Sitting of 25 November 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
Return ordered giving the total annual cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary Forces for each of the past eight years ending the 31st day of March, 1909, including and specifying in detail all sums contributed by the Imperial Exchequer as well as by local authorities for that service.—[Mr. Butcher.]

MINING ROYALTIES (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, as regards Scotland, for the last complete year for which the figures are available (1) of the output of coal, shale, and iron ore, and (2) of the rent and wayleaves there for, respectively, as ascertained for the purposes of The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, under the following headings:—

Rent.

Wayleaves.

County.

Output in Tons for year ending 31st December, 1908.

Fixed Rent where there is no Output.

Fixed Rent where Lordship does not amount to Fixed Rent.

Lordship where same exceeds Fixed Rent.

Total.

Fixed Rent where no corresponding Lordship.

Lordship where Wayleave exceeds Fixed Rent.

Total.

—[Mr. Dundas White.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Mr. STEADMAN: With your permission, Sir, I desire to move the Motion standing in my name—"Return of the number of Peers in the House of Lords at the time of passing the first Reform Bill in 1832, the number of persons who have been made Peers since then up to the present date, by whom they were made Peers, and their profession, occupation, or calling."
Mr. SPEAKER: That does not rest with me. It rests with the Government, who have not given notice of their consent.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  Egypt (Deportations).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had yet received a Report from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo showing how many persons had been proceeded against in Egypt under the Deportation Law of 4th July, 1909, and whether he could say in how many cases there had been convictions and what sentences were passed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I learn from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo that 283 cases have been tried under the Law referred to. These cases were carefully selected by the Minister of the Interior from a list of names of about 1,200 persons who were considered the most dangerous by the local authorities. This list was itself prepared by a careful selection of names from among a much larger list of persons whose, existence in the locality in which they resided was considered locally to be a danger to the community. Two hundred and eighty-one persons (22
  by default) were ordered to be placed under police supervision in their villages for periods not exceeding five years, and in addition to find security for their good behaviour in sums varying between £E100 and £E1,000. In 11 cases, for special reasons, the security was fixed between £E1,000 and £E1,500. One person was ordered to be placed under police supervision without finding security. One person was not tried by the Commission, as he was already being prosecuted for a crime he had committed. Appeals have been lodged in 102 cases, of which 69 have been considered and the sentences confirmed or revised. Fifty-three cases, of which one had also been appealed by the accused, are, by an independent order of the Minister of the Interior, to be revised.

  335
  A large number of Notables from all parts of the country who have had occasion to express their views to the authorities are unanimous in declaring that there is already a marked improvement in the state of affairs in the villages, and that there is general satisfaction among the rural population at the results of the measure.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons have actually been deported? Also, is it a fact, as stated in the Egyptian Press, that the amount of bail required, varying from £200 to £1,000, is such that in the great majority of cases it cannot be given, and deportation follows as a matter of course?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say how many persons have actually been deported, because appeals are still pending in some of the cases.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Have these cases been heard in public, and had the men legal assistance?
  Sir E. GREY: I think that is the case. But perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has any other expression of opinion been received?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes. I am informed that there is general satisfaction among the rural population.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Among the rural population themselves—apart from the Notables?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes.
  Mr. LUPTON: What is the cause of the existing unsatisfactory condition of affairs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Suez Canal Company (Proposed Lease Extension).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the important commercial, Egyptian and international, interests involved in the Suez Canal, he would take steps to give this House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposed extension of the lease of the Suez Canal Company before the negotiations were completed?
  Sir E. GREY: Certain points in connection with the proposed extension are now under the consideration of the Egyptian Government, who must have time to form. their own opinion upon them. Meanwhile, the negotiations are in suspense, and there is nothing further to be said at present.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter before the negotiations are completed?
  Sir E. GREY: No. The Egyptian Government are considering the matter, and before any final conclusion is come to the General Assembly will be consulted.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: I am thinking only of this House. Is it not reasonable that this House should have an opportunity of deciding such a grave question?
  Sir E. GREY: The decision from the point of view of the Suez Canal Company does not rest with this House. The decision as to whether the Egyptian Government should make a certain bargain rests with that Government, who are now forming their opinion upon it, and they are doing so without any pressure from us.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the alleged dropping of the negotiations is accurate, or are the negotiations still being carried on?
  Sir E. GREY: I have said that the negotiations are in suspense, because the Egyptian Government are considering certain propositions.

  Persia (Trade Routes).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the trade routes from Bushire to Shiraz were still unsafe for commercial traffic; and, if so, whether representations could be made to the Persian Parliament calling attention to this state of things?
  Sir E. GREY: As long ago as 23rd September, His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, addressed a strong remonstrance to the Persian Government on this subject; and about the same time the Persian Minister of the Interior informed Sir George Barclay that he was engaged in preparing a scheme of road guards which, he felt confident, would restore order on the roads. According to the most recent reports from Sir George Barclay, the security of the trade routes in

  337
  Southern Persia has improved, and the number of robberies and outrages has diminished. In these circumstances, no further representations to the Persian Government appear desirable for the present, but the whole question is engaging the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. I ought to add that since this answer was drafted I have seen in the newspapers that a serious outrage has occurred on these roads, but I have not as yet received official information about it.

  Ramsden Estate (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Estates Commissioners would send an inspector on the Ramsden estate at Beal-killa, near Listowel, North Kerry; and when would the holding be vested in the tenants after inspection?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The purchase agreements in connection with the sale of this estate were not lodged until October, 1908. Having regard to the very large number of cases pending before them in which the agreements for purchase were lodged at an earlier date, the Estates Commissioners cannot at present say when this estate will be dealt with.
  Mr. FLAVIN: There being 150 tenants on the estate, will there be an inspection before the vesting order is issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.

  Polling Districts and Registration of Voters Act (County Down).
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state what arrangements have been made by the county council of the county of Down for the adoption of the Polling Districts and Registration of Voters Act; and whether the scheme has been formally approved by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the question of the hon. Member is prompted by the fact that he is rather nervous about his seat in South Down?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, it is impossible for me to address myself to that point in whatever part of the House hon. Members sit. but I always understand why questions of that sort are asked.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: May I assure the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Corbett) that I shall increase my majority and that he will decrease his?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not yet received any scheme from the Down County Council under the Polling Districts and Registration of Voters (Ireland) Act, 1908, but they understand that the county council have the matter under consideration.

  Old Age Pensions and Ages of Claimants (Ireland).
  Mr. J. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the fact that the school registers may be made available for the purpose of establishing the ages of claimants for old age pensions, as stated in the letter of 6th November, 1909, from the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) to Mr. M. Sullivan, whether any conditions as to the terms on which such registers may be used have been laid down by the Commissioners; and, if so, what; and whether the Commissioners have ascertained, approximately, the extent to which the school registers in use from 1846 to 1864 are still in existence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have permitted the national school registers to be utilised by persons seeking old age pensions in order to establish their ages, but no conditions have been laid down regarding them. The registers are kept in the schools, but the Commissioners have not ascertained to what extent the registers in use from 1846 to 1864 have been preserved.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can promise that something will be done by the Irish Government to allay the anxiety excited amongst the old people in Ireland of over 70 years of age on account of the stoppage of pensions by the Irish total Government Board in cases where the local pension committees have been satisfied, on full consideration of all available evidence, that the pensions are payable, and where they have ordered the payment of pensions; and whether, in view of the fact that evidence as to age in a great many cases is not derivable from Census Returns on account of the errors and inaccuracies in these Returns for Ireland in the last century, he will direct that the evidence available in the locality, sifted and inquired into impartially by the local

  339
  pension committees, shall be acted upon in accordance with the provisions of The Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, so that honest and deserving old people shall be saved from the despair in which the action of the Irish Government has plunged them by depriving them of their pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the duty of the Local Government Board to determine the questions raised by pension officers on the decisions of the local pension committees, and the Board are bound to form their own conclusions on the merits of each case. Claimants or pensioners are in all cases afforded an opportunity of putting forward such evidence as they can obtain, and any representations made by the local pension committees are also duly considered.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Local Government Board in stopping the pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act of Bridget M'Gowan, of Dunmoran, and Catherine Gilhooly, Highpark, in the Skreen sub-committee district of the county of Sligo; whether he is aware that the local pension committee which considered and decided on granting pensions to those people consisted of five district councillors, one local Protestant clergyman, and three Roman Catholic priests; whether he is aware that in the opinion of this committee the said Bridget M'Gowan is 80 years of age, and the said Catherine Gilhooly is also qualified for a pension in respect of her age, being well over 70 years, and that reliable evidence in each case has been submitted to the committee; and whether he will require the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision in both cases and secure that the pensions in both cases shall be paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not aware of the composition of local pension sub-committees. The Skreen sub-committee expressed an opinion, as stated in the question, that Bridget McGowan was 80 years of age, but her own statement in her claim to a pension was that her age was 72. The only evidence which the Board could obtain from her as to her age was that of the parish priest, who stated that when he came to the parish in 1869 she was certainly over 30, and that he considered her to be about 75 years old. In the case of Catherine Gilhooly, the Census Return of 1851 gave her age as five years, which
  340
  would make her only 63 years old now. She claimed to be 71, but the only evidence she could put forward was the statement of a neighbour that he believed that the claimant was over 19 years of age when he was married in 1857. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decisions, but if fresh claims are lodged the Board will send an inspector to visit the claimants and report generally on the evidence in the two cases.

  Galway University College.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction of the county of Sligo protesting against the treatment of Galway University College, the Government grant given to which is considerably less than the grants given to Queen's College, Belfast, and to the University College, Cork, and which grant is disproportionate to the needs of Galway University College; and whether he will use his influence to secure equality of treatment for the University College, Galway, and an immediate supplemental grant to enable the work of that institution to be efficiently carried on and the educational wants of the people of Connaught, which is the poorest province in Ireland, to be adequately supplied?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the resolution referred to. Although Galway is undoubtedly at a disadvantage in regard to financial provisions, I cannot give an undertaking to re-open the question.

  Old Age Pensions Act (Irish Local Government Board).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to complaints as to the action of the Irish Local Government Board acting as a court of appeal in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act; whether he was aware that many of the pension committees and sub-committees in the county of Cork and in other parts of Ireland state that their functions in regard to the Act are rendered nugatory by the action of the Local Government Board in acting solely on the report of the local pension officer and ignoring the local committees; and whether, in view of the official figures showing that the percentage of persons receiving old age pensions based on the Census Returns of 1841 on 30th June, 1909, was for England 257 per cent., Scotland

  341
  2'79 per cent., and Ireland 2.25 per cent., he will send instructions to the Local Government Board to recognise the position and responsibility of the local authorities in the administration of the Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have received Resolutions of the nature referred to in the question from several pension sub-committees. As I have just explained in my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for North Sligo, the representations of the pension committees are duly considered by the Board, who are, however, bound to form their own conclusions.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Member aware that with regard to the figures given in the latter part of the question— the percentages—that they are accurate and official figures, and that they dissipate the erroneous impression that an undue number of pensions are going to Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, I do not doubt at all that the figures do go in the direction that the hon. Gentleman indicates.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the local pension committee disagree from the decision of the Local Government Board that, in case of appeal, the Local Government Board will not return to the local pensions committee the documents upon which the claim and appeal is based? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Local Government Board do return all such documents to the local pensions committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will inquire into that. I see no reason why the documents should not be returned.

  Cork University.
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the University Committee, Cork, of the 20th instant, complaining of the insufficiency of the sum allotted for building purposes; and whether, in view of the increase in the number of students from all parts of Munster and the increase in the number of subjects taught, he will communicate with the Treasury with a view to securing an increase of the sum granted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the Resolution, but as I have just informed the hon. Member for North Sligo in the case of Galway, I cannot undertake to re-open the question.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Belfast gets a building grant of £60,000, and Cork only gets £14,000, which is totally inadequate?

  Estate of Charles Waring (County Cavan).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state whether the estate of Charles Waring, consisting of the townlands of Corodoagh, Drumera, Pottlebrack, and Drumanespie, all in the county of Cavan, had yet been vested in the tenants; and, if not, what was the cause of the delay; or, if same has been removed, will he say on what date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to vest the holdings in the tenants early next month. The prescribed certificate of title was not lodged until the 5th instant owing to difficulties in connection with vendor's title.

  His Majesty's Birthday (University College, Galway).
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT (for Captain Craig)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware, that for many years past, according to the Official Calendar, the Queen's and more recently the King's Birthday has been celebrated in Queen's College, Galway, as a holiday and the Union Jack flown on the college buildings, and that on 9th November last, the first King's Birthday since the affiliation of the college to the National University in Dublin, the Union Jack was not hoisted; and whether he can state if orders were issued from Dublin Castle to this effect, or, if not, by whom?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the President of University College, Galway, that under the Statute for the college, the King's Birthday is not a "Statutory Holiday, "and was not observed by the college on 9th November. No regulations have at any time existed as to flying the Union Jack on the college buildings, and no orders with reference thereto were given for 9th November?
  Mr. JOHN ROCHE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is not usual to hoist the Union Jack over public buildings in Ireland on the King's Birthday, and even in the case of the brewers and distillers it has not been done?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Very shocking!
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Belfast and other loyal parts of the North of Ireland— T know the right hon. Gentleman treats this with contempt—it has been in the past the custom to hoist the Union Jack as the emblem of the unity of empire?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge of it.
  Mr. JOYCE: What price do you get for flying it?
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on the last birthday of the King there was not a Union Jack flying in the whole of the constituency of North Down?

  Teaching of Irish (Primary Schools, Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the special Report of the Advising Examiner in Irish to the Board of Intermediate Education; and whether, in view of the evidence which it affords that grants for the teaching of Irish are being wasted, the money voted for this purpose will be applied to another purpose?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have read the report of the Advising Examiner on this year's intermediate examinations. It has no bearing on the teaching of Irish in primary schools for which alone money is voted.

  Shooting Outrage, Ruan District, County Clare.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a shooting outrage in the Ruan district of county Clare, on 30th October, when a farmer named Murphy was injured; whether Murphy holds a farm which his neighbours want to be divided amongst themselves; has Murphy been attacked previously, and is he now under police protection; and whether his assailants have been arrested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have had a report of this case. Murphy was fired at and wounded in 1907 and again on 30th October last as stated. The police give him all the protection which he will permit. They have not yet been able to arrest his assailants.

  Attack with Firearms (County Galway).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received particulars of an attack with
  344
  firearms upon the house of Patrick Gibney, in county Galway. on the night of 6th November; whether Gibney had been warned to remove his horses from a boycotted farm; and whether the police have made any arrests in connection with this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that this man was warned as stated, and that his house was subsequently attacked. The police have not yet been able to make any arrests.

  Education Commissioners Action.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH (for Mr. Lardner)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is with the knowledge and approval of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland that one of their chief organisers, Mr. McElwee, is recommending the teachers in the national schools of Ireland to use the drawing publications of a Scotch publishing house and is advising the teachers to become subscribers to the school journal issued by the same house, and that he carried specimens of both with him on his visits to schools and brings these samples under the notice of the teachers; if so, whether he has sanctioned this organiser's action in recommending Scotch publications to the detriment of Irish trade, more especially as the Irish publishers have specially brought out at great expense Irish handbooks to meet the requirements of the existing programme in drawing; and will he further state if the Scotch drawing publications are much more expensive than similar publications produced in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners have no information on the subject of this question, but inquiries will be made.

  Indian Councils (Rules and Regulations).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, under the rules and regulations regarding the reformed councils in India, the district and local boards and municipalities constitute the electoral basis for popular representation on the provincial legislative councils; and whether, under these rules and regulations, the choice of the electorate is limited to the selection of a person who is already a member of the district or local board or municipality concerned in the election?
  Sir H. COTTONalso asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is included under the rules and regulations

  345
  regarding the reformed councils in India a rule which authorises the Government at its discretion to declare any candidate ineligible for a scat in council; and, if so, whether, before any candidate is declared ineligible, he will be informed of the grounds on which objection is taken by Government and be afforded an opportunity of meeting such objection?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): I will answer my hon. Friend's two questions together. The full text of the regulations and rules, varying as they do in the different provinces, is too voluminous to telegraph, and will not reach this country before the 18th of next month. In the meantime I believe my hon. Friend will agree that it is better not to attempt to impart their substance to the House by means of question and answer upon isolated points, a method that might give rise to misunderstanding.

  High Prices Ruling in India.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the question of high prices ruling in India has attracted the attention of the Indian Government; and whether it is intended to appoint a paid officer to report on the matter?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State has agreed to the deputation of an officer to investigate the subject.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether he is aware that Mahomedan British-Indians imprisoned for non-compliance with the Transvaal Registration Law were refused facilities for observing the religious fast of Ramazan; and whether the Secretary of State will make representations to the Government of the Transvaal that such conduct is exciting great indignation among His Majesty's subjects in India, as expressed in public meetings and otherwise?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely) replied: When the attention of the Secretary of State was called to this matter he consulted the Secretary of State, for India and found that the Transvaal Government, who were under the impression that no precedent existed for conceding
  346
  the request of the Mahomedan prisoners, were wrongly advised as a special arrangement for enabling Mahomedan prisoners to keep the fast exists in the Punjab, though not, it would seem, in India generally. The attention of the Transvaal Government was at once called to the Punjab practice, but they were unwilling to introduce a different practice in the Transvaal from that of the Cape, which has a larger Mahomedan population, namely, over 15,000, than any other South African Colony, and where no notice of the fast is taken in the penal institutions.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether any settlement has been arrived at of the Transvaal - Indian question, or whether terms of imprisonment with hard labour are still being meted out to the Indian passive resisters for non-compliance with the Registration Law; whether the number of the Indians left in the Transvaal is about 6,000 out of a population of 13,000 in the pre-war period; and whether he is aware of the feeling aroused in India by the treatment of the Transvaal British-Indian colonists.
  Colonel SEELY: I regret that no actual settlement can be said to have been arrived at, which the leaders of the British-Indians are prepared to cordially accept. But my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement in another place on November 16th showing that Transvaal Ministers have professed their willingness to meet the practical demands of the Indians. The law continues to be enforced. With regard to the number of Indians I would refer to a reply which I gave in this House to a similar question on 22nd April. The Transvaal Government stated on 5th June that 198 persons had been expelled, of whom 148 were known to have returned, and Mr. Handhi stated in July that the number of Indians actually residing was about 5,000, but I cannot say how far this figure may be correct without referring to the Transvaal Government. I am aware that meetings have been held in various parts of India to express indignation at the action of the Colonial Government.

  South African Mines (Chinese and Native Workmen).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he can state the number of Chinese and natives working in the South African gold mines

  347
  in December, 1905, and the number working in the same mines in the last week in September, 1909; if he can state the rates of pay; and whether any modifications have been made in the conditions of employment during this period?
  Colonel SEELY: In December, 1905, 93,831 natives and 47,267 Chinese were employed on the Transvaal gold mines; and in September, 1909, 166,649 natives and 4,122 Chinese were so employed. I have no information as to rates of pay. The conditions of employment of each class have not been substantially altered as far as I am aware, but changes, for instance, in the length of time for which natives contract have been made from time to time.

  Sale of Spirits to South African Natives.
  Sir JOHN KENNAWAYasked whether His Majesty's Government propose in any way to modify their policy of discouraging the sale of spirits to the native races of Africa in consequence of the findings of the Committee presided over by Sir Mackenzie Chalmers?
  Colonel SEELY: His Majesty's Government do not propose to modify in any way their policy of discouraging the sale of spirits to the native races of Africa, and they will continue to co-operate with other European Powers to that end.

  Central South African Railways (Motor Cars).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether the motor cars in use on the Central South African railways are of British manufacture; and, if not, whether British manufacturers were given an opportunity of quoting for them?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has not been supplied with information on this subject. I will ask the Agent-General for the -Transvaal whether he has any particulars.

  Deportations in India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary whether he has received any official information to the effect that Mrs. Krishna Kumar Mitra has seriously suffered in health owing to the anxiety caused to her by the deportation without charge or trial and the prolonged imprisonment of her husband; and, if not, whether he would make inquiries?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has received no information to the effect stated.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries, and may I ask him whether it is not a fact that this lady has made application to the Government of India to join her husband, and has been refused?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have no knowledge of that.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I will consult the Secretary of State.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will take into consideration the desirability of associating the publication of the new reform scheme in India with some graceful act of conciliation, such as the release of the gentlemen deported some time ago, under Regulation III. of 1818?
  The following questions on the same subject also stood upon the Paper:—
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Prime Minister how much longer the nine Bengali gentlemen who were arrested and deported last December, without charge or trial, are to be deprived of the liberty to which every British subject is entitled?
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether, in view of the near approach of the prorogation of Parliament, and the fact that for nearly a year nine British subjects have been imprisoned in common gaols in India without having at any time been informed of any offence committed by them or tried for any crime against the law, he will make some statement to the House in justification of the continued detention of these gentlemen, and say for how long His Majesty's Government intend to sanction it?
  Mr. ALDENasked the Prime Minister whether he will be able, before the House rises, to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government respecting the nine British subjects who were deported from Bengal and imprisoned last year without charge or trial?
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention before Parliament rises to give the House any information as to the grounds on which His Majesty's Government justify the pro-

  349
  longed imprisonment of the nine British subjects who were deported from Bengal nearly a year ago without having been charged with or convicted of any offence against the law?
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of liberating the nine Indians, deported 11 months ago, on the inauguration of the reforms; and, if not, whether he will inform the House what circumstances justify their further detention?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Hackney, and perhaps I may answer the other questions at the same time. I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to questions with a similar object on 17th June. I can only add that the Secretary of State and the Government of India are fully alive to all the circumstances and arguments of the case, and have the matter under their especial consideration, with a view to release at the earliest moment when the general situation admits.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State did not say that the reasons for these deportations was that the reforms might be carried out in tranquillity, and not under conditions of unrest, and whether now that these reforms are carried into law there is any reason for their further detention?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is the question I have answered.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: May I further ask the Prime Minister, seeing that the reason for the detention of these gentlemen, is preventive and not punitive, he will direct that they shall not be detained in prison, but otherwise in a manner consistent with public security.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said the Government of India and His Majesty's Government have this matter under special consideration with a view to release at the earliest possible moment.

  Russia and Jewish Journalists.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether any agreement exists between this country and Russia imposing disabilities upon British subjects of the Jewish faith who are journalists, in the event of such subjects applying to the Russian consulate
  350
  in London for their passports to be viséd; whether he is aware that a Mr. M. J. Landa, a British subject and a Jew, acting in the capacity of a special correspondent of the "Daily News "newspaper, was so treated; and, in view of this fact, will representations be made to the Russian Government to remove such restriction from the journalistic profession?
  Sir E. GREY: The circumstances of the Russian Consul-General having refused to visér Mr. Landa's passport has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government. No agreement exists of the nature referred to in the question, and I would beg to refer to the reply given on 17th November last to the hon. Member for Kilkenny. So long as the Russian regulations respecting persons of the Jewish faith are applied to all persons alike, irrespective of their nationality, which His Majesty's Government have reason to believe to be the case, they have no treaty grounds for protest. It is not practicable to ask for special exceptions to be made in favour of one particular profession.

  Gulab Bano Case.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has any official information showing that the judges of the chief court at Lahore, whose judgment in the Gulab Bano case was dissented from by the executive, have announced their intention of commenting publicly upon the resolution of the executive; and whether he can say whether the judges have made those comments, and what is their nature?
  The MASTER Of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but he has seen in the newspapers a report stating that the chief court have taken notice of the resolution published by the Lieutenant-Governor, and have expressed the intention of considering the matter further. The Secretary of State has no knowledge as yet of the result of such consideration.

  Charges against Indian Police (Ghulam Mohammed Case).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary whether he has any official information showing that the inquiry held by the Punjab Government into the charges against the police of torturing one Ghulam Mohammed by racking him, contained in Mr. Dundas' judgment at Rawul Pindi, was an inquiry held in

  351
  secret by police officials; whether he can say if any of the police implicated were put upon their oaths and submitted to cross-examination; and whether these policemen are still in the service of the Government?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The reports received by the Secretary of State do not show in detail the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the Lieutenant-Governor, but they show that the evidence on which his conclusions were based included the report of the civil surgeon who examined the prisoner immediately after he made his complaint, and the opinion expressed by the district magistrate of Rawul Pindi after making independent enquiries. The Secretary of State is unable, on the information received, to answer the last two questions, but since the Lieutenant-Governor found the police concerned to be free from blame they are presumably still in the service.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask that when a judge has found by his own ocular testimony that there was torture, the question should not be disposed of toy a secret police tribunal?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is quite satisfied with the statement of the Executive Government.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that in future where cases of torture are found by the judicial tribunal to have been practised, that the matter should be disposed of in secret by.an inquiry held by the police themselves?

