, twenty minutes before Four o'clock.