  Malta (Legislative Council).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to carry out a reconstruction of the Legislative Council of Malta; whether it is proposed that the elected members shall in future be in a majority; and, if so, what will be the numbers of the elected and the official members, respectively?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Secretary of State, as at present advised, does not propose to introduce any changes in the constitution of the Legislative Council of Malta.

  Port-of-Spain (Trinidad) Borough Council.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is yet in a position
  352
  to report as to the progress made as to the restoration of the borough council to Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, which was taken away by the late Government in 1896?
  Colonel SEELY: Considerable progress has been made in regard to this matter since the last occasion on which my hon. Friend addressed a question to me on the subject. I am not yet- in a position to make a statement on the subject, but I hope it may soon be possible to do so.

  East Ham Municipal Election.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the recent municipal election at East Ham, in the Plashet Ward East, about 150 electors who arrived at the polling booth before eight o'clock could not vote in consequence of being unable to get to the polling tables by 8 p.m; whether he is prepared to have investigation made; and if he can state whether the Government have any intention of bringing about legislation to prevent people being disenfranchised?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL-GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I do not find that I have received any representations in regard to this matter in connection with the recent municipal election at East Ham. I could not undertake to introduce legislation on the subject, but I have taken note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the gravity of this question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown with the view of having a circular sent round to the polling authorities so as to insure that every man who gets into the polling booth before eight o'clock shall have an opportunity of recording his vote?

  Vaccination.
  Mr. LUPTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a healthy young woman named Rose Sandall, residing with her mother at 28, New Queen-street, Bedminster, Bristol, was constrained by her employers, Messrs. Mavdon and Sons, of Bristol, to be vaccinated in February last; is he aware that the vaccination was not successful in the medical sense of the word, but resulted in the formation of proud flesh at the place of insertion, sores in the foot, and general illness and emaciation, disabling her from

  353
  working; if he is aware that she has died and that a post-mortem examination has revealed symptoms of cancer; and, since it is known that in some cases vaccination produces cancer, whether he will take steps to insure full inquiry by persons in no way responsible for the production of the vaccine used in this case into the nature and origin of this vaccine?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has not been called to the circumstances referred to in the question. I am, however, now causing inquiry to be made into the matter.
  Mr. LUPTON: In view of the frequent recurrence of death and injury from vaccination, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to appoint an impartial Committee to inquire into the nature of the stuff which is going out from his Department?

  Pension (Nurse Steward).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet had time to consider the case of Nurse Steward, who has been employed by the Wolverhampton, Wools-ton and Burslem, Dudley, Newport Abbot, and Rugby workhouses for a period amounting to 11 years and 10 months, and who has been certified by several medical men as unfit for further workhouse service as a nurse; whether he can see his way clear to grant this person her pension; whether he is also aware that this case has been under consideration since June; and what action, if any, does he intend to take in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have been in communication with the parties with respect to this matter, and will give my decision in the course of the next few days. I will send a copy of it to my hon. Friend.

  Education Grant (West Ham).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that, in consequence of the education grant to the borough of West Ham being of a less amount than last year, an increase in the education rate of 1½d. in the pound has been caused; and whether he can see his way to make an extra grant in consequence of West Ham being one of the highest rated education authorities in the country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that the share of the special grant for necessitous areas received by West
  354
  Ham in respect of the last financial year was considerably reduced owing to the operation of Section 5 of the Regulations. I regret, however, that I cannot contemplate any extension of the scope of that grant, which is strictly limited to the sum of £200,000 voted by Parliament. I may, perhaps, add that the sum received by West Ham from that grant in respect of the last financial year was more than £30,000 in excess of the sum received by any other local education authority In England or Wales.

  Teacher's Superannuation Allowance (Swansea).
  Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONESasked the right hon. Gentleman what is the total amount of the superannuation allowance and annuity on which Mr. Thomas Madge, of Pentrepoeth county council school in the borough of Swansea, has been retired; and at what age his retirement took place and after what number of years' service as a certificated head teacher in public elementary schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on 26th October last.
  Sir DAVID JONES: I am told that the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave in the case referred to is not an answer to this question.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I gave as full an answer on that occasion as I can give to this question.

  Brussels Exhibition (Plasterers' Wages).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the British Section being built at the Brussels Exhibition has been let to a British contractor, and that the fibrous plastering work has been sub-let to a foreign firm, and the rate of wages paid is four francs per day; and, seeing that the work was let to a British firm, should the London rates of wages be paid for the work; and whether, in view of the Fair Wages Resolution, he intends taking action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I have been in communication with the contractors for the decoration in the British Section of the Brussels Exhibition, 'who inform me that no portion of their contract has been sub-let; that they are paying their Belgian workmen at the rate of more than

  355
  four francs per day, and that the rates paid are not less than the rates current in Brussels. In these circumstances I see no occasion for taking action in the matter.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is four francs per day the standard rate of wages for plasterers in Brussels?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Mr. J. WARD: There is a lot of difference between that and the wages paid in this country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Did the right hon. Gentleman advise the contractor as to the rate of wages to be paid?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; it is obvious that in decorating an exhibition in a foreign country you cannot import British workmen. That would cause a great deal of ill-feeling, and might destroy the purpose of the exhibition. The rule followed by the Government is to pay the current rate of wages in the district, and that, I am informed, is four francs per day for plasterers.

  Railway Employés and Municipal Elections.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn to the dismissal by the North British Railway Company of Moncrieff Craig, Ladybank, East Fife, a workman who had been many years in the service of the company and bore a good character, for taking part in municipal affairs during hours when he was not required to be on duty; whether, as the result of the action of the company, none of its servants would allow himself to be nominated for the Ladybank Town Council at the recent municipal elections; what are the powers possessed by his Department for dealing with such cases; and how does he propose to exercise them?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has previously been drawn by the hon. Member to the dismissal of Mr. Craig, but I have no information as to the other circumstances mentioned in the question. The matter is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any powers.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not a fact that this railway company gave an undertaking to allow their servants to take part in municipal elections and to serve on public bodies so long as it did not interfere with the carrying out of their
  356
  duty to the company; and will he state whether the Board of Trade have any power to ensure the liberty of railway servants in this respect; and if he has not power will he seek further powers to see that railway servants are protected in this matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that I have no power to interfere, but I believe this company expressed a desire not to interfere with the discharge of municipal duties by their servants if it did not interfere with the carrying out of their ordinary duties. Of course, I have no power to interfere in the case of individual workmen.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In view of the undertaking given to the Board of Trade and repeated in this House, will the President of the Board of Trade call the attention of this railway company to the continuance of this practice?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I am justified in allowing it to be understood that I agree with the statement that this company has intimidated its workmen.

  Glasgow and South Western Railway (Signalling Arrangements).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that considerable alterations have been made in the lines and signalling arrangements at New Cumnock station, Glasgow and South Western Railway (Scotland); whether from the new signal cabin the signalman has a clear view of the traffic under his control; whether on the down side it is necessary to have a signal to protect the crossing made by the new loop line; and whether the alterations made by the company at this station have been passed by an inspecting officer of the Railway Department before being opened for working?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Plans of the alterations which have been made at New Cumnock station were submitted to the Board of Trade, and provisional sanction to the new works being brought into use was given. The works have, since opening, been inspected by one of the Inspecting Officers of Railways, who reported that the general arrangements were satisfactory. I am advised that the signalman has a good view in each direction from the new signal box, that there are two signals on the down side protecting a through crossing, and that no more are necessary.

  Women Suffrage Prisoners.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say under what circumstances Catherine Tolson and two other women suffrage prisoners were turned out from Strangeways Prison about 10 o'clock last Friday evening and driven in a cab to the offices of the Women's Social and Political Union in Oxford-road, and left there on the street, the offices being closed; whether one of the women fainted twice before finding accommodation for the night; whether Miss Tolson did not reach home till 3.30 in the morning, having had to walk from Altrincham to Hale through the fog; whether Miss Tolson's father had arranged with the Governor of the prison that he would meet his daughter and the other two ladies at 8.15 on Saturday morning, the day on which their sentences expired, and had given an undertaking that there would be no demonstration; and for what reason and by "whose instructions was this arrangement departed from?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The Governor, acting on the discretion which had been given to him, decided to discharge these prisoners on Friday night. He arranged the time so as to allow Miss Tolson to catch a train for her home at 10.50; offered to send an officer home to Rochdale with another of the prisoners, while the third was to go to a friend in Manchester for the night. The three prisoners, however, being free to do as they liked on discharge, 'elected to go together in a cab to the offices of the Women's Political and Social Union, and left the prison singing and shouting. It appears that, finding the offices of the union closed, they drove to a friend's house; that Miss Tolson was pressed by one of her friends to remain with her for the night, but that she insisted on going home in a taxicab, and on the driver losing his way in a fog, she walked the last part. It is true that the Governor had arranged with her father to release her at 8.15 a.m. on Saturday, but the father had first voluntarily promised in a letter, which I have seen, to keep this information to himself, in order that there might be no demonstration. The Governor found, in the course of Friday, that information of the hour of release had been communicated to the Women's Social and Political Union; and, to avoid
  358
  any demonstration, decided to release the prisoners on Friday.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any intimation as to the change of the arrangements was made to the father of Miss Tolson, or any of the relatives of the girls, and is the Home Secretary aware that there is a special prison rule (No. 3) which provides that in the case of girls under 20 years of age intimation must be sent either to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society or some responsible person; and is the Home Secretary aware that Oxford-street, where these girls were sent by the express orders of the Governor, is one of the lowest streets in the City of Manchester?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I think I have already given a very full answer to the hon. Member's question. I must say that the girl's father did not keep to the arrangement, and I do not see why any further communication should be made.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Home Secretary aware that Miss Tolson's father denies that statement?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: What statement?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The statement that he informed the Women's Social and Political Union; and is it not a fact that the father has been informed in a letter from the Deputy-Governor of the prison that the reason why the release was made on the Friday was in consequence of a telegram received from the Home Secretary? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why that telegram was sent, and what were its contents?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member's information is inaccurate. I have already stated the exact facts. A discretion was given by me to the Governor to act according to his judgment, and release the prisoners either on Friday or on Saturday.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: As the accuracy of my statement has been called into question I will read a paragraph to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It is a matter of importance, and I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he has received a copy of a letter sent by the Deputy-Governor of the prison to Miss Tolson's father, in which he says:—
  "When I telephoned to you that the arrangement for 8.15 the following morning, entered into between yon and Captain Haines, stood good, it was to the best of my belief understood that, this was so, and it was my intention to carry it out. It was not till some time afterwards that a telegram from London made it impossible for me to make any reply."
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have stated the facts, and have nothing to add.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The facts will be stated later in the law courts.

  Discharged Lunatic Seamen (Irish Workhouses).
  Captain DON ELAN (for Mr. J. C. Flynn)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty what practice is adopted by the Admiralty authorities in respect to lunatic seamen discharged from the Royal Navy; if it is the custom to send these men to their relatives or to the workhouses of their native districts; if so, is the practice sanctioned by naval medical officers; and do the Admiralty authorities propose to continue the practice of deducting from the pension or other allowance given to discharged lunatic seamen now maintained in Irish lunatic asylums the capitation grant paid by the State towards the maintenance and transferring the amount of such grant to the relief of the Vote for the Admiralty?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): The procedure of the Admiralty is governed by the Lunacy Acts, 1890–1891, and by the provisions of the Army Act, Section 91, made applicable to the naval service by Section 3 of the Naval Enlistment Act, 1884. Dangerous lunatics are committed to an asylum, those entitled to pensions for life being admitted to the Royal Naval Hospital, Yarmouth. Non-dangerous lunatics are sent to Yarmouth or to the union of the parish to which it appears from the declaration made on entry and from other information that they are chargeable, unless their relations or friends are willing to take charge of them and the Admiralty are satisfied that proper oare will be taken of them. In the latter case the Admiralry act on the advice of the naval medical authorities. With regard to the last part of the question, the reduction of the pension by the amount of the grant received by the asylum authorities from the local taxation account in aid of the pensioner's maintenance is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, Clause 2, of the Superannuation Act of 1887, and the Admiralty has no option in the matter.
  Captain DONELAN: May I ask whether it is not a fact that when naval pensioners are transferred to Irish lunatic asylums or workhouses, the total cost of their maintenance is thrown on the local rates or the local taxation account in Ireland?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The Admiralty have no option in the matter. They are bound by legislation.
  Mr. M. J. FLAVIN: Are these old men who have served under the British flag sent to Irish workhouses as an inducement to more Irishmen to join the Navy?

  Good-Conduct Badges (Navy).
  Mr. CARLYON BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the beneficial effects likely to result, whether the Board will extend the grant of good-conduct badges and the extra pay to men who receive them to all the lower-deck ratings?
  Mr. LAMBERT: A similar question was asked on the 29th March last by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, and I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the reply then given.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Does the Admiralty adhere to the statement in that answer?
  Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, sir.

  Naval Expenditure (1910–11).
  Mr. BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the expenditure on new ships and their armaments for 1910–11 to which this country is necessarily committed by the existing programme, and to which the programme of 1910–11 will be additional?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am unable to give information in anticipation of the Estimates, which will be laid in due course.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that precisely similar information was granted to hon. Members below the Gangway when they wished to reduce the Navy Estimates in 1906–7?
  Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir.

  Naval Construction in Germany (1910–11),
  Mr. BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the amount to be voted for new construction and armaments for Germany in 1910–11, calculated on a similar basis to the official figures for this year, 1909–10, of £10,256,194 for Great Britain and £10,751,466 for Germany?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The official proposed German naval estimates have not yet been received and it is not possible to give the figures asked for.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Has the Admiralty any reason to believe that the figures published in the Press this morning to the effect that the German vote for naval construction and armaments is nearly £2,000,000 in advance of last year are inaccurate?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The question asks the amount to be voted for new construction and armaments for Germany in 1910–11. The figures have not yet been received, and naturally I cannot give the answer.
  Mr. A. LEE: Does the hon. Member mean that they have not yet been received by the Admiralty 1 They have been published officially.
  Mr. LAMBERT: They have not yet been received at the Admiralty.

  Development and Road Improvement Bill.
  Captain DON ELAN (for Mr. Flynn)asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Cork butter market trustees on the 18th instant, calling attention to Sub-section (a) Clause 1, of the Development and Road Improvement Bill of the Government, and expressing apprehension as to the danger of public moneys being advanced to organisation societies which are trading in direct competition with private traders; and, in view of recent experiences in Ireland, what steps the Department proposes to take in regard to this Sub-section?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The Vice-President has received a copy of the Resolution referred to in the question; and is of opinion that the legitimate interests of the private trader are not endangered by the Clause as it stands.
  Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that grants-in-aid have been given in the past and may be given under this Bill again to organisations who are neither manufacturers of manures nor seeds, and who compete against those who are legitimate manufacturers and pay rates?
  Mr. CHERRY: I must ask for notice of that. I cannot undertake to answer a question of that kind offhand.

  Illegal Trawling (Donegal Coast).
  Mr. CHARLES MacVEIGH (for Mr. O' Doherty)asked the Vice-Presi-
  362
  dent of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware of the havoc done by steam trawling along the coast of North Donegal; whether any steps will be taken to prevent the same; and what, if any, is the result of the recent inquiry held into the matter?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Department will take all steps possible, having regard to the means at their disposal, to prevent illegal trawling off the Donegal Coast. Certain bye-laws which they submitted, prohibiting steam trawling off that coast, received the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council a few days ago, and steps are being taken in accordance with the law to give notice of the fact that the bye-laws are now in force.

  Nairn Harbour.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON (for Mr. Annan Bryce)asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the harbour of Nairn has been severely damaged by the storms of September, 1908, and October, 1909, and is now in a dangerous condition; that notwithstanding repeated representations the Fishery Board for Scotland refuses to make any grant for repairs; and whether the Secretary for Scotland proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am informed there has been some injury, but I have not the details.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the hon. Member aware that during this recent month the harbour of Nairn has suffered further injury, and is in imminent danger of being totally destroyed?
  Mr. URE: I would ask the hon. Member to put down a question. I am informed there has been some injury, but I have not the details.

  Procurators Fiscal and Political Work (Linlithgow).
  Mr. H. A. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the depute procurator of the county of Linlithgow engages in political work in that county; and, if so, will he say whether the regulations of the Crown Office for the guidance and instruction of procurators fiscal and their deputies apply in that case?
  Mr. URE: I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend.

  Court of Session (Quorum of Judges).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the business of the First Division of the Court of Session had recently to be adjourned on account of inability to find a quorum of judges; whether one of the judges of that division has since ti en obtained leave of absence on account of ill-health; and, if so, what plan he proposes to adopt in order that the public may suffer no inconvenience by delays?
  Mr. URE: On 2nd November, owing to the sudden illness of two of the Judges of the First Division a quorum could not be constituted, and on that day that Court did not sit. No Judge of the First Division has since then obtained leave of absence on account of ill-health. Lord McLaren, who is one of the Judges of the First Division, obtained leave of absence from the commencement of the Winter Session till 1st January next.

  Walmer Castle.
  Mr. T. HART-DAVIESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether any decision has been come to as to the future status of Walmer Castle, and whether he will consider the advisability of constituting it a national monument open to the public?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I can add nothing to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport circulated with the Votes on 15th September.

  Small Holdings (Berkshire).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the President had been called to a.speech made by the chairman of the small holdings Committee of the Berkshire County Council at the last quarterly meeting of the council, in which he said that in Berkshire 5,000 acres had been applied for by individual small holders, exclusive of 2,290 by the North Berks Society, that 4,138 acres had been recommended by the committee to satisfy the approved applicants, but that only 1,786 acres had been acquired by the council, that many applicants remained unsatisfied, and that the committee had no land available at the present moment to satisfy the applications; and whether, under these circumstances, the President proposes to use the compulsory powers given by the Small Holdings Act to obtain the land required?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury): The President has seen a report of the speech referred to. In view of the difficulty of obtaining suitable land he thinks that the acquisition of nearly 1,800 acres shows that the council are endeavouring to administer the Act in a satisfactory manner, and he has no doubt that all possible steps will be taken to satisfy the remaining demand with as little delay as possible.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the attention of the President has been called to the report of the small holdings committee, which was discussed at the last quarterly meeting of the Berkshire County Council; whether he is aware that the chairman of the committee stated that the committee had been for months trying to obtain 20 acres of land at Aldermaston for an applicant of approved character and capital, and that the Board of Agriculture had advised the use of compulsory powers to obtain the land, but that Mr. Keyser, who owned two-thirds of the village, refused to let any of his land, on the ground that the applicant was not a suitable man, and possessed political opinions of which he did not approve; and what action the President proposes to take to see that the applicant obtains the land to which the county council have held him to be entitled?
  Captain NORTON: Yes, the attention of the President of the Board has been called to the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and he gave instructions last week for inquiry to be made into the matter by an inspector so soon as opportunity offers. The President will await the receipt of the inspector's report before deciding what action, if any, he can with advantage take to help the applicant in question.

  Loudon Electric Call Boxes.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE (for Mr. Staveley-Hill)asked the Postmaster-General whether any steps are taken to ventilate the street boxes in London used for electric calls, having regard to the fact that many large towns in England have, in the interests of public health, adopted means for ventilating them?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): If the hon. Member is referring to the cabinets in public telephone call offices, I may assure him that all those installed by the Post Office have ventilators.

  Irish Mails from New York (Delay in Delivery).
  Captain DONELANasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the published announcement that on and after 1st January, 1910, for the remainder of the winter season, the Cunard Company's mail steamers from New York will not call, as heretofore, at Queenstown to land mails and passengers, but will proceed direct to Fishguard; whether he is aware that the proposed alterations will not alone cause delay in the delivery of the Irish mails, but will also cause discomfort to passengers bound to Ireland, who, under the new conditions, must first land at Fishguard and subsequently undertake a second sea passage across the Channel to Rosslare; and whether he will represent to the postal authorities in the United States the loss and inconvenience which must inevitably result from the contemplated change?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has been called to the matter. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Cunard Company is not under contract with my Department in respect of their Eastward voyages, nor do I understand that the United States Post Office is in a position to control the company in respect of their ports of call. As regards postal facilities, I find that during the period in question, as much as 90 per cent, of the mails are for Great Britain and places beyond, and of these the greater part will be accelerated. As regards the Irish mails, there will be, I fear, some delay; but we propose generally to convey them to Ireland by the route Fishguard and Rosslare, thus reducing the delay to a minimum.
  Captain DONELAN: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the loss and inconvenience referred to in the question is not limited to Ireland, but that Scotland is also seriously affected; and do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to make any representations to the United States in connection with this matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: Ninety per cent, of these mails are for Great Britain and beyond, and the bulk of those are accelerated by the new system. As regards the Irish mails, they are not accelerated, but we are doing our best to meet that difficulty. I do not think there is any advantage in making representations to the United States. We made representations in refer-
  366
  ence to a somewhat similar matter, and as far as I am aware they have no control over these mail boats.
  Captain DONELAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of representing to the Postal Authorities in the United States the very serious loss and inconvenience that will be caused to Ireland by this change?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am informed, as I have said, that 90 per cent, of the mails are for Great Britain and beyond, and the bulk of them will be accelerated. I will consider the matter, but I should find it rather difficult to make representations to the American Government when it is clear from the figures before me that the great majority are accelerated. I shall be glad, however, if the hon. Member will give me any facts bearing upon the matter.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it not a fact that numerous representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to avoid the delay by the steamers calling at Queenstown?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received numerous representations.

  FINANCE BILL.

    DURHAM COAL ROYALTY RENTS.
    Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of royalty rent paid on coal in the county of Durham; the minimum and maximum rate per ton charged; and the collieries in the county at which such rates apply?
    Captain NORTON: Without a general reference to local officials in the district, for which there has been no time, my right hon. Friend is unable to furnish the detailed information which the hon. Member desires.

    LAND TAX SURVEYORS.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of surveyors it is estimated will be employed under the provisions of Part I. of the Finance Bill; if any surveyors have been provisionally appointed, and, if so, how many; and if he will give the number of the applications for these appointments which have been received by the Treasury?
    Captain NORTON: In reply to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th and 17th August last. The

    367
    answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, my right hon. Friend is informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that they have received 1,138 applications from land valuers.
    Mr. GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of that number are likely to be employed in the immediate future?
    Captain NORTON: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer any supplementary questions.

    SPIRIT DUTIES.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked how long the increased duty of 3s. 9d. per proof gallon will have to be paid on spirits in the event of the Finance Bill not being passed into law, and whether the increased duty paid up to the present will be refunded to the payers if the measure is rejected by the other Chamber?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position at the present moment to make a statement on this subject.

    —

    1908.

    1909.

    Quantity.

    Duty

    Quantity.

    Duty.

    Gallons.

    £

    Gallons.

    £

    October

    …

    3,388,000

    1,865,000

    2,116,000

    1,558,000

    November (1–21, 1908) (1–20, 1909)

    …

    2,647,000

    1,460,000

    1,656,000

    1,220,000

    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond from 1st May to 1st November, 1908, and the amount of duty paid thereon; if he will give a similar Return for the corresponding period of this year; whether he will state the quantity taken out of bond from 1st November, 1908. to 1st May, 1909, and the amount of duty paid; and what quantity would require to be taken out for the corresponding months 1909–10 to bring the revenue for the 12 months, May, 1909, to April, 1910, up to what it was for the corresponding preceding 12 months plus the estimated increase of £800,000?
    Captain NORTON: The quantity of spirits on which duty was paid and the amount of duty received thereon from 1st
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst traders with regard to this uncertainty in view of the nearness of the Christmas trade?
    Captain NORTON: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    WITHDRAWALS OF SPIRITS FROM BOND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland for the months of October, 1908 and 1909, respectively, and what quantity was taken out of bond for the month of November of this year up to the date of latest calculation; and whether he will state what quantity was taken out of bond for the corresponding days in November of last year, and what amount of duty was paid in each of the periods referred to?
    Captain NORTON: The following Statement shows the actual quantities of spirits on which duty was paid in Great Britain and Ireland during the months of October, 1908 and 1909, and the approximate quantities on which duty was paid in the periods November 1st to 21st, 1908, and November 1st to 20th, 1909, together with the amounts of duty received thereon:—
    May to 31st October in each of the years 1908 and 1909 were: —

    Proof Gallons.

    Duty.

    May to Oct., 1908

    17,181,000

    £9,608,000

    May to Oct., 1909

    *8,966,000

    *£6,586,000

    * Corrected figures.

    The quantity of spirits on which duty was paid, and the amount of duty received thereon from 1st November, 1908, to 30th April, 1909, were:—

    Proof Gallons.

    Duty.

    23,337,000

    —

    £12,888,000

    The quantity which will require to be duty paid in the corresponding months of the year from May, 1909, to April, 1910 (i.e., November, 1909, to April, 1910, inclusive), to bring the revenue for the 12

    369
    months, May, 1909, to April, 1910, up to what it was for the corresponding preceding 12 months, plus the estimated increase of £800,000, is 22,630,000 proof gallons.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: As this answer is of considerable interest, may we have it circulated with the Votes?
    Captain NORTON: Certainly.

    General Officers' Establishment.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK (on behalf of Captain Faber)asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of Artillery generals, seeing that the proportion of generals in that corps to regimental officers is 1 in 110, whilst the proportion in the Guards' Brigade is 1 in 19?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The establishment of general officers includes all officers of the Army promoted to that rank, whatever arm they may have belonged to. No separate establishment for each arm therefore exists, though in selecting officers for promotion, regard is had to the proportion of general officers of each arm on the active list. For the purpose of this proportion officers of the Brigade of Guards are included in the Infantry, which arm, at present, has fewer than its correct proportion of Major-Generals, whereas the Royal Artilley has as nearly as possible its correct proportion.

    Territorial Force (Medical Officers).
    Sir H. CRAIK (on behalf of Captain Faber)asked the Secretary for War whether there is a senior Territorial medical officer in London suitable to take command of No. 1 London General Hospital?
    Mr. HALDANE: This General Hospital is formed by the staff of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The senior physician asked that Colonel Harrison, a distinguished medical officer who had been in the Grenadier Guards, should be appointed administrator, and he was accordingly gazetted on the 2nd November.

    Royal Army Medical Corps (Transport).
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary for War whether he could give any date upon which the reissue of harness to the Royal Army Medical Corps Transport of the Territorial Army will be completed, and what steps are being taken in the interim to admit of the men receiving the necessary training with waggons?
    Mr. HALDANE: Orders were issued on the 12th instant for the reissue of the harness that had been withdrawn.

    St. Elmo Barracks, Malta.
    Mr. LUPTONasked the Secretary for War whether sanitary improvements, in the way of drainage and cleansing of the harbour, have been effected in Malta; if a large portion of the garrison has been removed from the low-lying barracks at St. Elmo to new barracks on the hill; if the cases of fever in the garrison have been reduced to a small proportion of their former number; if he will now remove the prohibition of the use of goats' milk by the garrison, it having been conclusively proved by Dr. Walter Hadwen that there is no connection between goats' milk and fever; and if, considering that the production of goats' milk is the chief farming industry of the island, he will remove a prohibition which is the cause of so much loss to the islanders?
    Mr. HALDANE: During recent years improvements have been steadily carried out in relation to the drainage of the harbours in Malta. In 1906 a considerable number of the troops were transferred from St. Elmo to the new barracks. The Mediterranean Fever Commission, however, obtained no evidence connecting the condition of the harbours with the prevalence of Mediterranean fever amongst the troops. Since the prohibition of the use of goats' milk in barracks and hospitals Mediterranean fever has practically disappeared from amongst the troops. The evidence given in the Reports of the Royal Society's Mediterranean Fever Commission connecting goats' milk and Mediterranean fever is so strong, and the improvement in" the health of the troops since the use of goats' milk has been given up is so marked, that no responsible Minister who did not wish to be regarded as weak and incompetent would venture to remove the prohibition of the use of goats' milk by the garrison.
    Mr. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that the reduction in the number of attacks of Mediterranean fever took place before the prohibition? Do not natives not under military orders consume large quantities of goats' milk without suffering any harm, and is not the case that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The question is partaking somewhat of the nature of a speech.

    Scottish Temperance Bill.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the importance of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, it will not be possible to give Monday and Tuesday next week for the purpose of carrying through the Report stage and Third Reading of the measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government, as my hon. Friend is aware, have kept this Bill alive, and given it special facilities, not only from sympathy with its objects, but because it commands the earnest support of the Scottish Members, and of none more than myself. It is, therefore, with reluctance and great regret that we have come to the conclusion not to ask the House to persevere this year with its further consideration. At this stage of the Session, and under existing conditions, we feel that the House cannot be called upon to give the time and consideration to the further stages of the Bill, which its importance requires. I need not add that I hope that before long it may find its place on the Statute Book.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Can the Prime Minister give us any further information with reference to the course of business in this House this and next week in view of the alteration made in the arrangements for taking the Vote on the Finance Bill in another place?
The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of our securing the first four Orders on the Paper to-day the Government will not proceed with any further business either to-day or to-morrow. There are certain Bills awaiting the Royal Assent. Unless we have a Royal Commission in the course of this evening a formal sitting for that purpose will have to be held to-morrow, but otherwise I propose that the House shall adjourn to-night till Wednesday.

PRESENTATION OF BILL.
  SMALL HOLDINGS AXD ALLOTMENTS (AMENDMENT).
  Bill to amend The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907. —[Mr. Seddon.]— Presented and read the first time.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.
Order read for further consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Before the House agrees to that Motion, I desire to ask the Government whether they are not in a position to state the names of the Development Commissioners? The House will recollect on the last occasion that this matter was raised before the House the Prime Minister gave a distinct undertaking that before we were asked to consider the Lords Amendments to this Bill the names of the Commissioners should be stated, and it evidently is a matter of importance that before the House parts with the full control of the Bill these names should be before it. Certainly I venture to say that we have a right to ask the Government whether they are now in a position to state those names, and if they cannot state all the names, perhaps they will state some of them?
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): The practice of the House has been to state the names of Commissioners of this kind altogether if the names can be stated altogether, and sometimes to state the names of some, although they are not fully appointed. I regret to say that although this matter has had and is having the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government, we are not at present in a position to inform the House as to who the Commissioners are proposed to be. I hope nevertheless the Lords Amendments will be considered now, and that we shall deal with them on their merits. It is really because of the important position which the Commissioners are to occupy that their nomination has been delayed. Everybody is agreed that the best possible men who can be obtained ought to be obtained, and the difficulties have arisen partly from the importance of the duties which they will have to perform.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask whether we are to understand that these Commissioners have not yet been appointed?
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: None of them.
Sir F. BANBURY: None of them? Then in view of the fact that this is a very

373
important matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that they will not be appointed before next February?
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking on behalf of the Government, because the result would be that the Bill, if passed, would be hung up in its operation between this and next February.
Sir F. BANBURY: There may be a new Government.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is in the lap of the gods.
Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.

  Clause 1.—(Power to Make. Advances for Certain Purposes.)
  (1) The Treasury may, upon the recommendation of the Development Commissioners appointed under this Act, make advances to a Government Department, or through a Government Department to a public authority, university, or institution, or an association of persons or company not trading for profit, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they may think fit, for any of the following purposes:—

  (a) Aiding and developing agriculture and rural industries by promoting scientific research, instruction and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture (including the provision of farm institutes), the organisation of co-operation, instruction in marketing produce, and the extension of the provision of small holdings; and by the adoption of any other means which appear calculated to develop agriculture and rural industries;

  (b) Forestry (including the purchase and planting of land, the conducting of inquiries, experiments, and research for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of methods of afforestation);

  (c) The reclamation and drainage of land;

  (d) The general improvement of rural transport (including the making of light railways but not including the construction or improvement of roads);

  374

  (e) The construction and improvement of harbours;

  (f) The construction and improvement of inland navigations;

  (g) The development and improvement of fisheries;

  and for any other purpose calculated to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom.
  (2) All applications for advances under this Part of this Act shall be made to the Treasury in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (3) No advance shall be made for any purpose which might be carried out under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, upon any terms or conditions different from those contained in that statute except for some special reason which shall be stated in the Annual Report of the Development Commissioners.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "college" ["or through a Government Department to a public authority, university, college"], to insert the word "school."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I promised this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), although I confess that my opinion was that the point was really within the words of the Clause already. However, I promised that this Amendment should be inserted in another place.
  House agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or company not trading for profit," and insert the words "corporate or unincorporate."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think perhaps two or three words of explanation ought to be given in respect of this Motion. We leave out the words "or company not trading for profit" here merely in order to recast the Clause, and we agree also to insert the words "corporate or unincorporate," but the practical effect of the agreement is that the two exceptions which were suggested may with security and safety be made, namely, grants of sums of money for the

  375
  purpose of enabling the local authority to get assistance for the building of a harbour or the construction of a light railway service, and which will be incorporated in an Amendment hereafter to be made. I moved certain words on the Report stage in this House, but they have been reconsidered in another place, and, on the whole, the Government thought it would be well to take the form there adopted.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been approached in regard to this Amendment by a great many people. I understand that no body of people are to have any access to these public funds or to have access to these funds except for a specific purpose.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask what is the meaning of the Lords Amendment later on in the. Clause, and the words which it is proposed to insert in lieu of those left out? That Amendment provides that no advance shall be made to any association of persons trading for a profit except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners. Do I understand it is proposed to empower the Commissioners to make grants to a public authority or to a railway company to construct a railway to be worked for private profit? If not, that is the obvious meaning of the words here set down. I remember upstairs in Committee how Members on this side in common with Members on the other side, and on these benches, agreed about the unwisdom of subsidising any railway company, even for any light railway; but if this Amendment means, as it appears on the face of it to mean, that public Commissioners are to be allowed to spend money in making light railways to be worked by a private railway company for profit, then I would anticipate a very general consensus of opinion that that is a most unwise thing to do, and that the Lords Amendment standing on the Paper requires still further Amendment. I ask therefore whether the railways to be dealt with under this Clause are private railways worked for private profit or whether they are to belong to the public authority which finds the money?
  4.0 p.m.
  Viscount MORPETH: I recollect what was done upstairs, and we are now asked to change what the Committee did. I agree
  376
  with the hon. Member, and I was one of those who supported him at the time. I think it would tend to very undesirable negotiations with the big railways in this country if they were to receive grants of public money from the Development Commissioners to make what are really branch lines on their railways. Everybody knows that there are many light railways which are not light railways at all except merely technically. Everybody knows that they are like other parts of the system, and except in regard to some provisions as to fences and construction they are part of the general system, and I hold it is very undesirable that the big railway companies should be brought into this sort of contact with the Government themselves and that Commissioners, however highly placed or impartial, should have the right to throw public money into the coffers of one company rather than another. Exactly the same question can be raised on the question of piers and harbours. There are in this country a great many small ports competing one with another, and it is quite conceivable that- one of these small ports may be subsidised, so as to divert traffic from another port. That would not be fair to the other port, that competition, which it is quite right they should be subject to, should be made all the keener by means of the money which they contribute. Altering what we did upstairs will to some extent open the door to these dangers which the Committee was almost unanimous in desiring to shut out. For these reasons, though I have no doubt it will be useless to push my opposition further than uttering a protest. I greatly regret what has been done in this matter.
  Mr. J. CULLINAN: There is another matter in connection with this Amendment of which I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation. In the Committee a general understanding was arrived at that no grant would be made under these circumstances to any co-operative or other association to the detriment of a legitimate trader, and we were led to believe that provision would be made to guard against such a thing. I remember the words were altered, and we inserted "the organisation of co-operation." The interpretation of that might be very elastic, and might be extended to a degree which might not be fair or just to the traders of the country. The co-operative societies in

  377
  Great Britain are very different from what they are in Ireland, and societies not trading for profit might include associations such as the Irish Agricultural Association, which in reality trades for profit, because all the shareholders are gaining very considerably by the trading, and that will be liable to misconstruction in a great number of cases. It would be very unfair under this Bill to have any grant or loan made to any association to the detriment of the legitimate traders of the country, which would be a very serious matter. The matter has been taken up not only in Ireland but in Great Britain. Having been on the Committee, I received several communications with regard to the matter, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether the provisions at present contained in the Bill will not be sufficient to safeguard the legitimate trader from the encroachment of the co-operative society?
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I understand that the question before the House is the Amendment on line 11, but discussion has been going on on Sub-section (4) which is to be inserted in line 20 on page 2. If we allow these words to be inserted, would it be in order on Sub-section 4 to leave out all the words after "profit"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have doubts about the Amendment on Sub-section (4). I rather think that is a privileged Amendment. The matter is rather wrapped up in mystery, because the Lords Amendment on lines 16 and 17 to leave out "Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908," taken in conjunction with the Amendment on line 20, after "Commissioners," to insert a new Subsection, covers the case of advances under the Small Holdings Act and the Light Rail-ways Act. If there are any other statutes under which advances could be made besides those two I think those Amendments would be privileged Amendments. If there were no other statutes under which advances could be made as well as under this Act I do not think they would be privileged, and I intended, when we reached that point, to have sought for information. I do not want to commit myself at present.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I am afraid in that case, undoubtedly, this Amendment will come within the rule with regard to privilege, because there are other statutes which would come within that Amendment, and it would undoubtedly extend the objects on which public money could be
  378
  expended, and if that is your view we will not persist with the Motion. As far as the Government is concerned we shall allow this to be negatived if that is the view taken by you.
  Mr. SPEAKER: After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is clear that advances might be extended to other matters. Therefore that would be a privileged Amendment.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I want to know how we stand? We passed an Amendment to insert the word "school" just now.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is only an extension of "institution or college." It was obvious that the word "school" was so near the word "college" and so near the word "institution" that, for the sake of clearness, and in order to make perfectly clear what the House has decided, it was desirable that the word "school" should be inserted. Therefore I accepted that and took no objection to it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that the Government are going to disagree with all privileged Amendments, because yesterday they waived their right with regard to privilege on a very large number of Amendments?
  Mr. MICHAEL JOYCE: Before we pass away from this matter may I press home the argument of my colleague?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Government are not pressing the Amendment at all, but are withdrawing it, and in the second place it would really not have covered the case of co-operation. It would confine the associations to be subsidised purely to railway companies and harbours.
  Mr. JOYCE: During the passage of the Bill in this House a statement was made by a responsible Minister on the Treasury Bench that money under this Bill could be devoted to these objects, and a great feeling of unrest has been caused in Ireland amongst legitimate traders who have put hundreds of thousands of pounds into their businesses.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must raise a point of Order. My hon. Friend may rest assured that this Amendment has nothing to do with it. It will be taken in conjunction with the Lords Amendment on line 20, which refers exclusively to railways and harbours, and it has nothing whatever to

  379
  do with co-operative societies, and I submit that it is out of order to discuss that question at all.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret very much that the Government have taken the course of not agreeing with the Lords on this Amendment. The effect of this, unless the Amendment is put in, will be to strike out of the Bill all light railways and all harbours, and that is no doubt the reason why the hon. Baronet supports that view, but personally I am not in favour of that view and never have been. If you are to have this scheme at all it must be made a good and workable scheme, and one of the most essential parts is to improve light railways and improve harbours, but under this Bill, unless these words are inserted, the only people who will be able to carry out the work will be a public authority. Whoever heard of a public authority constructing a light railway! I do not think they can legally do such a thing at all. The result would be that they would have to come for a private Bill in order to get the power to construct a light railway, and I do not believe myself, under present conditions, there would be the least chance of their obtaining that power. What is the result of that? There is no one who can construct a light railway and can be assisted under this Bill unless you put in the companies. My Noble Friend (Viscount Morpeth) says there is great danger of assisting one company against another, and other dangers of like character. This provision has been the law of the land for 13 years.
  [ROYAL ASSENT—Message to attend Lords Commissioners. The House, went, and having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Merchandise Marks (Ireland) Act. 1909.

  2. Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1909.

  3. Diseases of Animals Act, 1909.

  4. Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1909.

  5. Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act. 1908, Amendment Act, 1909.

  6. Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1909.

  7. Cinematograph Act, 1909.

  8. Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Act, 1909.

  9. Health Resorts and Watering Places (Ireland) Act, 1909.

  10. Wild Animals in Captivity Protection (Scotland) Act, 1909.

  11. Electric Lighting Act, 1909.

  380

  12. Police (Liverpool Inquiry) Act, 1909.

  13. Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1909.

  14. Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909.

  15. County Councils Mortgages Act, 1909.

  16. Oaths Act, 1909.

  17. Police Act, 1909.

  18. Naval Discipline Act, 1909.

  19. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1909.

  20. Colinton Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1909.

  21. Robert Gordon's Technical College and Aberdeen Endowments Trust Order Confirmation Act, 1909.

  22. Cardiff Corporation Act, 1909.]

  Lord ROBERT CECIL (resuming): I wish to point out that the power which is proposed to be conferred upon light railway companies under the Amendment made in another place is power which already exists under the Light Railways Act of 1896. A light railway cannot be made unless the body authorised to make it "undertake themselves to construct and work, or to contract for the construction or working of the light railway." Therefore I should say that upon the merits it is desirable, and indeed I understand it is the view of the Government that it is desirable, that this Amendment should be inserted. Under these circumstances I desire to know what is the policy of the Government in regard to privileged Amendments. I think we ought to know that. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) pointed out that in dealing with another Bill yesterday the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), apparently with the assent of the Government, stated "These Amendments are made, I take it, in furtherance of the object of the Bill, and do not materially affect the character of the Bill.' Is that not absolutely true of the particular Amendments we are now considering? Is not that the very way you would describe them? The hon. Member for St. Pancras further said, "They supply machinery which was, perhaps, to some extent, lacking in the form of the Bill as it left the House." That is exactly what these Amendments do. The hon. Member moved, "That the House do not insist on its privilege." I wish to speak with all respect of the privileges of this House. What is their

  381
  object? It is not to bar the House from making necessary and proper Amendments on a Bill because these Amendments happen to be suggested by another place. That does not safeguard the House in any respect. I can understand privileges of this kind having been created originally to protect this House against aggressions by unauthorised persons, and to lay down a general rule behind which it could be sheltered. That was when it was a weakling body, but now that it is a powerful body, let each Amendment be considered on its merits. If it is good, let it be accepted; and, if it is bad, let it be rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and my Noble Friend the Member for South Birmingham (Viscount Morpeth) do not like the Amendment on its merits, but the Government think it is a good Amendment, and that it is necessary in order to carry out the purposes of the Bill. What nonsense to refuse to accept the Amendment because it happens to have been put in the Bill by the House of Lords! That is not the way to protect the privileges of the House of Commons. It is the way to bring the privileges of the House of Commons into contempt. I hope the House will accept the Motion proposed by the Solicitor-General and agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I do not agree with the Noble Lord in his approval of the effect of this Amendment. I do agree with him in the principle laid down that if an Amendment of this character is on the merits a desirable Amendment, it is a suitable occasion for waiving the privileges of the House, and I believe that that has been frequently done on the Motion of the Government and of private Members. In the present instance I do not agree with the Noble Lord that it would be a good thing to waive the privilege of the House in order to insert this Amendment for the purpose of allowing advances to be made to enable railways companies to construct light railways in certain districts, because it is perfectly plain from the wording of the Amendment that the purpose is to enable railway companies, that is companies trading for profit, to construct light railways. The words show that quite clearly. They will not construct themselves and work under public control, but they will enter into a bargain with the railway company to construct a branch line in the district. I do not think that is a proper object under this Bill to make advances for the
  382
  purpose of aiding one private company to compete with another, thereby interfering with the legitimate competition of private enterprise. I object therefore to the Amendment on its merits, and I do not think for that reason that it would be wise to waive the privilege of the House. If the Amendment is to be treated as a breach of privilege, of course there is not much use consuming the time of the House debating the subject at any length, but my attention was directed to a question asked by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson Hicks) as to whether he was justified in assuming that the words of the Bill as it stands made it impossible to make any grants to co-operative associations competing with private traders. The Attorney-General, I think it was, replied that that was so. There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. Nothing can be plainer than the wording of the Bill as it stands. It is perfectly open to make grants to co-operative associations competing with private traders. These associations do not trade for a profit. There are co-operative associations in this country like the Army and Navy Stores and the Civil Service Association, which have ceased to be bond fide cooperative associations, and do trade for profit, and their shares have gone to enormous premiums for that reason. But the moment they begin to trade for profit they cease to be a true co-operative association. The true co-operative association trades for the mutual benefit of its members, and if there is a profit at the end of the year it is divided among the shareholders in bonuses. But there is no doubt that under the words of the Bill it is perfectly open to the Development Commissioners to give grants to these co-operative associations. I think it a very improper thing to do. I do not suppose that the Government meant to do it, but nothing can be more certain under the wording of the Bill.
  There was another expression which meant the same thing—"aiding agriculture and rural industries by promoting scientific research, instruction and experiments in methods and practice of agriculture and co-operation." That is one of the things which touch us in Ireland. We have an association which is not trading for profit which has about 300 associations organised by it, affiliated to it, which are trading for profit. It spends its money on organising and assisting these associations trading for profit, and obtains from them

  383
  a certain levy towards its resources. They could get a grant under this Bill, and that would be a most improper use of the money. I myself have been criticised very severely far opposing, as I always have opposed and always will continue to oppose, the granting of public money to co-operative associations in competition with private traders, not because I am opposed to co-operation—because I recognise the enormous benefits that have been conferred by co-operation—but I am opposed to, either directly or indirectly, taking the taxpayers money to subsidise other persons to compete with those who pay the taxes. To do so I think is perfectly monstrous. While every opportunity and fair play should be given to co-operators to compete as well as they are able to compete with private traders there should be a distinct understanding that so long as private traders pay taxes these taxes should not be used to subsidise their competitors.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry to raise another point of Order. We are now discussing a Motion which I understand you have ruled to be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons. Therefore the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Samuel Evans) would not be in order. We have not moved to waive.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary to move to waive if you move to agree. Although the Solicitor-General has moved to agree with the Lords, it is open to him to vote against that Motion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood that where you ruled that a Motion was a breach of privilege of the House of Commons it was necessary that some Member should get up to move to waive the privilege?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: With regard to this Amendment, these associations in connection with small harbours and light railways are of a kind which do not trade for profit.
  Mr. DILLON: Light railways?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very few are making a profit.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Many of the light railways are making enormous profits.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am referring to the kind of light railways which we contemplate assisting—light railways in rural areas, which would not pay. But as Mr. Speaker has ruled that this is a privileged Amendment the Government certainly will not persist with their Motion that the House agree with the Lords Amendments. We do not propose to waive any of our privileges in a matter of this kind or in any matter. The only reason why we proposed to agree with this Amendment was that we did not think it worth while to have a quarrel with the Lords over this matter. That was the only reason why my hon. and learned Friend moved, but if it is privileged we shall certainly not persist with the Motion. With reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) this Amendment has nothing to do with cooperative societies. This is an Amendment dealing with harbours and light railways and whether this Amendment was agreed to or not would make no difference to co-operative societies.
  Lord BALCARRES: The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) is a volte face compared with the announcement of his colleague (Sir S. Evans). I do not intend to go into what the hon. Member for Mayo said because I agree with him entirely that as it stands either with or without the Lords Amendment this Bill will certainly put it within the power of the Commissioners to make these grants. My special object is to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a fact with which evidently he is quite unfamiliar, that he is now refusing on a point of etiquette to accept Amendments which he admits on the merits are good Amendments.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg your pardon. All I said was that these are perfectly harmless Amendments, and that we did not think it worth while to enter into a contest with the Lords one way or the other.
  Lord BALCARRES: The Solicitor-General did indicate that in his opinion they would be an improvement to the Bill. I wish to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says he will not waive the privileges of this House on anything at all, and because an Amendment is said to be privileged therefore it should not be accepted in this House, that last night this House accepted 30 Amendments I at least of a financial nature, made by the

  385
  House of Lords, and waived its privileges in each single case. I really do not see why a Bill dealing with asylum officers' superannuation should be improved in another place, while a Bill of this character, which is far more important, should not be permitted to have an Amendment made, just on this wretched point of etiquette which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before the House.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I must confess that I am a little astonished that the Government do not allow this Amendment, which is very important in regard to light railways, piers, and harbours. I was extremely surprised to hear the objections of hon. Members below the Gangway, because I think if any country has had the advantage of the aid which is given to light railways, that country is Ireland. It has had the greatest amount of advantage from such a system as that, which we are now considering. What is the ordinary state of the case in regard to light railways? A sum of money is invariably raised or obtained from the county council and from land owners of the district, but very often where a light railway is promoted the amount obtained falls short of what is needed, and in these circumstances a grant would enable the light railway to be made for the benefit of the particular locality in more than one instance, to my own knowledge, that has occurred. A light railway has invariably to be constructed and worked by one of the larger railway companies, otherwise it would be necessary to provide separate engines, carriages and wagons. Under this proposal the arrangements are in the interest of the community and particularly in the interest of those districts which, without such aid being
  given, would not obtain light railways or harbours. I greatly regret that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment. I think they little understand what a benefit they are removing from the smaller districts in Wales, the country districts, and in Ireland by refusing the Lords Amendment.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (2).
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is an Amendment raising privilege, because it diminishes the object on which the grant may be made.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Viscount MORPETH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer upstairs told us that this was a trivial Amendment, and therefore void of effect. It did not do anything at all; it was merely a general statement, of no value of any kind. That being so, I think it is hardly worth while to quarrel with the House of Lords in regard to the omission of a statement which is of no value. I hope the House will agree with the Lords Amendment, to remove words which are vague and general, and may be mischievous.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 38.

  Division No. 915.]

  AYES.

  [4.50 p.m.

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

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Erskine, David C.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Alden, Percy

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Falconer, J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fulierton, Hugh

  Barker, Sir John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Glover, Thomas

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cowan, W. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ellbank, Master of

  Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Summerbell, T.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Donneil, John (Mayo, S.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Grady, J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Toulmin, George

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Vivian, Henry

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lambert, George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walton, Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Warner, Thomas Courteney T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Maclean, Donald

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J,

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilkle, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Massie, J.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Moltene, Percy Alport

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Morse, L. L.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Morpeth and Mr. Stewart Bowles.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908," and insert the words "any statute."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is also a breach of privilege.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think to disagree with an Amendment merely because it is privileged is something like the propriety of an old maid being introduced into the proceedings of this House: you have merely got to suggest that something is a breach of privilege, and the Government dare not accept it, however desirable it may be. I regard that as utterly un-
  388
  worthy of the House of Commons and utterly unworthy of the Government. As to this particular Amendment, I do not think it can be maintained after the alteration in regard to the words "corporate and unincorporated"
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think it unnecessary to disagree with the Lords on the question of privilege. This matter was discussed fully before and divided upon in this House.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3) after the word "Commissioners" insert as-new Sub-section "(4) No advance shall be

  389
  made to any association of persons trading for profit, except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance, and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This also is a privileged Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3) after the, word "Commissioners" insert as new Sub-section, "(5) Before making any recommendation for an advance under this Part of this Act the Development Commissioners shall consider the matter with special reference to the magnitude of the undertaking and the interests likely to be affected, and the extent and situation of any land necessary for the undertaking, and whether such land is likely to be acquired by agreement, and if a majority of the Commissioners consider that their proposals should be laid before Parliament they shall forward a draft recommendation to the Treasury. The Treasury shall not act upon such draft recommendation until it has lain for 30 days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those 30 days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making by the Commissioners of a new draft recommendation."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think this Amendment is not advisable, and I think it is also unnecessary. It is not advisable because it lays it down whenever the Commissioners by a bare majority, which may be a majority of one, decide that a certain scheme is likely to be a very large one, that makes it necessary for the Treasury, in the first place, to decline to sanction the loan until and unless the matter has been brought before Parliament, and the draft recommendations lie on the Table for the period of 30 days, during which time, if either House presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, nothing further can be done, as I understand, except by Provisional Order. The Government think that
  390
  that is putting much too severe a restriction on the powers of the Commissioners. I think the House may trust to the Commissioners to make a scheme such as is described by the words of this Amendment. We do not think that any restrictions further than those already contained in the Bill should be placed upon the Commissioners, and that certainly it is not right to say that because there is a majority of one that that should make it absolutely necessary for the Treasury to decline unless these further conditions are complied with.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think that this is a very important matter, but I regret the decision of the Government, because I think that the Amendment so far from restricting the operations of the Commissioners would really operate to enlarge them. I do not quite understand the reference of the Solicitor-General to a majority. Of course the Commissioners will have to act for a majority in all cases, and if they make a recommendation of any kind by a majority, that would be the recommendation of the Commissioners. I do not know according to our English principles how otherwise they could act. What this Amendment provides is that if the Commissioners think that a scheme laying before them is too big to go forward under the ordinary provisions of this Bill, or that they would normally refuse it, they are to have the power to send a draft recommendation of it to the Treasury, subject to this condition, that the big scheme is to be laid before "Parliament, in this modified way. I quite agree that in form it appears to be a restriction, but in fact it is a real extension of their powers. Unless you put this Amendment in the Bill, what will happen? A big scheme is brought before the Commissioners, and they say it is too big and not the kind of thing that they are prepared, with their limited funds, to deal with. Therefore, they would say, "We shall refuse it," and that would be the only course they could take. If you put in this Amendment they have a third alternative. They can pass it subject to it coming before the Houses of Parliament, which seems to me to be a desirable improvement. I regret, in the interests of the Bill, that the Government have not seen their way to accept it.

  Clause 2.—(Establishment of Development Fund.)
  Sub-section (4): The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the receipts into and issues out of the Development Fund in the financial year ended on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be then sitting, and. if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament shall be next assembled.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "House of Commons" ["laid before the House of Commons"], and insert instead thereof the word "Parliament."

  CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Development Commissioners.)
  Sub-section (1): For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be established a Commission consisting of five Commissioners, to be styled the Development Commissioners and to be appointed by the Treasury, of whom one to be appointed by the Treasury shall be chairman.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "there shall be established a Commission consisting of," and insert instead thereof the words "it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign-manual to appoint."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This matter was brought before the House by the hon. Member for London University (Sir Philip Magnus). The effect of the Amendment will be that the Commissioners will not be appointed by the Treasury but by His Majesty under sign-manual.
  Drafting Amendments also agreed to.

  Clause 4.—(Powers and Duties of Commissioners.)
  Sub-section (4): The Commissioners may also frame schemes with respect to any of the matters for which advances may be made under this Part of this Act with a view to their adoption by a Government Department or other body or persons to whom an advance may be made.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (4).
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This matter was considered in Committee upstairs, and also very fully upon Report here. The Amendment would make it impossible for the Commissioners themselves to initiate a scheme for any public work in accordance with the provisions of this measure. We desire that that latitude should be given to them. As was pointed out before, it may very well be the case that certain schemes put forward by various bodies or persons might not recommend themselves to the Commissioners, and might not secure the recommendation of the Commissioners to the Treasury, but that a sort of amalgamation of one or more of those schemes might be desirable, and that therefore it should be within the power of the Commissioners to initiate a scheme. I recommend to the House that view of the matter. Such a power cannot do any harm, and may do good in bringing schemes forward which may be very useful for public purposes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry the Government disagree with this Amendment. I understood in the proceedings in Grand Committee that the Commissioners were to be a sort of judicial body. This provision enables them not only to consider certain schemes brought before them, but also gives them the power to initiate schemes. The only argument adduced by the learned Solicitor-General for disagreeing with the Lords is that a case might arise in which two or three schemes might be brought before the Commissioners, and that the Commissioners not approving of any of them might by a sort of arrangement or amalgamation make out another scheme. If this Amendment were accepted there would be nothing whatever to prevent the Commissioners saying to the parties, "We do not accept that scheme, but we have another scheme which has been put before us by, say, B. Go and con-

  393
  suit with B, bring up an amended scheme, and we will consider whether we will approve of it." If this Amendment is not accepted they may be bringing forward schemes of their own, and their judgment as to other schemes will not be unbiassed but determined by their own schemes, to the detriment, perhaps, of other schemes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members below the Gangway cheering the decision of the Government, but let hon. Members think over the matter. They might bring a scheme before the Commissioners, who might have an altogether new scheme, and the only consequence of that would be that the Commissioners might advocate their own schemes; and hon. Members below the Gangway should recollect that the Commissioners have the power of rejecting any scheme, and once they reject it as dead and cannot be brought forward again. I want the Commissioners to reject a scheme on its merits, and not because they have a scheme of their own, and therefore I hope the Government will reconsider their decision.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: As the hon. Baronet who has just spoken referred to us sitting on these benches, I should like to put the view which occurs to us on this matter. May I remind him in the first place that the Commissioners have power to reject schemes, whether this is in the Bill or not. Therefore that argument does not apply.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If they did reject it it would be because they did not think it a good scheme, but now they may reject it not because the scheme is not a good one, but because they have a scheme of their own.
  Mr. BARNES: They have the power to reject in any case. But may I also remind the hon. Baronet that the Commissioners have the power to appoint advisory committees. They have certain officers under their control, and therefore they are in a position to get information superior to any local authority or any other authority which may put forward a scheme. It is for that reason that we are disposed to accept the Bill as it stands, and to reject the Lords Amendment.
  Viscount MORPETH: This Amendment would very much affect Clause 1, Subsection 1, dealing with universities, schools, and institutions. It is possible that a university, for instance, might be walling to submit a scheme to the Commissioners asking for their assistance in carrying it out; but it would be quite
  394
  another affair if the Commissioners had the power themselves to put forward a scheme and impose it upon the university, saying, "Either you adopt our scheme or we give no grant." It seems to me that this Sub-section gives an undue power of interference to the Commissioners in regard to the very important bodies set out in Clause 1, and to that extent, so far from facilitating the work, it will be very detrimental to it. Instead of having schemes sent up by the different authorities and, if they are satisfactory, passed by the Commissioners, you will have the Commissioners drawing up schemes and plans of their own, which almost certainly will not be adopted by or give pleasure to the people for whom they are meant, who probably know their own affairs better than the Commissioners do. Thus instead of the work being advanced it will be hindered.
  Lord BALCARRES: I do not think the Solicitor-General made out a very strong case against this Amendment, and I regret the decision of the Government. While agreeing with what has been said by my hon. Friends, I have the further objection that this Sub-section gives to the Commissioners the power of making schemes with a view to their adoption by Government Departments. I do not think Government Departments require, or ought to require, a body outside Commissioners to make schemes for their adoption. If there is to be a scheme of agricultural education, for instance, I would far rather that it came from the Board of Agriculture. If there is to be a scheme of light railways, the Light Railways Commissioners are the proper people to submit it to the Government. Why does the Solicitor-General want to give these gentlemen the power—and the power, I suppose, connotes the duty—of recommending to Government Departments schemes which those Departments ought themselves to be quite competent to carry out? Could we be met to this extent— that the right of the Commissioners to suggest schemes, by request or otherwise, to Government Departments should be excluded? At least, Government Departments should be saved from unsolicited schemes being put forward by the Commissioners. The Light Railways Commissioners or the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade do not want schemes put before them by these gentlemen. There will be submitted to the Commissioners a thousand and one schemes, on all of which they cannot be experts, and they will be

  395
  in the hands of their advisory experts. I think Government Departments might very well be left with undivided responsibility for schemes within the purview of their official duties.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not quite appreciate the position of the Noble Lord. All that the Commissioners have to do is this. They might have before them a dozen or even a hundred schemes dealing with, say, afforestation. They would go into the matter very carefully, and after instituting inquiries they might come to the conclusion that none of the schemes submitted to them, either by Government Departments or by any other body, quite met their view of what ought to be done under the circumstances. They would then either frame a scheme of their own, absolutely independent of all the other schemes, or take the whole of those schemes together, boil them down, and pick out the best of them. They would say, "We do not quite like any of these schemes, but, having looked into the matter very carefully, we have framed one of our own," and they would then send it on to the Treasury. If it dealt with afforestation the Treasury would be bound to send it to the Agricultural Department, and the Government would be the final arbiters. I think, after this explanation, hon. Members opposite will find that, on the whole, the Bill without the Amendment would better answer the purpose which they have in mind. They do not want schemes to be either taken or rejected as they stand. What they really want is that the matters should be carefully considered, that the best advice should be taken, and that the Commissioners should not be compelled by the form of the Bill merely to accept or reject, but that, if they think there is a better alternative, they should have the power of referring it to the Government Department concerned in the form of a separate scheme as that which commends itself to their judgment after complete inquiry as being the best.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not find myself at all differing with regard to the object the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down, but I am unconvinced that this is the proper or the best way of carrying it out. Without this Sub-section everything the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants could be done. Schemes come before the Commissioners and they have to make a report upon them. There is
  396
  nothing to prevent their reporting that in their view the schemes are ineffective in some particulars, and that what is wanted is a scheme of such and such a character. That might then be taken up by any of the parties concerned, and presented for their consideration. I think that is a better plan, and that it is in effect what the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests the Commissioners should do under this Subsection. If you retain the Sub-section, there is just the danger that some future Development Commissioners may go about framing schemes for themselves. I do not think that that would be at all a good plan. It is quite evident that such schemes would not have the same guarantee of inquiry, and consequently of excellence, that other schemes would have, because they would not have to be examined by an independent body. The whole idea of the Bill is that a public authority, or a Government Department, or some other responsible body, frames a scheme and submits it to the Development Commissioners, who examine it, and ascertain whether it is a good or a bad scheme. The Commissioners are the sieve through which all the schemes go. But if they start a scheme themselves it is evident that their examination of it, if they examined it at all, would be of a much less thorough character. Therefore, it appears to me that this Sub-section is a bad way of carrying out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires. The Clause without the Sub-section gives all the power the right hon. Gentleman wishes the Commissioners to have; there-fore it would be better to accept the Lords Amendment, and I shall so vote if the matter goes to a Division.
  Mr. F. MADDISON: I am really surprised at hon. Members opposite showing such a lack of faith in the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are to have power to reject a number of schemes, the rejection of which will cause a good many heart-burnings, surely they ought to be a body capable of putting their own scheme alongside those submitted to them. A body of men not equal to that would be entirely useless. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) is very anxious that nothing should be done to educate and enlighten Government Departments, who; he said, were quite competent to draft schemes and to do all that was necessary. Personally, I think that there is no body of men in the world who need more outside information than a Government Department. I should be interested to know

  397
  whether the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Bowles) agrees with the Noble Lord on that point. Nothing could be more salutary than that there should be, in exceptional cases, a body of men who would not look at the matter from the narrow departmental point of view, but who, invested with the great authority given by this Bill, would look at the scheme as a whole, have regard to all the interests, and under those conditions put forward a scheme. That scheme would have to go before the Government Department, so that I think hon. Members opposite might very well let the Bill stand as it is.
  Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: We look upon this Amendment as of great importance, and are glad that the Government have decided to disagree with it. Reference has been made to the number of schemes which will be put forward; but taking into consideration our experience of
  Government Departments in the past, I am rather inclined to doubt whether the number will be so large as has been suggested. These Commissioners are to be appointed for a special work—afforestation, reclamation, and work of that character. It will be their duty to go carefully into all the schemes put forward; but if this Sub-section were omitted I am afraid there would be an entire lack of initiative on their part. Just as in the past, there will be no Government Department inclined to initiate schemes of this character, and therefore, the Bill will entirely fail in its object in that respect. If the measure is to be effective we must give the Commissioners some power of initiative.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 41.

  Division No. 916.]

  AYES.

  [5.30 p.m.

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

  Falconer, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Adkins W. Ryland D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Alden, Percy

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gibson, J. P.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barker, Sir John

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Massie, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bligg, Sir John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Byles. William Pollard

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paul, Herbert

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cross, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lambert, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rainy, A. Holland

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rea, Rt Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Laylana-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whitehead. Rowland

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.w.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Vivian, Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walters, John Tudor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ward. W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Eart

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrlson-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E Hildred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments," put, and agreed to.

  Clause 5.—(Power to Acquire Land for Certain Purposes.)
  (1) Where an advance is made under this Part of this Act for any purpose which involves the acquisition of land, the Department, body, or persons to whom the advance is made, may acquire and hold land for the purpose, and where they are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
  Lords Amendment agreed to: In Subsection (1), to add the words: "and the Commissioners shall have power to make such order."

  CLAUSE 8.—(Powers of Road Board.)
  (1) The Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury—

  (a) To make advances to county councils and other highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads;

  (b) themselves to construct and maintain any new roads,

  which appear to the Board to be required for facilitating road traffic.
  (2) In making advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may, where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of maintenance of such new roads.
  The sums expended by the Road Board out of income on the construction of new roads or the acquisition of land, or in respect of any loan raised for any such purpose, shall not in any year exceed one-third of the estimated receipts of the Road Board for that year.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) paragraph (a), after the word "roads" ["or the improvement of existing roads "], insert the words.", or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Mr. Speaker, this we object to upon various grounds. First of all we submit to you that it is a breach of privilege in that it allows the expenditure of money to be extended in this way. The matter was discussed in Committee upstairs, and on Report in this House, and we asked the House to disagree with this Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the question of privilege I may say this: I have had some doubts with regard to this particular Amendment. I agree with the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that it is unde-

  401
  sirable to press a question of privilege too far. It is possible that in a case of this sort the proper maintenance of the road is to keep it in a proper state of repair. I can understand that the best way to improve the road is to fill up the holes that are to be found in it, though that may technically not be a general act of improvement. I did not wish to smell out, so to speak, these breaches of privilege in order to raise meticulous objections to Amendments.
  Viscount MORPETH: After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous Debate on this matter, the Government do in fact make a substantial concession, which came at the beginning of Clause (9). There is no doubt that under those words local authorities and highway authorities will be able to do a great deal. They will be able to have a certain amount of relief with regard to the heavy expenditure which has been thrown upon them by motor traffic. It is not called maintenance, but they do get a substantial share of money for purposes very analogous to those intended to be met by the insertion here by the House of Lords of their Amendment. On the other hand, perhaps I might give a word of warning to the Government. This Bill is meant, I believe, to be a popular Bill, and to earn popularity for its introducers. Now I assert, without any danger of contradiction, that if they do desire to be popular or to receive any gratitude indeed for the Bill, that this is the direction in which they will receive it. Anybody going down into the country districts will find that what has caused the most-outcry, and what really interests them most, and touches them most vitally, is this one subject, the question as to whether they will receive any assistance from the national Treasury with regard to the upkeep of the roads. The Government refuse it in name, and offer a certain amount in fact. But I have no very great desire to stand out for these special words.
  Drafting Amendments made.

  Clause 9.—(Provisions as to Roads Constructed by Road Board.)
  (1) For the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or dealing with any road constructed by
  402
  the Road Board, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges. Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions:
  Provided that—

  (a) Communications between a road or path and a road constructed by the Road Board shall be made in manner to be approved by the Road Board; and

  (b) The Road Board and any highway authority in whose district any part of any such road is situate may contract for the undertaking by such authority of the maintenance and repair of the part of such road in their district; and for the purposes of such undertaking the highway authority shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties and liabilities as if the road were a road vested in the highway authority.

  (2) Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive from any such authority.
  Lords Amendment: At the beginning of Sub-section (1), insert "Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that the cost of maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board, and."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is well within the recollection of the House, and all those who take an interest in this Bill, that these new roads to be constructed by the Road Board will be made public highways. It was pointed out in the House of Lords,

  403
  however, that there might be danger that these roads declared to be public highways might have to be maintained by the local authorities, and not by the Road Board. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that they are to be maintained by the Road Board. We agree with this Amendment in substance, but we desire to amend the Amendment in order to make it clear that not only the cost but the maintenance of these new roads will be placed upon the Road Board, and that the obligation or duty of maintaining the roads shall be upon them also. Therefore I move to leave out the words "the cost and maintenance of" and "borne by" in the Lords Amendment, in order to insert the words "maintainable by and at the cost of." The latter part of the Amendment will then read "except that every such road shall be maintainable by and at the cost of the Road Board."
  Amendments to Lords Amendment (as moved accordingly by Sir Samuel Evans) agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords further Amendments: In Subsection (1), leave out "road constructed by the Road Board," and insert instead thereof, "such road."
  Leave out the words "Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: These are consequential Amendments.
  Lords Amendment: Insert at the end of Sub-section (2) the following words "And if. notwithstanding an objection made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road should be proceeded with, the approval of the Treasury shall not have effect unless and until, after submission to Parliament by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Ample safeguards are provided by Subsection 3 of Clause 7, which secures that
  404
  a fair hearing should be given to the county council. This Amendment would make it possible for any county council to compel the Road Board, and would, make it obligatory on the Road Board to come to Parliament, and with all the expense and delay attending it to get a Provisional Order and an Act of Parliament following it before constructing a road. We have safeguarded the county council by giving them a fair hearing, and I think it would be quite unreasonable to allow any county council to object to a new road unless a Provisional Order and an Act of Parliament were obtained authorising it.
  Viscount MORPETH: The Solicitor-General says a fair hearing is to be given to the county councils, but there is no obligation on the Road Board to pay the slightest attention to the representations of the county councils. The Road Board will be an independent authority, not amenable to public opinion. If they choose they will be able to override the present highways committees in the county councils with absolute impunity. Furthermore, there are a great many people who have a suspicion that the Road Board may be dominated by the automobile interests. We have not got the names of the members of the Road Board yet, and I hope when we do, that that will not be the case, but there is a widespread fear that the motor interest will be dominant upon the Road Board, and that the Road Board will, in fact, be a motor board looking at the matter from the motor point of view, and not from the general public point of view. I do not want to repeat the objections which I put forward on a former occasion, which I think are very real, of allowing another highway authority to come into the jurisdiction of the present highway authority, and to conflict with them. I think it is only right where the existing authority objects to any new road, either because they think it is unnecessary or that it will interfere with existing roads, that they should have some opportunity of putting their objections before an independent tribunal. That cannot be the Road Board, and as far as I can see it can only be the House of Commons. I think an appeal to this House in a matter so important as this, and where there cannot be any case of extraordinary urgency, a matter of a few weeks or a month would make no difference whatever—is most important and no argument has been adduced against allowing such appeal.
  Mr. PEEL: I think it is a very-strange thing that you should submit so important a body as the county councils to the arbitrament of a body like the Road Board. I could quite understand its being done in the case of smaller authorities, but I am bound to say, speaking as an elected member of one of the largest councils in the country, I feel that we are probably better judges, through our long experience and knowledge of the roads in our districts, than a Board of this kind, which merely comes into the district and listens to representations made to it. I do not think it is sufficient to say that the county councils can be heard; I think they ought to have more power. Throughout this Bill we have complained that these councils, important bodies though they are, are put under the control of the Local Government Board; but this is a far stronger case, because the Local Government Board and the Treasury are represented in Parliament, and we have an opportunity —not a very frequent one, I admit—of criticising their decisions; but in the case of this Board you have nothing of the kind, and therefore it is a far stronger thing to place these councils under a Board of this kind than if you put them under the Local Government Board. For that reason I strongly protest against disagreeing with this Amendment of the Lords, and if the Noble Lord is anxious to go to a Division I should certainly support him.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General said the county councils would have had the opportunity of presenting their case, but the only body to whom they could address their case, as provided by Clause 9, is the Treasury. We on this side of the House are not so enamoured with the Treasury and Government Departments as to desire that appeals should be made to them. We still linger after the old-fashioned notion that the Houses of Parliament are the proper institutions to govern the country, and that appeals should be made to the Houses of Parliament and not to the Treasury.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: I hope the Government will adhere to their decision to resist this Amendment. I speak as the Member of a borough council, and I fully realise the immense cost many of them have been put to in regard to matters of this kind. To compel them to proceed by Provisional Order would be most costly, and would be bound to lead to a great deal of delay. It
  406
  is all very well to say that the question of delay of a few weeks or a month would not matter much in regard to the question of making roads, but there is very great delay when you come to the House of Commons for a Provisional Order—sending deputations, paying lawyers, and incurring all other kinds of expenses. The hon. Member (Mr. Peel) represents the largest county council in the country, but his council is here in the City of London, and they may be able to proceed by Provisional Order without any very great increase in expenses.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. Member the Amendment does not compel a council to proceed by Provisional Order; all it does if the council objects to the road being made, then the road cannot be made without a Provisional Order. If they wish to have the road made no Provisional Order is necessary.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: There is no need of such a costly machinery in this matter at all Objections will be very few, and there is no need to enable a council to proceed by Provisional Order.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down, in spite of the lucid explanation given to him by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), mistakes the purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment will not put any county council to any expense unless it desires to incur it. The only case in which it will be put to any expense is if the Road Board overrules the opinion of the county council. If the county council desires that the road should be made it can be made without any Provisional Order. Therefore, to say that it puts the county councils to expense is, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, to wholly mistake the Amendment. As to the expenses of Provisional Orders there appears to be complete misapprehension upon the point. For one Provisional Order that is opposed, 20 are unopposed, and in the case of a Provisional Order that goes through unopposed the expenses are quite insignificant. That was the object of the creation of Provisional Orders. What is proposed by this Amendment is that in case this appointed body overrules the county councils the county council shall have the right of an appeal to Parliament. I am surprised that hon. Members below the Gangway do not support this, because I thought they agreed in the general principle of local government. The Govern-

  407
  ment, of course, entirely dislikes the electoral system, and anything that gives protection to an elected body as against an appointed body naturally receives the opposition of the Government. That we quite understand, but we thought the Labour
  Members did pride themselves upon their democracy. I am afraid we have been mistaken. This is absolutely a democratic Amendment put in by the guardians of the democratic liberties of this country, the House of Lords.
  The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 917.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hodge, John

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hooper, A. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  lllingworth, Percy H.

  Rees, J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Barker, Sir John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts. G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Kekewlch, Sir George

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

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sears, J. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Byles, Willian Pollard

  Lamont. Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Soames, Arthur Weliesley

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Summerbell, T.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cross, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Curran, Peter Francis

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Erskine, David C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Falconer, James

  Morse, L. L

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gibson, J. P.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gladstone. Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wood. T. M'Kinnon

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Paul, Herbert

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

  Hart-Davles, T.

  Pearce, William (LImehouse)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Clark, George Smith

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Cave, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Faber, George Dcnison (York)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentla, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunos)

  Percy, Earl

  Younger, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant. James Farquharson

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Peel.

  Heaton. John Henniker

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Clause 10.—(Provisions as to Construction of New Roads by Highway Authorities.)
  (1) Where the Road Board make an advance to a highway authority in respect of the construction of a new road the Board may authorise the authority to construct the road, and where so authorised the highway authority shall have power to construct the road and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the purpose, and any expenses of the authority, so far as not defrayed out of the advance, shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by the authority in exercise of their powers as highway authority, and the enactments relating to such expenses, including the borrowing provisions, shall apply accordingly.
  (2) Where the highway authority to whom the advance is made are a county council the new road, when constructed, shall be a main road and in any other case shall be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large:
  Provided that the maintenance of any such road within the administrative county of London shall devolve upon the local authority responsible for the maintenance of streets and roads in whose district the same is situate.
  Lords Amendment agreed to: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "borrowing provisions" ["including the borrowing provisions"], and insert instead thereof the words "provisions as to borrowing."

  CLAUSE 11.—(Acquisition of Land.)
  (1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose, and may, in addition, acquire land on either side of the proposed road within two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road.
  (2) The Road Board may acquire, erect, and furnish such offices and other buildings as they may require, and may acquire land for the purpose.
  (3) Where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, or an advance is
  410
  made to such an authority in respect of the improvement of an existing road, the authority may acquire land for the purpose of such construction or improvement.
  (4) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this Part of this Act, by the Road Board or a highway authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Part of this Act, except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and Section 178 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if the Road Board and the highway authority were referred to therein.
  (5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act: Provided that the provisions of Part I. of this Act, prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this Act shall apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board.
  (6) The Road Board shall have full power, with the approval of the Treasury, to sell, lease, and manage any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act and not required for the new road, and any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads.
  Lords Amendments agreed to: In Subjection (1), after the word "the" ["(1) Where the Road Board propose"], insert the words "Treasury have approved a proposal by the," and leave out the word "propose."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved to disagree with the Lords Amendment in Sub-section

  411
  (1) to leave out the words "and may in addition acquire land on either side of the proposed road within two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road."
  This Amendment leaves out the provision which enables the road authority to acquire the land on each side of the new road. The other House has left out these words, and there are other Amendments on the Paper intended to secure to the public some part of the increase of value which accrues to the land by reason of the construction of the new road. The question for the House now, putting it shortly, is, Which system do hon. Members prefer, the plan of the Government or the plan now suggested by the elaborate provisions in this and subsequent Amendments? Does this House prefer the original plan of the Government, under which a certain portion of the land each side the new road would be secured to the public? I do not want to argue the matter, because it has already been argued at considerable length. The Government are not persuaded that the alternative plan is the better one, and we are going to ask this House to adhere to the original plan. I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it is worth while to consume a great deal of time in regard to this matter. I may point out, however, that the proposal of the Government makes no provision whatever in the case of a local authority constructing a new road under this Bill. They are not to have any means of getting back a portion of the expense or any part of the profit which arises from the new road. It is only in the case of a Road Board constructing a new road that this provision operates. That appears to me to be utterly unreasonable, and it is a proposal which has never had the slightest defence from the Government, and I do not know what the defence is. I do not disagree with the view that if you are constructing a street through a town there is a good deal to be said for buying the land on each side for the purpose of recoupment. But that is not the kind of procedure the Road Board will adopt. They are not going to make new roads and streets in towns, because that must necessarily be left to the borough council or the county council. I think it would be most injudicious on the
  412
  part of the Road Board to interfere in a case of that kind, nor has it been suggested that that is the kind of case to be dealt with.
  I should have thought the oases dealt with would have been almost exclusively country cases. In such cases the power to buy the land on each side will be absolutely valueless for the purpose the Government have in view, because it does not follow that the land on each side of the road will be improved in value in the case of a country road. The probability is that it will not be that land which gets the greater part of the improvement, but it will be the whole of the countryside. It may be an estate or a farm lying back from the road. The House of Lords proposal is that it shall be left to the arbitrators to say who has benefited, and to what extent, and then you are to make those who have benefited contribute a fair share to the local authority in all cases, whether it is a road constructed by a local authority or a Road Board. I am content, as far as I am concerned, to leave that question to the judgment of any impartial body in the country to decide as to which is the best and most businesslike proposal. I have not the slightest doubt that any impartial body would say that the proposal made by the House of Lords is by far the most businesslike proposition of the two, and one which is likely to be of the most advantage to the public authority and likely to work with the least friction and disagreement on the part of those affected. I very much regret that the Government have decided not to accept this Amendment, and I believe their decision is not dictated by an unbiassed judgment as to which is the better of the two proposals. The Government have the House of Lords on the brain now, and they dare not accept any proposal made by the House of Lords for fear of a revolt on the Radical or Labour Benches. I am sure that if the Government were dealing with these two proposals without any prejudice the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to recognise that this Amendment is a most reasonable proposal, and more reasonable than the provision contained in the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can assure the Noble Lord that the decision of the Government has nothing whatever to do with that question. This proposal has been considered on its merits, and we have actually gone out of our way to accept some other Amendments proposed by the Lords with

  413
  a view to getting the Bill through. We regard this proposal in the Bill as quite fundamental. What is the alternative of the House of Lords? It is that there shall be some sort of a complicated betterment proposal. I am not going to say whether betterment has been a success in London or not. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) will probably say it has not been a success, and there are a good many hon. Members who have had just as much experience as the hon. Baronet on our side who agree with him. I do not want to express any opinion upon that point, but I may say, at any rate, that it is a very costly business, and one thing I am sure about is that the local authority does not get the full benefit which it was hoped they would derive from such proposals. What is our alternative? Instead of forcing, not merely the new road authority, but also all the owners into a sort of position of litigants in respect of every bit of land in order to assess the amount of benefit derived from the road, you have the much simpler proposition of buying the land where the road authority thinks there is betterment. There was sent to me the other day a great scheme of this kind in America, and it is an exactly identical proposal. It was to buy tracts of land on either side. It is a much simpler way of keeping the betterment. You pay the owner the full value of the land as it stands at the present moment, and, if there is any improvement, it is inured to the people. I think that is a very fair proposition. If you construct a road of this kind between two towns, say 20 or 30 miles in length, you are opening up a tract of country almost as a suburb of those towns, and you may create very considerable added values, and I think it is perfectly fair, when the Board goes in for an expenditure of money for the purpose of constructing a road such as that, that they should take into account, exactly as a company or a syndicate formed for the same purpose would, all possible sources of benefit and profit which might inure from their expenditure and enable them to pay interest on that expenditure. Where is the injustice? It is not an injustice to the owner, because he is paid full value for his land. Is it an injustice to the road authority? On the contrary, I think it is the only way in which they will get full justice. The only people who will suffer will be the lawyers. Instead of having about a thousand cases of betterment fought out before juries—
  Lord ROBERT CECILdissented.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. Every individual owner will be liable under this to a charge for betterment. I know there is arbitration, but those are rather expensive proceedings. Every owner has been fighting the London County Council, and you will have to bring a claim against every owner, and each claim will be contested. This is a provision for endowing lawyers, but is not a provision for putting the money into the pockets of the road authority or for benefiting even adjoining land-owners. I venture to say the Government proposition is a simpler and an infinitely better one from a purely business point of view. It is that the road authority should consider the whole land and say, "Here is land which will, we think, have a special value created for it, merely because we are opening up the land, and therefore we shall buy it at its present value." If that is done, justice will be done all round, and it will be a benefit, not only to the road authority, but also to the landowners themselves. It will be a source of profit to the road authority, and will enable them to go on extending their schemes.
  Mr. PEEL: I confess I do not like either scheme very much. I agree with much that the Chancellor has said as to the extraordinary difficulty of dealing with these questions and of assessing the proper amount in each case. The question of recoupment also presents great difficulty. Those who sit on local authorities will know that it is very often very difficult to realise this recoupment. I know important cases where a loss has been realised rather than recoupment from buying more land than you want. The Chancellor seemed to speak of roads being made round towns, and in those cases a certain amount of recoupment might be produced, but, so far as the country is concerned, I do not think you will get any recoupment. Was not the Chancellor rather thinking of roads under the old system where you have ordinary horse traffic? I think there probably you would have a considerable increase in the value of land in the immediate neighbourhood of the road, but as these roads are mainly for the purpose of motor traffic, I do not think you will get the same recoupment in the immediate vicinity of the roads as under the old system. I should quite agree with the Chancellor supposing this road authority were able to take land which has improved in consequence of a particular road, but that

  415
  is not so, because this question of recoupment is confined to land within 220 yards of the road, and there you will only get depreciation and not recoupment. There is another and rather wider point in consequence of which I dislike this method of dealing with land. It is an entirely different business from the making of roads. The making and managing of roads is one thing and the taking of land, dealing in land, and developing land, is a totally different thing; and, if you are going to establish a Road Board doing these two things, you want totally different sets of Commissioners to carry them out. It is a great mistake, in my opinion, to jumble these two things together in the laudable effort to try and get some benefit out of the recoupment. You are going to impose two separate and distinct sets of duties on the same set of men.
  Mr. BARNES: So far as I understand the speeches of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Peel), they are altogether in favour of the Bill. If their speeches have any application at all, they would amend the Bill by making it a mile or two miles instead of 220 yards. I understood the Noble Lord to say there was a good deal to be said for the principle of betterment in towns. Most of us will agree with the proposition, and, if the Noble Lord will bring in an Amendment to this Bill or any other Bill giving effect to that principle, I can assure him he will have our whole-hearted support. He said, however, that this was not a question of betterment in towns. The Road Board would not operate in towns, but only in the country. That is a very good reason for retaining the Bill in its present form. If a local authority were making streets in towns and added value accrued to the land adjacent to the streets by virtue of the expenditure of the town authority, then I could well understand that the betterment should go to the town, but in this case the added value accruing to the land in the country adjacent to the roads will arise directly from the expenditure of the Road Board, and not from the expenditure of any local authority. That being so, it seems to me the added value ought to belong to the body incurring the expenditure. That is the reason why I am in favour of the Bill as it stands, and, if there is anything in the argument that 220 yards are not sufficient, or that it is rather an arbitrary figure, or that added value might accrue to one side of the road more than
  416
  to another, I should be quite willing to support any Amendment giving effect to the principle that the Road Board should somehow or other participate in that added value, but I am willing to take 220 yards to go on with.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The desire of the hon. Member who has just sat down is that where a road is made by the Road Board, and the land adjacent is increased in value in consequence, that increase in value shall go to the Road Board. One may admit that in dealing with this Amendment, and the whole question is which of these two machineries, the machinery of the Bill or the machinery proposed by the House of Lords, is most likely in practical working to achieve that result. The machinery of the Bill is quite simple. The Bill says to the Road Board, "When you are going to make a road you shall have power to acquire, in addition to the land you want for the road, the land on either side of the proposed road within 220 yards of the middle." The Road Board will have to look along this road and will have to choose, if it exercises this power, the bits of land it is going to buy. They will have to say, "This bit here and that bit there is likely to increase in value, and we will choose them and buy them." That is what will happen, and that is what the Government intends should happen. The only increased value which will ever accrue to the Road Board will be such increased value in those particular bits of land which they have chosen; and it is very likely they may choose the wrong bits—bits which increase to some extent, but not half as much as other bits. They may choose wrong strips from their own point of view, but they will be saddled with them, and will have to administer them as part of their estate. What is the alternative proposal? It is perfectly simple. It is that, where through the construction of a road the value of any bit of land, wherever it is—whether it is the strip they have chosen or otherwise—is increased the Road Board shall have the power to come in and take part in the increased value. It applies equally to the local authorities. If you want apples you must go to the orchard where the apples are, and if you want the road authority to benefit by the increased value you must go where you can find the increased value and not limit it to the strips of land they may choose. I am totally unable to understand on what earthly ground, except the ground of pure misunderstanding, any man who wants the

  417
  increased value due to the making of the roads to go to the Road Board, or to the local authorities, in the greatest measure possible can support the Government in the measures they are taking. The machinery proposed by the House of Lords is much the most likely to give to the Road Board or the local authority a large slice of the increased value of the land. Under the proposal of the Government the whole thing is confined from beginning to end. It depends upon chance, and it seems to me very dangerous that the Road Board or the local authority, as the case may be, may not choose the best strips of land. From the point of view of the road authority, as well as from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I cannot imagine how anyone can vote for the machinery of the Government as against the much more certain and more fruitful machinery proposed by the House of Lords.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: The remarks of the hon. Member are certainly interesting. He seems to think that because this is a proposal to recover public expenditure from the owner of land we ought to support it. We are very pleased to hear hon. Members above the Gangway speaking in this strain, and I hope they will bear their present remarks in mind when we come to talk about increments, for if what they urge applies in one case it should apply equally in the other. I would like to point out how difficult it is to settle these questions satisfactorily. Take the case of the erosion of foreshores and the necessary
  protection against the washing away of the land. Great conflict of opinion arises in regard to that, for it is urged that the people on the coast ought not to pay for the protection of those inland. I venture to say the same thing will occur here. It would be much better to start away and take a slice of land on each side of the highway. If there is going to be any betterment, then the road authority will receive it, instead of its being left to chance, as it would be under the Amendments suggested in the House of Lords. I hope that the Government will stick to their original proposition.
  Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE: The suggestion of the House of Lords is that the Road Board or the highway authority shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is enhanced in value such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board as in the opinion of the arbitrator such person should pay. But I would point out it is quite inconceivable that the Road Board should make a road such as is contemplated without taking land compulsorily. Under the provisions of the Bill they have to apply to the Development Commissioners for an order to take land compulsorily, and, of course, they would have to make out a case for doing so, otherwise it will not be authorised. I think the plan of the Government is preferable to that of the House of Lords.
  Question put, "That the House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 918.]

  AYES.

  [6.35 p.m.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Alden, Percy

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hnrcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Ashbury, John Meir

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cross, Alexander

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barker, Sir John

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Hodge, John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dillon, John

  Hurniman, Emslie John

  Brigg, Sir John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Erskine, David C.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Essex, R. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jackson, R. S.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Joyce, Michael

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gibson, J. P.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lambert, George

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Paul, Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Vivian, Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walton, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Massie, J.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shackleton, David James

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir S. Scott and Mr. S. Bowles.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Lords Amendment: To leave out the proviso at the end of Sub-section (5) and insert ("and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order"), and also to insert the following new Sub-sections—
  "(6) No land shall be authorised by an order under this Section to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, but such an order may contain power to acquire compulsorily an easement over such land for the purpose of carrying any new road over or under the same, and shall in that case contain all such provisions as the Development Commissioners may deem necessary for the protection of the owners of such land and the prospective development thereof for the purposes of any such undertaking and for securing the safety of the public using the same and the free and uninterrupted passage of traffic thereover.
  (7) Where, by the approval by the Treasury, of the construction of a new road under this Part of this Act, any property is increased in value, the Road Board or the highway authority, in cases where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, if the Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, make a claim for the purpose within three months of the approval by the Treasury of the construction of the road, or of an order made by the Development Commissioners authorising the acquisition of land for the purpose of the road, whichever be the later, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value, such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement, in the opinion of an arbitrator, such person should pay having regard to the improvement in the value of such property.
  (8) Any disputed question as to whether any property is increased in value within the meaning of this Section or as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which the Road Board or the highway authority is entitled to recover, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the Schedule to this Act."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am prepared to accept the first words of the Lords Amendment—that is to say to insert the words "and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the Solicitor-General does not agree to leave out to the end of the Sub-section?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The proper way is for the Solicitor-General to move to disagree with the Amendment, and then to move to insert such words as he desires.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The words I propose to move to insert come, in later, but the Lords Amendment really consists, apart from the first line, of two or three new Sub-sections, which are really covered by the decision on the last Motion. I mean they are the alternative plan of the other House to obtain some proportion of the increase in the value of the land towards the expenditure. Then they propose that there should be no power at all to acquire any land which belongs to a railway, dock, or other undertaking established for a public purpose, for the construction of a road. Those who are interested in this Bill will remember that we protected in the fullest degree the property of railway, dock, and other similar companies here described, and rendered it impossible for any such property to be taken under the first part of the Bill by the Development Commissioners, because it might mean taking practically the whole, but the last portion of the Bill stands in a totally different position, as the authority are only empowered to acquire land for the purpose of making roads. The proposal in the other case is this, instead of giving the authority in no case the power to acquire a part of this land, we say that they would be able to acquire such a part as would enable them to make a road. They therefore become the authority entitled to that road, and they are in the same position
  422
  as the highway authority is at present. You cannot say that the powers of the highway authority or of the public over the road is an easement; it is something more; it must go into the soil, although the depth depends upon the circumstances. I do not think it would be right therefore under those circumstances to give an easement merely, and I must say that I think it is reasonable to authorise the Road Boards to acquire land belonging to such companies as these.
  Of course, if it interfered with the working of those companies at all no member of a Road Board would dream of seeking to acquire land compulsorily under this Bill when it becomes law, but everybody knows the undertakings which are proprietors of land in the position of railway, dock, and other similar cases acquire land in the first instance which goes very far beyond the immediate requirements of the commercial undertaking itself, and there might be no objection whatever on the part of the dock or railway company to the Board taking a strip of their property for the purpose of constructing a road, and it may even be for their convenience. It is therefore necessary to give the Road Board the power in their discretion to acquire compulsorily land for their purposes. That being so, I think I have shown two things, first of all that an easement would not be enough, because if you inserted that you would be practically excluding the Road Board entirely from the land in the possession of such companies here spoken of, and I think I have shown in the second place that it may be quite reasonable, and, indeed, it may be in the interests of the public companies themselves that somewhere or other on a corner of their undertaking which is not very much used there should be within the confines of their property a road, and that therefore there should be a power of compulsorily acquiring the land for roads.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The observations of the hon. and learned Member would be entitled to much weight if they were not directly in the face of the most recent decisions. The taking of lands appropriated for railways and other like purposes by Parliament in past years was prevented in the case, I think, of the Port of London Bill, the Small Holdings Bill, and of the Town Planning Bill likewise.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: So we have here for development purposes.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: But I am going to argue that after all a road is only

  423
  one other form of public undertaking, and the requirements of a road in the shape of land are just of the same kind, and I do not agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right as to whether an easement suffices or not. Where a road crosses a railway either over or under it it does not acquire the soil of the railway and its purposes are satisfied by mere acquisition of an easement to go over or under the railway, and I cannot see any reason why more should be given in this case. I do not think it necessary, perhaps, to take the high ground which might be taken, that this land has been already appropriated for this particular purpose by Parliament, and that no other or lesser authority should divert it from that purpose to which it has been appropriated, but I suppose it is too late in these days to appeal to principles so high as that, because for some mysterious reason the authority of this House appears to be of very little account for some purposes and of very great account for others. This is put on the ground also that there are what are called surplus lands which might be taken, but after all no one but the railway company or the dock company itself can know whether it is likely to require those lands in the future, and it must have satisfied Parliament in the past at a date when the requirement of them for the purposes of their undertaking must have been much more remote and much less likely than it is now; and surely it is not right that a semi-executive, nobody quite knows what it is, but a hybrid judicial body, should have the power of unsaying in the present what Parliament has said with much solemnity after having heard all the experts and parties in the past. We cannot agree with the Motion to disagree with this Lords Amendment, and I think their requirements are the very minimum which the justice of the case requires.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot help thinking that the Government have not quite dealt with the difficulty here, although I do not disagree with all that the Solicitor-General said. They have not dealt with the difficulty of one of those roads crossing a railroad. I do not think it is reasonable even to give power to acquire the land of the railway, and I do not think any Commissioners would be so foolish as to put in force such a power. Railway companies have been exceedingly jealous, and justly so, of any interference
  424
  with their statutory rights, and as the Solicitor-General knows, no body ever proposes to take land belonging to a railway company in a private Bill. No committee would ever tolerate it, but, on the other hand, it may be desirable to take an easement over their railway for the purpose of a level crossing. That would be a true easement, which would not involve the acquisition of the soil, and I do not see, although it may be as a matter of fact included in the general words, that there is any power to take such an easement. I confess I think the Government have acted hastily in rejecting this Amendment of the Lords, which seems to me to err, if it errs at all, in the direction of not giving so much protection to the owners of property as I should have suggested. As a matter of fact, if this Amendment were accepted, you may have all sorts of things excluded by the Government proposal; therefore I do not think that we have to deal with a rigid proposition, but I do think most strongly that it is not fight to give power to make roads over a railway or waterworks or anything else which has got statutory powers, and that is what the Government are going to do unless they accept some such Amendment as this.
  This is the more surprising because in the earlier part of their Bill, the development part, which deals, amongst other things, with the making of light railways, no such power exists. You cannot take a light railway over another railway at all. You cannot acquire land belonging to any of these statutory undertakings for the purposes of this light railway at all, but you can for the purpose of a road. I do not know upon what ground the Government are proceeding. I do not think, unless the Commissioners grossly exceed their powers, they are likely to listen to a proposal to acquire a right to that land. We desire to see absolute protection for these companies against the compulsory acquisition of land, and I think that position is a sound one and ought to be adhered to in this House, and that where statutory powers have been given to a body to acquire land, then you ought not—by Commissioners or any other of the curious devices that people are so fond of now creating—give power to take that land away from those who have been given by Parliament a right to it. That seems to me to be a sound principle which ought to be adhered to. Personally I think this Amendment of the Lords is a very moderate assertion of it, and I doubt whether it goes far enough.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 919.]

  AYES.

  [7.0 p.m.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Joseph A.

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

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barker, Sir John

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  lambert, George

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Leyland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cordon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Cowan, W. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Vivian, Henry

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  MacVelgh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walton, Joseph

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Massie, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Erskine, David C.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Falconer, J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gulland, John W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pearce, willliam (Limehouse)

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pollard, Sir George

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Banner, John S Harwood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Cave, George

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Younger, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Carlile.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Clause 12.—(Expenses and Receipts of Road Board.)
  (1) All expenses of the Road Board under this Part of this Act, including the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman and the salaries and the remuneration of officers and servants, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of the road improvement grant.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of Subsection (1), insert, "The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination, showing the receipts into and issues out of the road improvement grant in the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament by the Treasury."
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 16 and insert:—

  CLAUSE A.—(Application to Scotland.)
  "This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications—
  The expression 'highway authority' means a county council or a town council, and the expressions 'road' and 'main road' mean any road or street maintainable at the cost of a highway authority. References to a county council and to the powers and duties thereof shall as regards then-respective areas be deemed to include references to a county road board and a district committee of a county council and to a town council and to their respective powers and duties.
  The reference to a highway maintainable by the inhabitants at large shall not apply.
  The expression 'Local Government Board' means the Secretary for Scotland.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 18 and insert:—

  CLAUSE B.—(Obligation to Consider the State and Prospects of Employment.)
  "In arranging the time for the execution of any work which has already been approved under this Act, and which involves the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had, so far
  428
  as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think this Amendment alters the conditions under which advances may be made, and I must rule that it is a privileged Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: For reasons which I have explained, I do not attach the slightest importance to the question of privilege objection, which seems to be an utterly silly objection for this House at this time of day to take. If it is a good Amendment we ought to adopt it, and if it is bad we ought to reject it. The silly doctrine of privilege is worthy of the days of the Stuarts As to this particular Amendment, whether it is privileged or not, I very much prefer the Clause the House of Lords has put in. The object of Clause 18 was to secure a very proper object, that largo works under this Bill should be executed at a time and under conditions which as far as possible, should meet the fluctuations of employment. I suppose everyone desires that, and has always thought that is the most healthy way of dealing with the unemployment question. The great thing is that when you have large works to carry out you should, as far as possible, reserve them till a time of slack employment and not push them forward in times of full employment. But the Clause would not have had that effect, or anything like it. It deals only with approving or making advances, and says nothing whatever about carrying out the work which is the important thing. They may approve of the work in November because they think employment is likely to be slack, but the work may not be carried out till the following May, when employment is at its height. I should have been satisfied with an Amendment which left the word "executing" in and left out the words "approving and making advances," but the Lords have done it on a rather* more comprehensive Amendment, but it really is the same thing as though they struck out every word but "executed." They say that the time of arranging for the execution of the work is the occasion on which you ought to have regard to the conditions of unemployment. I very much regret that the Government do not see their way to adopting this. If their only reason is that it is a matter of privilege, it is deplorable that

  429
  they should be stopped by these antiquated doctrines in dealing with a question of this importance. Certainly the Clause, as it stands at present in the Bill, is wrong in principle, it will not carry out the object which we all have in view, and, if the Government still feel that their dignity would be hurt by accepting the suggestion of the House of Lords, let them, after they have disagreed with the Amendment, propose an Amendment of their own to put this Clause right. As it is, it will do a great deal of harm. It will expose them to pressure in considering the desirability of a scheme on the ground that there is some question of employment, so that they may be induced to assent to schemes in particular parts of the country which are not really those on which public money ought to be spent. That is not what anyone desires. No one has been more strong than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in declaring that that is not what is desired. What he does desire is that the works should be carried out at the proper time, having regard to the state of the labour market. If the Government are not prepared to make some alternative proposal, I shall vote against the Motion of the Solicitor-General.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: My Noble Friend has pointed out that if the Clause is left as it stands, the Commissioners will certainly be rendered liable to pressure of a very undesirable character in considering schemes. If the Clause is left as it stands, infallibly and inevitably the Government of the day, whenever there is a time of slack or doubtful employment, will continue to be exposed in this House and outside to political pressure in connection with various schemes. Clause 18 says that in making advances in respect of the execution of any work, regard should be had to the state of the labour market. Who makes the advances under the Act? It is the Treasury, and the Treasury is subject to the direction of the Executive Government of the day. Therefore you have it laid down in an Act of Parliament that in considering whether they will make an advance of public money for a particular scheme it is to be the duty of the Treasury to consider the state of the labour market at the moment when they decide to make the advance. Such a provision really can serve no useful purpose, and it will certainly expose not only the Commissioners, but also the Treasury throughout the whole of their dealings with this Act to pressure
  430
  of an extremely undesirable kind. I hope the Government will look at the matter, not from the point of view of a punctilio, or injured or threatened dignity, but from the point of view of the real dangers which have been pointed out.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is out of no disrespect at all to the Noble Lord opposite that I abstain from arguing this question on its merits; I have argued before that the apprehension which appears to be in the minds of some hon. Members is not reasonably founded. If I abstain from discussing the question on its merits, it is because I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment on the ground of privilege.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: We have heard from the Solicitor-General that he abstains from discussing the question on its merits on the ground of privilege. It seems to me an illustration of the extremely ludicrous, preposterous, and portentous extent to which this doctrine of privilege is stretched. In whatever conversations we are going to have outside of this House in the not distant future on this subject we shall take care to show how this doctrine stands in the way of the public interest.
  Mr. CARLILE: I really think that the Solicitor-General is rather wanting in courtesy in not giving some explanation why the Government reject this Amendment. Clearly the Government have some reason on the merits of the question. I am certain that any common-sense person reading the amended Clause, and also the one in the Bill, must come to the conclusion that since the attention of the Commissioners is to be concentrated upon the selection of the time when this work is to be executed, it is most important that the Clause should clearly define that and make beyond all question the one thing which is to guide them in their decision. Instead of that the whole issue is confused by mixing up the time of giving approval to a scheme and the time of making an advance. It seems to me a deplorable thing that, merely because of a question of privilege, the Government should decline to accept an Amendment which is manifestly an improvement on the Bill. Why the Government should fall back upon this miserable plea of privilege is beyond my comprehension.
  Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to Commons and Open Spaces.)
  (1) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under Part I. or Part II. of this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights and to the public:
  Provided that—

  (a) This provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of forestry if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise, or recreation unless the land has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament; and

  (b) This provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district; and

  (c) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of land on either side of a new road to be constructed by the Road Board where the land forms part of a common, open space, or allotment.

  (2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, and shall afford opportunities to all persons interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject.
  (3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange in the persons in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached
  432
  to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.
  (4) For the purposes of this Act the expression "common" shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green; the expression "open space" means any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation and any disused burial ground; and the expression "allotment" means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment or a field garden allotment under an Inclosure Act.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out from the word "Parliament" in Sub-section (1) to the end of Sub-section (3), and insert, "but this provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district. Provided that no order of the Development Commissioners under Part I. or Part II. of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a, scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): As I had in hand the negotiations with regard to the original proposal, I may be allowed to state the reasons why the Government disagree with the Lords Amendment. I think the Amendment was inserted in another place under a misunderstanding. There was no discussion there, and the gentleman representing the Commons and Open Spaces Preservation Society had not an opportunity of explaining the reasons for our putting down the Clause as it originally stood in the Bill. The Clause, as I have already explained, was the result of a very long negotiation with the society which has a right to speak in favour of the preservation of commons, and which contains among its members and officials a very large number of the Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Clause did not give us all we wanted in the Development Bill, nor did it give the Commons and Open Spaces Preservation Society all they

  433
  wanted. The Clause embodied what was in the nature of an agreed compromise. It was discussed a little in Committee upstairs, and passed unanimously there, and it was passed unanimously on the Report stage in this House. The general result of the Clause as it left the House is that, following the precedent of the Housing and Town Planning Bill, no common land could be taken for any purpose under this Act unless some equivalent land of equal value was given in exchange. We took power giving the Commissioners the right of afforestation of waste lands under certain limited conditions so long as reasonable access to the land for air, exercise or recreation is granted to the public, and so long as the land has not been dedicated to public use or employment. From that you exempt metropolitan and suburban commons and commons under private or local Acts. Then we took powers to make roads through common lands if the Commissioners wished to do so within the rural districts, and we struck out the right to acquire land for 220 yards on each side of those roads. The Lords have put in an Amendment which prevents us from acquiring any common land for any of these purposes except that for roads in rural districts, and that also under limited conditions. They have refused the right of afforestation of waste lands, and they have refused the right of roads in commons in rural districts which are not urban commons. We ask the House to adhere to the compromise which was suggested in conjunction with the Commons and Open Spaces Preservation Society, which will prevent the possibility of a road being diverted to a great common which is really a waste land on the one hand, or the somewhat wild regions in this country eminently suited for experiments in afforestation, not being allowed to be subject to these experiments without a special Act of Parliament.
  Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not in the least wish to go into the question with regard to the Commons Preservation Society. There are two views, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) knows. Of course it does not bind this House in the least. It may bind my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan), but I do not complain of that. I think we had better keep quite clear of it. I can see nothing to justify my hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) in saying that all friends of commons accepted the Government form of the Bill as arranged here and on Report. It was at least an enormous improvement
  434
  on the previous condition of the Bill. But I find myself in a great difficulty. I believe that there is a serious danger to the commons under this Clause in the Government form. With regard to fighting the matter on this occasion, I should certainly leave it to others to fight if anyone wishes to do so, and for this reason: my hon. Friend says it would not be right under all the circumstances of the Bill entirely to exclude the power of taking certain common lands. On the Report which came before this House on afforestation a very strong case was made out against the possibility of growing coniferous timber in England—in contrast to Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland—with any possibility of its paying. In connection with these schemes that were proposed at that time concerning the middle heights of the mountains of Wales there is a great deal of common land there which is at the present time devoted to growing mutton. It is that question between mutton and coniferous timber in certain portions of the Welsh hills which ought to be left open. There is one great difficulty in accepting the more sweeping Amendment of the House of Lords. On the other hand we must remember that this Amendment of Lord Meath is not made as a Conservative or party Amendment in the House of Lords. It is made by one who has always had a great interest in the question of open spaces, and it was accepted by the Government in another place without a single word. My hon. Friend made no allusion to what passed in the House of Lords except that he thought it was accepted under a misapprehension.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think the Government accepted it at all.
  Sir C. W. DILKE: Well, they did not say a word. As a general rule, if objection is strongly felt, especially towards an Amendment which so completely changes the framework of the Clause, some protest is made at the time, but this was not done by the Government. What is the principal danger in connection with the afforestation of commons in England? This House has been very careful to prevent any imitation in recent years of the horrible practice of enclosing the commons against the public, which had occurred until the matter was taken up in this House. This Bill enables a case to arise, which I think will arise, which ought not to be the subject of a change in the law at the present time, and ought not to be passed over without being put before the

  435
  House, although it may be very difficult to find a- correct form of words and very difficult to draft a proper Clause which would be a fair compromise as between the two proposals before us. There is the danger, of course, in the road part of the Clause as regards commons, but it is guarded in the Government proposal, and I merely mention that some beautiful commons have been destroyed by railways before this House began to attend to the question. I do not know whether I can speak for Sir Robert Hunter, who is the strongest supporter of Lord Meath's Amendment, but I can speak for myself and some others—I discussed it with Lord Eversley, I think—and we should be quite prepared to give up the roads if a compromise were arrived at. It is confined to rural roads, and, in the case of these powers, I do not think it is likely that the roads part of the Clause will seriously operate for harm to the Commons. But the afforestation part may undoubtedly do harm.
  I will put two cases. There is the case of the very large Lammas lands in some parishes which have been saved, which in very many cases have been planted with osiers and cause no harm. A number of these are still ordinary rural commons and not suburban commons. In the case of these there, is one class of afforestation that would, in my opinion, pay, that is the culture of willows. A very large portion of those that have been enclosed is now under willow cultivation, and it is a form of afforestation which I think many local authorities would approve of and which is likely to be undertaken and to pay. In that ease I think we may lose under the provisions of this Bill important public rights. You are to have the right of reasonable access for recreation, but in many cases which exist now where public authorities hold land, afforested and other lands similarly treated by law, the sporting rights are let. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the authorities letting the sporting rights over these lands, just as lords of the manor do let the sporting rights now over commons, and as public authorities do in the case of fuel allotments which are near commons. I feel certain that there is a real danger of reasonable access for the purpose of recreation being so interpreted where the shooting is let, where the letting of the shooting is an important portion of the rent, and that the public will really be excluded. Judging from
  436
  what I have seen in three Royal forests in different parts of the country where this sort of access is given, the interpretation of rights of access in these cases where the shooting of these lands is let must certainly tend to produce a real danger in the Government proposal. I agree that the other words are probably too wide. It is very difficult to draft words on the spur of the moment, but everything that will happen in future in working this Clause will have to be carefully watched by this House.
  Mr. W. H. COWAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is a well-known, friend of open spaces, and the House will attach importance to his views. I am in a different position, because I am responsible for the negotiations conducted between the Commons Preservation Society and the Government, as represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Masterman), who preceded the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke). I do not feel under those circumstances that I am justified in going into the merits of the Lords Amendment. I am bound to say, if I had my choice as between the Amendment and the Government proposal, I should prefer the Clause as amended by the House of Lords. I think that when the House of Lords was good enough to make Amendments obviously in the public interest, it would be very agreeable, to the feelings of the House if the Government were able to accept them. At the same time the Government treated us with extreme fairness throughout the negotiations; they conceded to us a great deal more than some of their supporters thought they were justified in conceding, and there is no doubt whatever that we have obtanied substantially all that is necessary for the protection of commons and open spaces. That being so, I am bound to adhere to the compromise effected. I am bound to give the Government credit for the fair manner in which they treated us. Of course, if the Government, as an act of grace, were to offer as more, what the House of Lords is endeavouring to obtain for us, we should be grateful to the Government. But that I do not ask. I am satisfied with what we have got, and I thank the Government for what they have done.
  Lord BALCARRES: For my part I cannot share the view that has just been expressed. When the hon. Member talks about compromise I do not follow him. I

  437
  have detected no note of compromise in the statement which was made by the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman).
  Mr. COWAN: The compromise is to be found in the Clause which was accepted by the Government upstairs. It was practically an agreed clause.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am quite aware of what passed upstairs, but the hon. Member recalls that in another place further Amendments were moved. Those Amendments were actually inserted in the Bill. So far as I can gather from the Under-Secretary those Amendments are to be totally disagreed with, and the Bill is to be restored to the state in which it was before it went to the other House at all. I think the Clause as it stands in the Bill, and as it left this House—that is to say, in the condition which the. Government proposed to pass it into law—is full of genuine dangers to existing open spaces. The hon. Member opposite, I understand, feels that he cannot get any further concession out of the Government, and therefore he abandons the attack. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) apparently fully realises these dangers, but he is too diffident to press more than an academic protest.
  Sir C. W. DILKE: I am a Member of the Commons Preservation Society, and I have been chairman of that society, but I feel a, good deal hampered by what has happened since.
  Lord BALCARRES: It is well that the House should appreciate the dangers which exist. I think they are really very great. It is not merely with regard to roads that the commons may be affected. Part I. of the Act contains proposals which include light railways, experiments in agriculture, and various other matters of that character, and there is no guarantee such as we should possess that afforestation or light railways will be the only things which will curtail common rights. I must make a further observation about Sub-section (a). The Provisional Order procedure under Sub-section (1) is excluded from Sub-section (a), and does not apply. If common land is taken for the purpose of afforestation the public by the terms of the Subsection are to have "reasonable access to the land for air, exercise, recreation," and so on. Let me say frankly, I think that is disastrous. If you afforest land, whatever may be your sentiment about public rights or air, recreation, and exercise, to give access to the public
  438
  would be perfectly fatal to the young woods, for the people might smoke there and burn out the young woods and destroy them. That is the universal experience. When you have the woods already, well and good; the people may do no harm, except, perhaps, cut their initials upon the trees. But when you have young woods, it would be perfectly fatal to admit the public for air, exercise, and recreation. You may say that they might be allowed to walk through the drives in the wood for recreation, but ex hypothesi these woods and forests would be in districts remote from great urban centres. I really think that, for the sake of academic homage to public rights, it is ridiculous to insert a provision the result of which might be to really imperil the existence of a forest. It is a great mistake, but I suppose it is of no use protesting. It is quite obvious the Government do not mean to accept any of these Amendments save one or two verbal Amendments. Yet it is well that we should state our opinion that this Clause as proposed to be enacted is a definite infringement of the existing law for the maintenance of commons and open spaces, and as such is very detrimental indeed.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Noble Lord is inaccurate in his allegation that we are determined to accept no Amendment except verbal Amendments. I can assure him that the Government, my hon. Friend, and myself have looked with a single eye to improving the Bill. With regard to this particular Amendment, of course we are not prevented at all from dealing with the Lords Amendment by reason of agreements made between the Commons Preservation Society and those interested in the Bill, and which were incorporated by the Government in the Clause. The history of the matter given by my hon. Friend is a perfectly accurate one. The Commons Preservation Society, who have done so much for the preservation of commons, represented the matter to the Government, and it was upon their application that these Clauses were inserted. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be this: First of all, it would prevent entirely the compulsory acquisition of any common land except by Provisional Order. In regard to the roads part and the development part of the Bill, we cannot assent to the proposition that in no case ought we to acquire common land except by Provisional Order. The other effect of the Lords Amendment will be to prevent entirely the acquisition of any urban common land. In the Clause as it appears in

  439
  the Bill, we have the two sets of Commissioners, the Development Commissioners and the Road Board to deal with common land, and we have hedged about their powers. Except for afforestation and drives through woods, we have said that in no case can they take common land unless the Board of Agriculture is satisfied that land not less in area and equal in convenience is being substituted for the land taken. Surely if you require a Provisional Order in every case, apart from these two exceptions, that is a very ample protection.
  With regard to the exclusion from the operation of the provision of land for afforestation, that is a matter to which prominence has been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean and the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres). I know a great deal about these common lands in the Principality from which I come, and I think so far from the commoners objecting to any land being taken for afforestation, they would be very glad indeed to have it, on being compensated for their common rights, because afforestation does a great deal to cover and shelter the sheep now grazing on the Welsh hills. Everybody knows that it is of the utmost importance to have plantations for the protection of these animals. With regard to a further observation made by the Noble Lord opposite, I entirely agree that where the public have access to common lands the privileges afforded should be properly used. The provision of reasonable access is for the purpose of I air, exercise and recreation, and I have no doubt that it is entirely within the powers of the Commissioners to see that nobody abuses those privileges for purposes of mischief. I think that the protection we have given to common lands ought to be accepted by everyone who has the interests of these commons and open lands at heart. If I had to choose between proposals of the Government and those of the Lords. I certainly, as one interested in common lands, should prefer the proposals contained in our Clause 19 to the provisions incorporated by the Amendments of the House of Lords.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: As one interested in commons and open spaces, I am glad that this Debate has occurred. The observations of the Noble Lord opposite, I think, have been largely answered by the learned Solicitor-General. This compromise, if passed into law, will go far to pre-
  440
  serve commons and all their amenities. I think it is a very good thing that the matter has been debated, and where there are commons no effort should be missed to secure that they are kept. In Scotland commons have mostly disappeared, but I congratulate those societies who have moved in the matter upon the enactment of the Clause as it stood before it went to another place.
  8.0 P.M
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I am rather astonished at the position the Government have taken with regard to the Lords Amendment. Undoubtedly it is generally understood that the Clause as a whole was accepted. That was the general opinion outside. But even if it is not so, and if the Government, as they now say, oppose the Clause, they ought, in common fairness to the House of Lords, to have said so at once. I should be sorry indeed to take part in opposing anything which comes from the House of Lords simply because it does come from that Assembly. To my mind, it is a ridiculous position to take up, and I should gladly accept anything that is good, no matter where it comes from. As this is a matter of great importance, I will say a word or two in regard to the Corporation of the City of London. I do not refer to the open space in front of the Royal Exchange, but I do refer to Epping Forest, which is one of the finest open spaces, I suppose, in the whole country, and which we in the City are most anxious to protect in every way. The law officers of the Corporation state that it is very important that the proviso of Clause 19 which was inserted by the House of Lords should be retained, as it provides for the protection of open spaces under the control of the corporation. If there is ample protection in the Bill without the Lords Amendment, the Government ought to tell us so, and explain it. They have not done so in the House of Lords, that is certain; they have said nothing, and they pretend that the Bill was right enough as it stood when it went to the House of Lords. They are trying to rely on some bargain of theirs, or some promise, or supposed compromise with some society. That society did not object to the Clouse and, as I understand, they are in favour of it. Surely, therefore, if it gives more protection to open spaces the Government ought readily to agree to it, and I hope, even now, they will reconsider their decision, and that they will not take up the position

  441
  that they will not accept anything because it comes from the House of Lords. They admitted in the House of Lords that this was a good Clause, and I hope they will take up the same position here. I am bound to say, as a supporter of the Government, that if they do not do so I shall feel bound to vote against them.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I think the learned Solicitor-General somewhat underrated the possible effects of afforestation. As he is probably aware, in the New Forest some years ago an attempt at afforestation was made with, and as everybody knows, disastrous results. I take it, where you have any plantation of trees you cannot admit the public for a certain number of years at all. I am not familiar with the business of afforestation, but I have noticed where young plantations are being made that those responsible for them are particularly careful to exclude the public altogether. Therefore, in the event of a common being used for afforestation, it would be necessary to exclude the public altogether from that part of the common. In that way the terms of the Bill seem to me to be absurd. With regard to this matter I am in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Cowan). Because I had some little share in connection with the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society as to this matter. I must say I am profoundly grateful to the Government for their kind acceptance of the very strong recommendation made to them. I should like to see some such Clause as that adopted in the Lords made a Standing Order of this House, so that legislation as to open spaces might be more perfect in its character. While I should like to support the Lords Amendment, I shall certainly not take any action against the Motion.
  Mr. CARLILE: In the Division which I have the privilege of representing there are some of the most beautiful commons in the South of England—one of them in particular, Harpenden Common. If the Amendment from the Lords is not accepted it would be possible, even without the Provisional Order, to ruin the beauty of some of those commons. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) seemed to be of the opinion that the chief danger would arise from afforestation. That would not apply to our commons or those in neighbouring counties, because the areas are restricted in size; but one could hardly
  442
  imagine, say in the case of Harpenden Common, a decision more fatal to the beauty of the whole district than a resolution, say, to cut one of those great roads through that common. The road would naturally run from south to north along the length of the common, and powers would be taken to acquire 220 yards on either side of such road, which practically would involve the whole surface of that common. So that unless this Amendment is embodied in the Bill there is at any rate a danger of the destruction of such a beautiful feature of the countryside as these commons constitute. Then there are people in those common grounds who have clearance for firewood and turbary and pasture, I know it is claimed by the learned Solicitor-General that the Government have made provision for the interests of those common owners, but the mere substitution of another piece of laud of the same area, and as to the quality of which we shall have no kind of guarantee and which need not even be adjacent does not deal with the matter.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes, equally advantageous.
  Mr. CARLILE: That is a very wide term, and it might be alleged that another piece of land was equally advantageous. I think that great danger is likely to arise from those great roads and the obtaining of the control of the spaces to the right and left. Great danger would arise from the proposal of afforestation, and I have no doubt that in places like the New Forest an immense amount of harm has already been done by the injudicious planting of trees, and by the substitution for the hardwooded indigenous trees of juniper trees, changing that bright, picturesque English look into a mournful dreary aspect. I venture to urge the Government, as they have been urged from the other side, to accept this Amendment.
  Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  SCHEDULE.
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (1), leave out the words, "An order by the Development Commissioners empowering a Government Department, body, or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I. of this Act, or the Road Board, or a highway authority (in this Schedule

  443
  referred to as 'the undertakers') to acquire land compulsorily shall," and insert instead thereof,
  "(1) Where a Government Department, body, or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I of this Act, or the Road Board or a highway authority (in this Schedule referred to as 'the undertakers') propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act, the undertakers may submit to the Development Commissioners an order putting in force, as respects the lands specified in the order, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.
  "(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (1), after "1845" ["Consolidation Act, 1845"], insert the words "or in Scotland Sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  (D) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.
  Lords Amendment: In (D), after the word "apply" ["land shall not apply"], insert, "(3) The draft order shall be published by the undertakers in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of paragraph (2), insert, "(5) An order may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired, and every such order shall, if so
  444
  required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired.
  "(6) Where the land is glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, the order shall provide that sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase of the land or to be paid by way of compensation for the damage to be sustained by the owner by reason of severance or other injury affecting the land, shall not be paid as directed by the Land Clauses Acts, but shall be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied by them as money paid to them upon a sale under the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts of land belonging to a benefice.
  "The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, in new paragraph (5), to leave out all the words after the word "acquired" ["easement over the land authorised to be acquired"] to the end of the paragraph.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "Thai this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (3), after the word "easements" ["shall include easements"], insert the words "or in Scotland servitudes."
  Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of Schedule insert "(7) In this Schedule the expression 'prescribed' means 'prescribed' by the Development Commissioners."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved at the end of the proposed Amendment to insert the words "In Scotland the word 'easements' shall mean 'servitudes.'"
  Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Masterman, Viscount Morpeth, and the Solicitor-General.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments afterwards reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[The Solicitor-General.]

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and to Commons Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Consequential Amendment to the Bill, and Lords Amendments in lieu of Amendments disagreed to by Commons.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now considered."
The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, before agreeing to these Amendments from another place, a brief statement were made as to the reasons for that course, and as to what agreement with the Amendments means. After this Bill was returned to the Lords, communications took place between the Government and the Opposition. The other place wished for alterations on the following points: They thought that an appeal to the county court or to some other judicial body was essential with regard to closing orders, demolition orders, the question of repairs and maintenance, instead of to the Local Government Board, as the Bill originally suggested and to which the Commons adhered. The Government declined the County Court as an alternative to the Local Government Board, but gave an appeal on points of law to the High Court, and now provide for a public local inquiry by the Local Government Board before an appeal on a closing order, demolition order, or repairs can be dismissed. To that position we ask the House of Commons to adhere.
446
The second point to which importance was attached was the exclusion of the county council and the county boroughs. For reasons given on another occasion we were compelled to decline that exemption and to that position we must adhere. The third point the Lords wanted was that an order declaring the London County Council or any county borough in default as regards Part in. should be laid upon the Table for 30 days. The Government refused this, but agreed that the order when made in these cases should be laid upon the Table for information only. Fourthly, the Lords wished the confirmation of town planning schemes to be made by Provisional Order whenever objected to. The Government declined the method of Provisional Order as expressed by what is known as the "Cawdor" Clause, but agreed to lay the draft order upon the Table for 30 days.
Then the Lords wished that the betterment accruing from a town planning scheme should be confined exclusively to the expenditure incurred by the local authority. The Government declined this suggestion, and adhered to the offer originally made and put forward in this House—namely, that 50 per cent. of the betterment accruing to a district from a town planning scheme should go to the local authority and 50 per cent. to the owner. To this position by the acceptance of Amendments the Government now adhere. The next was what some considered to be an important point—namely, the medical officer of health. The Lords Amendment objected to the duties of the medical officer of health being prescribed by the Local Government Board. On that the Government adhered to the position which they took up in the Bill—namely, the irremovability of the medical officer of health except with the consent of the Local Government Board. That position we maintained, but we agreed that the Order prescribing the general duties for the county medical officer of health should be laid on the Table for 21 days.
In all other respects the Bill remains as returned to the Lords from the Commons, except with regard to the seventh point. The Lords wanted what are known as "Port of London terms" for the compulsory acquisition of land. For reasons which I advanced on a previous occasion the Government declined to accept Port of London terms, but agreed that small holdings terms should be retained as in the Bill originally introduced for rural districts, and that was varied by the

447
Government consenting to a modification of the form of Port of London terms for urban districts. The modification briefly is that in urban areas, if an order is objected to, what is known as "an independent person" appointed by the Local Government Board shall hold a local inquiry. The inquiry is not on the necessity for acquiring the land, but is limited to the question whether the particular land is suitable, and whether its compulsory acquisitions will involve undue detriment to the persons interested.
Having made that statement, and having told the House that the Amendments on the Blue Paper, to all of which the Government agree, embody a compromise agreed to between the Government and another place on this important and useful Bill, I appeal to the House to accept these Amendments and thus terminate a controversy in reference to a measure which has been a long time before Parliament, in which Members in all parts of the House have shown a keen and sympathetic interest, a Bill which is now on the eve of becoming law, and which when it is law I sincerely trust will do for the housing of the people all that we wish and all that some of us believe it will do.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: It will probably save time if I say what I have to say on the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman rather than on specific Amendments. The part of the statement which I heard with the least acceptance was that in which the right hon. Gentleman said he was unable to concede an inquiry before a judicial tribunal instead of the appeal to the Local Government Board in certain cases. On the ground of expense and good administration, and still more on the ground that certain of the smaller local authorities are very much in need of control by a legal authority in reference to these matters, I think it is a pity that the Government have not agreed to an appeal to the county court rather than to the Local Government Board. I desire to place on record my strong belief that the machinery provided by the Govenment is expensive and inefficient, and that the appeal to the Local Government Board, followed by a local inquiry by an inspector sent down, is a far more cumbrous, expensive, and unwieldly procedure than an appeal to a county court judge sitting in the neighbourhood, always available, and accustomed to deal with similar matters in dis-
448
pute between landlord and tenant. I am, personally, confident that that part of the Government scheme is thoroughly bad and unsatisfactory.
I am very glad the Government have adhered to their proposal that the medical officer of health should be irremovable, and I think, also, it is right that he should take his orders from the local authority and not from the Local Government Board. The only other point I desired to mention was the question of the taking of land in an urban area. On the whole, the compromise does not seem to me to be an unfair one on the matter in dispute. It is quite true that in the taking of rural land involving a comparative small amount of money one does not want to make inquiry into that so expensive as to put an end to improvements which we all desire. As for the actual variation from the Port of London terms, my impression is that it is more apparent than real. I do not withdraw from anything I have said as to the very unsuitable character of the original Small Holdings Schedule. I believe that to be in many respects defective, and, sooner or later, it will have to be altered. But I recognise that the fact that it has been accepted in the small holdings case makes it very difficult for the Government to depart from it at this time in subsequent legislation. The only other thing I desire to say is that personally I am extremely glad that there is no chance of this Bill perishing. It might have been very much better. In many respects it is defective. But I believe it is a Bill which moves in the right direction, and some of its provisions are certainly very valuable. I should have deeply regretted any action on the part of the Government that would have made it impossible for their Bill to become law. I am extremely glad that wiser counsels prevailed on each side, and that we have arrived at a compromise which, though it is not in all respects satisfactory, at any rate has the supreme merit of having prevented the loss of this Bill.
Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and to Commons Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Consequential Amendment to the Bill, and Lords Amendments in lieu of Amendments disagreed to by Commons agreed to.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendent disagreed to by the Lords not insisted upon and Lords Amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.

SMALL DWELLING HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons consequential Amendment.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I propose, in the first place, to agree with the drafting Amendment in the new Clause (A) to leave out the words "levied on and." With regard to the new Sub-section which the Lords propose to introduce, I propose to disagree with that Amendment. With regard to the new Clause (D) inserted there by the Commons to which the Lords disagree, I propose to substitute for the new Clause (D) the following:—
"Every payment in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding Sections shall be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any franchise which depends on such payment: Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid; and provided further that all provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupier's assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise as aforesaid, notwithstanding that the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupier's assessments thereon."
I may state in a sentence that the reason why I take that course is that if the Lords new Sub-section were agreed to great financial inconvenience would be caused. The parish councils and many occupiers who have actually paid their poor rates will be disfranchised.
Mr. BARNES: I should like to understand the full effect of this new Clause as read out by the Lord Advocate before voting or assenting to the Bill in the manner he suggests. I should like to know whether this new Clause provides that the tenant shall be retained on the roll of voters?
Mr. URE: Yes.
Mr. BARNES: Whether the money be paid by him or by the owner?
Mr. URE: Yes.
Mr. BARNES: On that understanding, Mr. Caldwell, I shall vote for the Bill, though I should like to say before it goes through that the Bill does not give what is wanted. It cuts down the time in which the man was tied to his house, and, although the rent limit is not so high as we should like it, yet I recognise that the Bill is a considerable instalment, and does better the position very considerably. So far as its rating provisions go, although that is a matter upon which the workman does not feel so keenly, yet I am glad to find that the Lord Advocate has disagreed with this Amendment of the Lords, which would have had the effect of disfranchising a good many men, and which, so far as I understand it, had the effect also of enabling the landlords to collect and retain moneys in their hands for a considerable period. As I understand it, that provision is now taken out of the Bill. And on that ground I will vote for the Bill going through.
Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered" put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In new Clause (A), after paragraph (iii), insert the following new Sub-section:—

"(i) If an owner who has undertaken by agreement with the occupier to pay any assessment on his behalf omits or neglects to pay it, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid.

(ii) An owner shall not be called upon nor be liable to pay any assessment imposed by a parish council on behalf of an occupier under or in virtue of the provisions of this section until after the twentieth day of June next following the imposition of the assessment.

(iii) All provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any qualification or franchise, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon."

Mr. URE: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
The Lords disagreed to new Clause (D) inserted by the Commons for the following reason:—
"Because under its provisions an owner might be compelled to pay the parish council rates of an occupier at such a date as to qualify him for the parliamentary franchise, although he might never pay those rates."
Lords Reason read a second time: —
Resolved, that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed. —[The Lord Advocate.]
And, instead thereof, new Clause (D) (Occupiers' assessments) —[The Lord Advocate] —inserted in the Bill.
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 the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Barnes.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately. —[Mr. Ure.]
Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments afterwards reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Ure.]

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered.
Mr. BARNES: I beg to move the following: —

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].

  NEW CLAUSE —(Illegitimacy not to Invalidate Policies.)
  "Policies issued by collecting societies, industrial assurance companies, or mutual insurance societies, under the terms of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, or other Act relating thereto, or under the provisions of this Act shall not be held to be invalid or void because of the illegitimacy of any of the parties concerned in such policies."
  I move this new Clause for the purpose
  452
  of enabling the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give us the result of the further consideration which he has given to this matter as he promised last night. The object of the new Clause is to bring in illegitimates as persons who would be able to take out policies and as being entitled to act in regard to policies that have been taken out. In other words, it is to remove the bar that at present exists in law to these persons. I should like, in the first place, to remind the House that it is a matter of very great importance that this bar, which was revealed last night for the first time, should be removed. I have a long experience of friendly societies, and I never heard it suggested that the legal liability of friendly societies or trades unions in respect to an illegitimate child was any different to what it was in respect of a legitimate child. The Debate last night revealed the fact that there is this legal difference, and what we fear now is that it will be made known to a large number of people interested in getting out of their financial obligations and their moral obligations as well. Therefore the matter ceases to be one of abstract interest and becomes a matter of great practical interest. We desire to put this claim forward upon its merits. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the grounds on which a similar matter was submitted to the House three or four years ago when we put forward a similar demand in respect to the Workmen's Compensation Act. We put forward the plea that a parent, either mother or father, might benefit in the event of the death by accident of a child, and I remember quite well the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil appealing to the House and putting the case of the poor woman who had an illegitimate child and had in consequence suffered from that fact, so that she, more than others, was deserving of consideration. Exactly the same thing applies here, and we do think the right hon. Gentleman might have given this matter more sympathetic and favourable consideration than he did last night. We put forward this claim now in the sincere hope that further consideration has induced him to take a more humane and, as I think, a more Christian view of the situation, and we hope that he may give a more favourable reply than he gave last night.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I have had an opportunity of considering this matter

  453
  since last night, and I also had an opportunity of consulting with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and some of my colleagues, and I am bound to say my opinion has not been altered. I think the case of the illegitimate child would be gravely prejudiced if insurance companies were made liable. Having very carefully considered this matter, I have concluded that this is not the place to make an alteration in this particular law. I am sure that in some cases what is proposed would not be at all to the benefit of the illegitimate child. There is a great deal of difference between including an illegitimate child to the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act and what is now proposed. That is what I have in mind, and I do not think I am drawing any invidious and hard distinction. In these circumstances I am not able to alter the view which I put to the House last night, and I hope this Bill will now be allowed to go through.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: It has now been put forward that it would be illegal for the illegitimate child to have the benefit. I think that is a point which very few officials of trade unions are aware of, and I am quite confident that the point has never yet been raised with regard to the management of trade unions. If that is so, then this question is going to open a very difficult position.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This Bill does not alter the law in that respect.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Supposing, for the sake of argument, the official of a trade union happens to have a spite against a man because he knows that he was an illegitimate child. It would be possible for that official to prevent the relative of that man receiving the benefit he would otherwise be entitled to.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: But we are making no change whatever in the law in that respect.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: That may be so, but the new law which is now going through this House obviously brings this question into prominence again, and both the officials of trade unions as well as the officials of the different assurance companies will have this point brought prominently before their notice. It is obvious from that point of view that results not expected at all to arise may easily arise
  454
  in the future, both in regard to assurance companies and trade unions. If that is the case a great amount of injustice is sure to arise, and as far as we are concerned it raises a very critical point for the millions who are connected with trade unions. It is a fact that the trade unions of the country do not raise any question of legitimacy or illegitimacy in regard to any individual who desires to join the union, but it would be within the power of any individual who happens to have a spite against a man when his claim for funeral benefits is made to prevent the relatives obtaining those benefits if he happens to be illegitimate.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time and passed.
  ADJOURNMENT. — Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn until Wednesday next, December 1st." —[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Nine o'clock.

PETITIONS PRESENTED.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

TUESDAY.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill —Petition from Lancaster, in favour.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill —Petition, from Glasgow, in favour.

WEDNESDAY.
Finance Bill —Petition from Alveley, against.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill —Petitions in favour, from Brockley, and Fallowfield.

  King versus John L. Tease.
  King versus John L. Tease.
  Boxwell Tenants (Acquisition of Lands).
  Boxwell Tenants (Acquisition of Lands).
  Colonel C. G. Tottenham's Wexford Tenants.
  Colonel C. G. Tottenham's Wexford Tenants.
  Oliver Estate, North Kerry.
  Oliver Estate, North Kerry.
  Sale of Goods Seized for Rent, Queen's County.
  Sale of Goods Seized for Rent, Queen's County.
  Laud Judge's Court.
  Laud Judge's Court.
  Farm of Castlegrogan, Queen's County.
  Farm of Castlegrogan, Queen's County.
  Sherlock Estate, Araglen, County Cork.
  Sherlock Estate, Araglen, County Cork.
  Mrs. Evans' Estate, Moville, Donegal.
  Mrs. Evans' Estate, Moville, Donegal.
  Harvey Estate, Buncrana, Donegal.
  Harvey Estate, Buncrana, Donegal.
  Evicted. Tenants (Limerick).
  Evicted. Tenants (Limerick).
  Land Purchase Advances (Limerick).
  Land Purchase Advances (Limerick).
  Lands of Mullaha (Meath).
  Lands of Mullaha (Meath).
  Untenanted Land (Meath).
  Untenanted Land (Meath).
  Royal Marines (Retirement of Colonels).
  Royal Marines (Retirement of Colonels).
  Government Dockyards (Men Employed).
  Government Dockyards (Men Employed).
  Pembroke Dockyard.
  Pembroke Dockyard.
  Cruiser "Leviathan" (Sentence on Stoker E. Bowness).
  Cruiser "Leviathan" (Sentence on Stoker E. Bowness).
  Promotion of Royal Marine Officers.
  Promotion of Royal Marine Officers.
  Accident on "Ariadne" (Reduction of Pension).
  Accident on "Ariadne" (Reduction of Pension).
  Retention of Colonel Onslow.
  Retention of Colonel Onslow.
  German Cruiser "Blucher."
  German Cruiser "Blucher."
  Admiralty Board of Selection.
  Admiralty Board of Selection.
  Grants of Medals.
  Grants of Medals.
  Kowloon Railway.
  Kowloon Railway.
  British Protector of Chinese (Ipoh).
  British Protector of Chinese (Ipoh).
  Johore Railway.
  Johore Railway.
  Trial of Prisoners (England).
  Trial of Prisoners (England).
  Income Tax (Total Incomes).
  Income Tax (Total Incomes).
  Indian Telegraph Department.
  Indian Telegraph Department.
  Reformed Councils (India).
  Reformed Councils (India).
  Prices Ruling in India.
  Prices Ruling in India.
  Cattle Embargo (Argentine).
  Cattle Embargo (Argentine).
  Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill.
  Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill.
  All-Red Route.
  All-Red Route.
  Death from Generalised Vaccinia.
  Death from Generalised Vaccinia.
  Hemel Hempstead Union (Death of Patient).
  Hemel Hempstead Union (Death of Patient).
  Motor Car Licences.
  Motor Car Licences.
  Telegraph Facilities, Lough Allen, Roscommon.
  Telegraph Facilities, Lough Allen, Roscommon.
  Sunday Postal Delivery (South Wexford).
  Sunday Postal Delivery (South Wexford).
  London Postal Service.
  London Postal Service.
  Central Telegraph Office (Assistant Controller).
  Central Telegraph Office (Assistant Controller).
  Trawling (Scottish Waters).
  Trawling (Scottish Waters).
  Motor Cabs (Licencing Inspectors).
  Motor Cabs (Licencing Inspectors).
  Metropolitan Police Stations (Telephone Connection).
  Metropolitan Police Stations (Telephone Connection).
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
OATHS BILL.
POLICE BILL.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments agreed to: Several others agreed to, with Amendments, and with consequential Amendments to the Bill; and several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said Amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow, (No. 228.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Merchandise Marks (Ireland).

Fisheries (Ireland).

Diseases of Animals.

Prisons (Scotland).

Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, Amendment.

Education (Administrative Provisions).

Cinematograph.

Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland).

Health Resorts and Watering Places (Ireland).

Wild Animals in Captivity Protection (Scotland).

Electric Lighting Acts (Amendment).

Police (Liverpool Inquiry).

Local Registration of Title (Ireland).

Motor Cars (International Circulation).

County Council Mortgages.

Oaths.

Police.

Naval discipline.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

1022

Colinton Tramways Order Confirmation.

Robert Gordon's Technical College and Aberdeen Endowments Trust Order Confirmation.

Cardiff Corporation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

FINANCE BILL.
Petitions against; of persons signing (10);—of the Oldham Habitation of the Primrose League;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 229.)
ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said amendments to be considered on Monday next.
DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with Several of the Amendments agreed to, with several others agreed to, with Amendments, and several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said Amendments and reasons to be printed. (No 230.)
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and to the Commons consequential Amendments to the Bill, and the Lords consequential Amendment to the Bill, and the Lords Amendments in lieu of Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, agreed to.
SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with one of the Amendments, made by the Lords to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, agreed to, with one other Amendment agreed to, with an amendment, and one other Amendment disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said Amendment and reason to be printed. (No. 231.)

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).
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I regret very much that indisposition prevents my noble friend Lord Curzon being here this afternoon to continue the debate, but I hope he will have an opportunity of speaking before the debate closes. It is impossible to overstate the importance as well as the great interest of this debate. It is manifest to any one who has followed its course that every speaker who has hitherto addressed the House has been deeply impressed with the sense of his responsibility. Certain things have become perfectly plain. I have not found in any part of the House a serious effort made to question the absolute right of your Lordships to proceed to vote for the Amendment moved by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. No one who is alive to the Parliamentary and political history of the country has questioned the impropriety of an effort to overpower your Lordships by the process called "tacking" Bills. The quotations made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition were amply sufficient to prove the constitutional propriety of his action and of his objections to tacking, but they were only a selection from the consensus of opinion among all great lawyers and all great Statesmen. You cannot find a single leading writer on the political history of England that does not readily admit what cannot be challenged—the clear right of this House to act as in its discretion it may think right in reference to the rejection of a Budget Bill, and also the clear right of this House not to have its judgment interfered with by the process known as "tacking" on other Bills.
The only effort I have heard made in this debate to question these most obvious facts was made, or partly made, by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but he did not seek to question what had been said by Lord Spencer and Lord Ripon a few years ago. He did not call in question a single word of those statements. All he said was that he admitted the technical right of this House, but that it was unconstitutional to reject the Budget; and when my noble friend Lord Salisbury, in his most interesting speech, gave a quotation from a speech of the noble
1024
and learned Lord which appeared in its terms entirely to admit the contention, the noble and learned Lord said that that sentence must not be taken in connection with the wider proposition, but was to be narrowed down and confined solely to the particular Bill of which he was speaking. Be it so. I have too great a respect for my noble and learned friend not to accept readily any reason he gives for any sentence he may use, but I must say that I do not understand what he means by saying this Amendment is unconstitutional unless, as my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury pointed out, it is a phrase that is used to cover the impossibility of finding any other convenient word.
What is meant by saying that it is unconstitutional? I do not know. It is a commonplace in our Constitution that this House has the right contended for. Is not the non-exercise of this power in itself a proof of the moderation, the prudence, the caution, the forbearance with which this House acts in reference to its strict powers? I use it as a proof that this House is ever jealous to recognise and support the privileges of the House of Commons. I had the honour of sitting for many years in the other House and would be the last to say a word in disparagement of its privileges, indeed this House has uniformly shown a desire not to run counter to but to assent to those privileges. But this Bill is an absolutely new departure, the like of which is not to be found in any previous Budget—it is an absolutely new departure in the history of Budgets, and in its purposes and in its attempted policies it far transcends the scope of any ordinary Budget. It presents a variety of Bills tacked on to a Finance Bill, whose sole purpose should be the provision of revenue for the year. This Bill seeks to go far outside that scope and object. The obligation is before the Government of finding means to meet the needs which have been accumulating within the last year, and if ever there was an occasion when it would have been wise, in view of those needs, to keep to constitutional lines that would not challenge dissent, that occasion was this year. This is not a pure and simple Budget; it is nothing of the kind. I am not going to weary your Lordships by attempting to wade through the intricacies of this complicated and strange production. I shall confine myself to a few plain topics.

1025
The Chancellor of the Exchequer—a man of great ability, of some humour, and with great power of statement—said that there was never a Budget framed more deliberately. I am prepared to believe that if it gives pleasure to anybody. Certainly there never was a Budget which had been changed more violently and more rapidly. There never was a scheme of finance so deliberately framed and so deliberately abandoned. When he came to unfold his views on the Land Clauses the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have an attack of Dukes on the brain. He could see and think of nothing but Dukes. There are not a great many Dukes. To look at they are not very unlike other men. Some of them are rich, some of them are not at all so rich, and why it should give special pleasure to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go out of his way to drag a Duke into every clause and every speech passes my comprehension. The Undeveloped Land Tax—a very ambitious and far-reaching tax—does not primarily affect Dukes, or millionaires, or great landowners. They are not a numerous class, but there are hundreds of thousands of small proprietors, and it would have been reasonable in considering taxation to remember that you may be making a tremendous onslaught upon those who can ill afford any additions to their burdens. Would it not have been wise to insert in that clause some words of protection and reasonable consideration for the building and kindred trades? Would it not have been well to bear in mind what we see at the street corners in London—the large numbers of unemployed—and to realise that thousands of workmen have been cast out of employment by the wreck of the building trade owing to this Budget? How the inclusion of such a tax in an ordinary Budget can be defended I cannot understand.
Nor can I understand the inclusion in a Bill intended to provide for the finance of the year of a proposal for setting up all over England a scheme of valuation which is to last for all time at an expense which transcends for the year all the gain that is to come out of it. I was greatly struck some time ago in reading the Westminster Gazette, a very able and much respected Liberal journal, to find the statement that—
"The Budget must not order land to be valued which it does not propose to tax. It is hopeless
1026
to expect to get a final and complete system of valuation out of a Budget for one year."
To graft that proposal on to a Finance Bill is "tacking" of the grossest kind, to which this House has uniformly objected. It was sought to be done, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in a separate Bill but a short time ago, and that Bill having failed to pass, it is now attempted to graft a great new separate department upon the bureaucracy of the nation, and to do it under cover of a Finance Bill. This, as I have said, is "tacking" of the gravest kind. The same remark may be made in reference to the extraordinary Licence Duties. The licensing question was sought to be dealt with in a Bill last year. That Bill gave great dissatisfaction. The Bill did not pass. But now the Bill has reappeared in practically a worse form in the Budget. That, again, is an example of the unconstitutional practice of "tacking." It is impossible to defend it. In the other House it was charged to be either an act of revenge or an effort to please extreme temperance reformers. If the Government go outside the ordinary methods of a Budget Bill, then they provoke and challenge criticism.
I had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons with Mr. Gladstone, as had also the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Morley. In common with other of his opponents I always had the greatest respect for his commanding powers of speech and his great statesmanship, and I read a quotation that greatly struck me in a paper recently from a speech by Mr. Gladstone in 1861. Mr. Gladstone said on that occasion—
"If the House of Commons attempted to abuse the finance forms for legislative purposes, the Peers might find it wise and just to fall back upon an assertion of the whole breadth of their privileges."
Can any one doubt that Mr. Gladstone would never have been a party to this Budget? I do not believe he would have listened to a single proposition in it. He was a very great Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a great master of figures and finance, but he was also a great purist as to Budget Bills, and you cannot point to a single financial speech made by Mr. Gladstone or a single Budget for which he was responsible either as Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister that did not keep within

1027
lines that were perfectly capable of defence. It shows, had Mr. Gladstone been a Peer in this House, the kind of criticism he would have passed on those financiers who have so terribly fallen away from the pure lessons of honourable finance. Mr. Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, a man whom it is impossible not to speak of at all events with seriousness, and whose military position no doubt caused him to recognise that caution was required, said lately, in reference to what is expected to take place, that the Government may have a great victory but may have a great defeat. I was amused to see that the right hon. gentleman called on his numerous friends at a luncheon to act as the stern Romans acted when Hannibal was almost at the gates of Rome. Whether he meant to convey that the noble Marquess who moved this Amendment was in the position of that Great General or not I do not know, but whereas Hannibal did not have many friends within the lines of his opponents, I am very sure that the noble Marquess has many hearty well-wishers within the ranks of the supporters of His Majesty's Government.
I have not heard every speech delivered in this debate, but I have had the pleasure of listening to a great many. I do not think that any speeches that I have heard for a long time in your Lordships' House have so impressed me as those of Lord Revelstoke, Lord Avebury, and Lord Milner. I do not profess great acquaintance with the topic they discussed, but it was impossible for anybody not to be tremendously influenced by what they said. They are all men of great ability, great power of expression, vast experience, and immense knowledge of the topic, and they all spoke each from his own point of view of the feeling of unrest and insecurity which has everywhere been caused by this Budget. Consols have fallen; prices have tumbled down; a deadly blow has been given to trade and commerce, and there has been a flight of millions—an appalling number of millions sterling—from England to a more secure haven in other parts of the world. That is an immense fact. The Prime Minister said, with apparently a light heart—although a man sometimes uses light words when his heart is heavy enough—
"We have Bent millions of British capital to the uttermost parts of the earth."
1028
I suppose he thought that was a thing that could be accepted and cheered. What does it mean? British capital has gone to the uttermost parts of the earth, with great advantage, I have no doubt, to the development of civilization and to make legitimate profit. If it went there for an honest and legitimate purpose, it is well; but if it went there because it had no security at home, if it was compelled to go abroad to find a safe outlet, that is a matter full of grave importance to which we should give very serious thought.
I cannot close my remarks without a reference to the country to which I belong. The Irish are very clever, very intelligent, and generally know where their interests are. I do not believe that there is a man, woman, or child in Ireland at the present minute in favour of this Budget. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore the other night, in a closely-reasoned and admirable speech, showed that in a way which left no possible room for doubt. Is not that a circumstance that should be borne in mind? I do not think that you will find any great enthusiasm for it in England, in Scotland, or even in Wales, except perhaps out of a sense of personal loyalty to a Welsh Chancellor of the Exchequer; but speaking for Ireland, which is well informed as to its own interests and wants, I do not believe that any one is in favour of it. It is my pleasure to read Irish newspapers, not always of my own way of thinking, and I read in nearly every one of them now resolutions of different public bodies, all of whom are against the Budget and deploring that their Members had not acted more as they wished them to act in distinctly opposing it. That is a circumstance I do not dwell upon, but I think it is one that should not be lost sight of.
I quite admit that wealth should bear its full share in meeting the national wants. No one questions that. It is quite right that those who are wealthy should pay a much larger proportion of taxes to meet the needs of the nation than those who are much poorer. No one denies that. I know a good many rich men, and have never heard any of them express any dissatisfaction at having to bear their legitimate burden. There is, however, reason in everything. The moment that you admit the train of reasoning that you have only to rob

1029
the rich to relieve the poor it is quite possible that you may drive millions away from the country by your action, but, if you do so, you will necessarily increase the unemployed by thousands. It is easy enough by means of a Budget Bill to take capital from the capitalists of your own country and to apply it when levied as taxes as part of the income of the nation. But is that business? This is not a Budget pure and simple. It embodies many Bills and many programmes, and the House of Lords has a light to be sure that the nation knows that it is an entirely new departure. Would your Lordsips be justified in giving assent to this strange production without being sure that it was accompanied by the sanction of the nation?
The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, yesterday made a speech such as we have heard him make before. It was able, forcible, and witty, particularly at the beginning and in the middle. He denounced in a way that none of us on this Bench could have done every item in the Budget. Our language is chaste to moderation compared with what he said of it. He had not a good word to say about any part of it. As to its framers, I will not say he denounced them, but I think he uttered a silent prayer and thanked God he was not like any of them. There was nothing very new in the early part of the noble Earl's speech. He had said a great deal of it before in Glasgow and he had prepared us for his Glasgow speech by a letter in which he denounced the whole Budget as a revolution. Then he made the Glasgow speech. He could not go much stronger. He stuck to the word "revolutionary," proving it up to the hilt, and he said last night that he adhered to every word of the Glasgow speech. I had the pleasure of reading the Glasgow speech. I did so with great interest, because it is always pleasant to read a vigorous—shall I say?—onslaught, or a free, conscientious denunciation of your political opponents; and I gathered from reading that speech, being only a plain, ordinary man, that the noble Earl earnestly hoped—he did not say he would lead the charge—that there would be brave and true men in the country who would do their best to throw out this Budget. Yesterday, not having said a word in advance indicating that he had receded from the Glasgow speech, and saying, indeed, that he did not recede from
1030
it, when he came to apply it we were not so clear as to the clearness of his mind. The conclusion was not at all the same as the beginning or the middle of his speech. At the close he did not like the Budget or its framers a bit more. He still thought the Budget revolutionary, but he was not absolutely sure if he were in the position of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that he would not for this occasion only pass the Bill and wait for a better occasion to try his hand. As an ordinary man I do not think that that was a solution that gave great guidance to those who were listening. If it is an unprecedented Budget like the Budget we have before us; if it is revolutionary; if it contains all the bad taxes that this Budget does, one would have thought that the logical consequence was that with this unwonted, abnormal, unclean thing, violating in "tacking" every constitutional principle over and over again, before it now, if the House of Lords was ever to act, he would have supported a motion as prudent and as wise as that of my noble friend, and would have declined to be responsible for the passing of the Bill until satisfied that assent was given to it by the people.
If the House of Lords is prepared in silence to pass this Budget, so unusual in its conception, so enormously out of harmony with all previous action, so opposed to every Budget that Mr. Gladstone framed, so startling in its possibilities, so far-reaching in its intentions, surely people would ask, What is the use of the House of Lords having the strongest opinions about a Bill if, when the time comes for action, it does nothing? What are we waiting for? If the House of Lords does not act now, will it ever act? I am as much impressed as any one with the magnitude of the issues. I feel as much as any one the seriousness of the debate in which we are engaged, and I feel the great responsibility which rests on every member of your Lordships' House. Every one in going through life has to face and assume, and not shrink and run away from, responsibilities. If you feel that you have something before you which should not be presented as it has been; if you entertain a strong vigorous judgment in reference to it; if you feel that it is opposed to all principle and to all precedent, that according to your light and your conscience you would not be justified

1031
in passing it without the sanction of the nation, surely, my Lords, that is hardly the time to wait for something worse in order that you may then begin to do your duty. I concur with the Amendment of my noble friend the noble Marquess, and I ask myself whether, in Mr. Gladstone's words, the occasion has not arisen for a wise and just falling back upon the assertion of the whole breadth of our privileges.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down in regretting the absence of Lord Curzon from the House to-day, and no one more heartily wishes than I do that he may be able to be present early next week to take that distinguished part in the debates in this Chamber which he has done already on many previous occasions. I also find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord as to the importance of the subject which we are discussing to-night and in the fact that the issues with which we have to deal are very complicated, for they concern not only the merits of the legislative proposals of the Government but touch also the constitutional powers of this House. But I am not able to find myself in concurrence with him as to the practical wisdom of the course which is recommended.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that in many respects this Finance Bill is an unfair one. I think, with him, that it introduces novel principles, and introduces them in not altogether a fair way. I agree with him that the Government have not much reason to congratulate themselves either as to the form in which it is presented to us, the history of their proposals, or their method of dealing with the problems which they have raised. There have been, since this so-called "well-prepared" Budget first saw the light, many changes of front, neither small nor unimportant. Of the first 700 lines of the Bill, I believe 530 have been altered. There were originally seventy-four clauses, and some twenty-three more have been added which contain something like 5,000 words more. It will not do for the noble Lord opposite (Lord St. David's), who spoke last night, to say that all these changes were made as concessions to the opponents of the Government. They were made on account of the fact that many of the proposals that were in the Bill when it was first introduced could not stand criticism. They were bound to die in the light
1032
of the common-sense of those who had their attention attracted to them. This is true as regards proposals concerning minerals, as regards the exemption of agricultural land from the increment duty, and many of the exemptions of dwelling-houses.
The most striking changes of front have been made with regard to valuation, with regard to the substitution of a tax on mineral royalties for a tax on ungotten minerals, and also as regards agricultural land. The Government are fond of taking credit to themselves that agricultural land is to escape the additional burdens imposed by this Bill. I think the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture was very clear on that point last night. Looking at the provisions of the Bill, I think it is a fact that the increment tax would not be laid on agricultural land as we generally know it, and I admit also that there are some concessions to the owners of agricultural land in the Bill. But very little account is taken of the severity of the burden which agricultural land is bearing at the present time. It bears an enormous proportion of the burden of local administration, and, in addition, there are six matters in which the burden on agricultural land will be increased by this Bill if it passes. There will be the Increment Value Duty at the rate of twenty per cent. on the difference between the value of the land on April 30, 1909, and when it comes to be sold. There is the difference between the original site value and the reversionary value of leases. There is the Undeveloped Land Duty, where it applies, on capital site value. There will be the Mineral Rights Duty, which, if not absolutely a tax on agricultural land is on the owners of that class of property. There will be the increased Death Duties, which apply all round, and there will be increased Stamp Duties on the conveyance of leases, an increase of about 100 per cent., except on conveyances where the consideration is not over £500.
Another objection which I entertain to this Bill is that it levies taxes which are not necessary for the service of the year, and it does not seem to me to be any answer to say that the State will be put in possession of funds for future expenditure. In my humble opinion, this aggravates the change that is made, because it tends to make the Executive more and more independent of the control of Parliament. If I object to some of the contents of this Bill, I object still more to

1033
the tone and temper of some of the speeches by which it has been recommended. I have no great experience of elections but I am led to believe that the use of rotten eggs in their coarser form is largely being abandoned. But there seems to me a considerable increase in the output of what I shall venture to describe as rhetorical rotten eggs, and I do not think they add either to tile amenity or to the interest of public life.
We are asked, for the first time, to look at the origin of property. We are asked almost in the very words, to levy a fine on those who are wicked enough to possess land of any kind. In some cases credit is taken for not confiscating the whole of what is described as national property, and I venture to say that the arguments used in support of these propositions are such as to strike at the security of property and the principle of private ownership in land. I frankly admit that the Government are not responsible for the wild exaggerations of all their supporters, but some of themselves are not free from blame in this matter. I ventured some weeks ago to bring to the notice of the House, to the notice of those who sit on the Government Bench opposite, the sort of arguments which are used by the Lord Advocate in the country. I called attention to the fact that he said that—
"these taxes involve a principle capable of far-reaching application. What was that principle? it was this, that the land of the country, the land, that is, distinct from the buildings erected on it, the land distinct from the improvements made upon it, in truth belongs to the nation."
I asked the noble Earl who leads the House with so much courtesy whether these arguments represented the views of His Majesty's Government, but I was told, as, perhaps, was right and proper, that the Government had no time to deal with abstract discussions of the kind. One would not care so much, perhaps, for what was said by the wilder spirits who are irresponsible members of the Party opposite. But I think it is hardly fair—indeed, it is most unreasonable, if I may say so—that when those who hold high positions in the Government use arguments of that kind we should not know whether or not they represent the opinion of the Government as a whole. I do not want to go too far, but I go to this length, that in my humble opinion reticence of that kind is not creditable to those of the Government, if there are any, who disagree with these arguments. If they represent the opinions of the Government they should be openly
1034
avowed; if they do not represent the views of the Government then we have a right to know that fact for our comfort and our security. At any rate, these are novel arguments and new in the months of responsible Statesmen.
If I had to appeal to any one who par excellence was a Radical, and was also an honest man, I should name John Bright, and when this sort of argument was brought to his notice be said:—
"If you think to relieve the nation by robbing the landowners you admit that any class may be robbed if the nation or the poor require relief."
Sir W. Harcourt said—
"I am content to assume that a man's right to his land depends upon the same principle as your right to the coat on your back—that you have paid for it."
and he went on in homely style to say,
"If you want to reform the land laws do not begin by ballyragging the landowners."
The language is not mine, but I think I might say, if you want to be fair to an unwritten Constitution, do not begin by ballyragging the House of Lords. I have one other quotation, and it has the merit of bringing in the opinion of Mr. Gladstone, as repeated with approval by a member of the present Government. I regret that Lord Wolverhampton is not present to-night. Speaking to his constituents less than two years ago, he was discussing matters affecting Socialism and the appropriation of land as part of that doctrine, and he said he would have nothing to do with any such scheme. He reminded his audience of what he once heard Mr. Gladstone say. There was a conversation, not on Socialism as a whole, but on the nationalisation of land, and, according to Lord Wolverhampton—
"the old gentleman, in his quiet stern way, listened for a long time and then broke out suddenly and said ' Do you mean to pay for it or do you not? If you mean to pay for it it is folly; if you do not mean to pay for it it is robbery.'"
I want to know before this debate closes whether those on the Ministerial Bench agree with those statements of men who have been colleagues of some of them and whose memory is honoured not only in their own Party but throughout the nation.
It has been abundantly admitted by everybody during this debate that we should all contribute to the money which is required according to our ability. It is

1035
almost a commonplace that the ownership of land is not an adequate test, taken by itself, of ability to pay. Land is already heavily burdened, and the complication of this Bill is such that it is absolutely impossible to estimate how much is added to those burdens. To some extent I stand in a peculiar position. I am responsible for a scheme for making owners of urban land contribute more than they do now to the bearing of public burdens. To that scheme I absolutely adhere. It was arrived at after five years of careful inquiry, during some part of which I had the assistance of Lord Milner as a colleague before he was taken to those greater and more arduous duties in which he has made his name. The opinions which I then ventured to express were not lightly formed. I knew quite well that they would not go the whole length to please those who are described as in favour of the taxation of land values. I did not expect to find that the carefully guarded and I would almost say conservative scheme for which I made myself responsible was to be quoted in support of the wild theories and ridiculous proposals now enshrined in the Bill before the House. What I ventured to suggest—I shall not go into it in detail—was this, that where it could be proved that increase of value came in any way from public expenditure, special rating should be put on to recompense for that advantage. The Lord Steward, who also is not present, mentioned the Thames Embankment as an illustration in support of the proposals of this Bill. That is quite contrary to fact. The land and buildings along the Thames Embankment derive their increased value quite as much from public expenditure as from what is called unearned increment, and they are one of the most conspicuous instances in which, I think, local authorities might be allowed to derive more benefit from their expenditure than they have done. In recommending that class of scheme we carefully, in a paragraph printed in the forefront of our report, guarded ourselves against being quoted in favour of those wild theories of depriving owners of all or any portion of their unearned increment which are a feature of this Bill. It is not fair to any one who takes part in public life and is appointed to serve on a Royal Commission that what he says in that capacity should be quoted one wit beyond what it will bear by fair and real quotation; and I think no one has suffered more than I have done by being quoted
1036
in support of theories which I have not only not adhered to, but have carefully guarded myself against.
As far as land is concerned, in this Bill we have a departure in valuation of the most serious kind. All that is proposed in the matter of valuation will be based on the purest hypothesis, when it is not based on absolute conjecture. The present system of valuation is easy to understand; it is arranged on definite principles; it has worked with extreme smoothness, at all events as far as I know it in Scotland; it is under the jurisdiction of the Law Courts; and it is a most serious departure to uproot that system and put it into the hands of a body of Commissioners without giving them most precise and careful directions. I go so far as to say that the Land Clauses of this Budget are a disgrace if for no other reason than that they are hardly intelligible. You have twelve different kinds of values, including increment value, site value, principal value, gross value, full site value, total value, assessable site value, value for agricultural purposes, original site value, and original total value. Some of these expressions are defined, some are not. One of them is defined and is never used again in any other part of the Bill. Site value in Clause 2 has a different meaning from site value in Clauses 25 and 27. I will ask your Lordships to look at the different subsections of Clause 25, and it really would not be a bad puzzle for an evening in a country house to get a dozen commonsense men to sit down and see if they could really agree on an understanding of that clause as printed in the Bill.
Throughout the whole of the first part of the Bill there are special traps and pitfalls for Scottish lawyers. English expressions are used which have no well-defined meaning in Scottish law, and which, if they are to be used in Scotland, ought to be interpreted or specifically applied. I suppose the Lord Advocate was too busy elsewhere to attend to this particular part of his work. I will give one or two examples. Under Clause 14, subsection 5, the gravest doubts exist whether the legal interpretation will have the effect of giving the benefit which I know is intended in the case of Scottish estates which are mortgaged. It is one of the great advantages held out to owners of land to induce them

1037
to accept the Bill that their incomes will be considered in respect of the mortgages which are upon their estates; but I am informed by more than one legal friend that as the Bill now stands, the gravest doubt exists whether any of your Lordships who own Scottish land would get the benefit of that clause if it were passed into law. Even where an attempt is made, as in Clause 42, to have special application to Scotland, it is doubtful whether Scottish circumstances are met Land is said not to include certain things, but my legal friends express the gravest doubt whether those definitions will work out satisfactorily. Such a conundrum as this arises. Does the upper flat of one of the large buildings now so common in our towns fall within the definition of land? Has the owner of an upper flat any right of property in the site value? Has the owner any right in the solum of the ground, or only a right of support for the building which is erected? Either way, injustice will be done. If the proprietor has no right in the solum of the ground, how can the valuation be applied to his case? He will get off too easily as compared with the owners of other parts of the building. In the other case surely there is a more obvious injustice, because the reason assigned for putting on this tax is that the increase of value, a part of which you want to take, comes not from the exertions of the owner, but from the presence of the community for what it is worth, and the presence of the community does as much to increase the value of one part of the house as that of another.
I have scores of similar instances, but I am not going through them. But there is one thing I want to point out. If your Lordships at your leisure will look at Clause 23, subsection (2), you will find a most curious provision. Undeveloped Land Duty is not laid on minerals, but under the subsection to which I have referred minerals are treated as if they had no value as minerals—these are the words of the Bill—
"unless the proprietor of the minerals in his return furnished to the Commissioners, specifies the nature of the minerals and his estimate of their capital value."
That is a suggestion that the proprietor should put a value on his minerals. Why should he do so? Is it for the purpose of assessing increment when the full value of his minerals is obtained? If so, it is
1038
possible that a future development of the Undeveloped Land Duty will come upon him unawares. After all the care which is said to have been devoted to it, the Bill is not free from difficulty, and I believe there would not be one, but a dozen amending Bills required, and some appeals to the Law Court, before a working scheme could be arranged.
But, my Lords, I desire to turn to the constitutional side of the question which is before us to-night. After all it is the more important. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, if I may humbly say so, that no one has challenged the abstract right of this House to take the course which the noble Marquess has proposed. But, my Lords, the point is two-fold. It is not only a matter of constitutional practice, but your Lordships must consider what will be the effect upon the usage which has grown up uninterrupted for a great many years. It is a commonplace amongst us that our Constitution is an unwritten one. No appeal to documents is conclusive. It is all a matter of custom, of practice, of precedent, and I am glad that it is so. But the precedents which are so freely quoted do not always fit the altered circumstances in which we now find ourselves. It is absolutely true that this House has never, in so many words, abandoned its control over finance, but it is also equally true that long usage has made the House of Commons supreme in two matters. It is admittedly supreme in its control of the Government of the day and in its control of financial matters. These two things go together and they cannot be separated. But if the other House is supreme in these matters there are limitations to its supremacy. It is supreme only for the time of its life. We may not like to admit that practically the other House is supreme in these matters. I am not saying that it is a perfect Constitution. I am not saying that it might not be improved if you were going in for a written Constitution, if such a thing were possible; but I am arguing from the facts as they appear to me and as I believe they, in essence and in truth, are admitted by every constitutional lawyer.
But it is said:—"Oh yes, the House of Commons is supreme, but the people are supreme over both Houses of Parliament, and the motion of the noble Marquess is in effect a referendum upon finance." I venture to say, and I say it with some confidence,

1039
that whatever may be the advantages and recommendations of a referendum it is impossible as a matter of practice in financial matters. Finance differs from all other legislation in this respect. If a Bill is rejected either by a vote of this House or by disagreement between the two Houses the status quo which existed before the Bill was proposed survives and remains. It is not so in finance. If you are to establish a system whereby this House or any other authority had the right of establishing a referendum as it is called—a reference to the people in matters of finance—you would spoil and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over the Government, and you would make, I venture to say, perhaps the most momentous change in the Constitution, as it has grown up, which has been made in the whole history of that Constitution. Take it how you like, if you pass this Resolution, if you make it a precedent—I care not with what safeguard you accompany it, whether you say it is only to be done on extreme occasions or by any other safeguard—you have made a change in the practice and in the Constitution which will prevent things going on as they have gone on up to the present time.
My Lords, if you win, the victory can at most be a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this House, which I believe every one of you honours and desires to serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win you are but beginning a conflict. Should I say beginning a conflict? You are re-making a conflict which has gone on from year to year and from century to century until the House of Commons has attained the position which I suggest to you it enjoys by usage at the present time. In an unwritten Constitution such as ours perhaps a contest of this kind at some time or another was inevitable. For some time—I think for some years—most careful observers have seen indications that it was coming. If I may venture to say so, I think in some respects the claims of both Houses of Parliament have been put too high by their respective admirers and their supporters. I am equally against usurpation by this House of the rights and privileges of the other House of Parliament. I agree that neither is supreme over the other, and if we are to work along in the future as we have done in the past there must be a
1040
very considerable amount of give and take and compromise.
I have noticed that three somewhat important changes have been growing in our public life for some years. Party organisation has been made more and more perfect. Part either of the advantages or the penalties of that perfection is that with more or less certainty it is crushing out the independence of those who are returned to sit and vote in the other House of Parliament. We have also had an increase of appeal to that most pernicious doctrine which is called the doctrine of the mandate. It is the pride of our Parliament that those who are sent, whether it be to this House or the other, are not delegates, but representatives. They are intended to act upon their mature judgment. Partly the growth of Party organisation, partly the pressure of this pernicious doctrine of mandate is changing that. It is making men more and more into delegates and less and less into representatives. If I may venture to speak of it with respect, the other House of Parliament has changed its procedure. What is known as the guillotine is more and more resorted to. I throw no stone. Both sides have been responsible for it. The Government of which I had the honour to be a member introduced it and increased it. If you take these three things together you will find that the tyranny of the Party majority, the difficulty of dissenting from the proposals of those who are really your leaders, is being greatly increased without that most odious charge which can be brought against a man in public life that he is a traitor to what he has promised or to those with whom he desires to act.
This is illustrated very well in the pages of a very able periodical which I sometimes read. It is very much in the interests of noble Lords opposite and their Party, and its present management is evidently high in the favour of the Government, because the editor was made a knight the other day. I refer to the periodical known as the British Weekly. Here is a most instructive sentence which appeared in the issue of the British Weekly last August:—
"It must surely be obvious that there would never be a sufficient number of voters enthusiastic enough about any one reform to carry it in the teeth of the formidable opposition which would make itself felt. When the people vote at an election they vote for a number of reforms, both social and political. The man who cares for one may be quite indifferent about another."

1041
What about the mandate when yon consider these arguments? In effect it comes to this, that you are to have no Second Chamber, you are to have no referendum, because it will interfere with the power of the party organisation to get the legislation out of Parliament whether by a system of log-rolling between different sections or otherwise, and that the particular question shall not be referred distinctly and straightly to the people. In other words, they are not to have the legislation that they want; they are to take what the party managers give them.
Then comes the question of what I called give and take. Can any one say, looking back four or five years, that there was a distinct mandate given to the present Government at the last General Election to pass everything which they have suggested to this House precisely in the form in which they have proposed it and in no other? After all, it must be a matter of conjecture whether this or that particular Bill is or is not in the form which the people would most desire. I venture to say that in this matter noble Lords opposite have tried us in the House very hard. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has a way of letting little bits of the Radical cat out of the Radical bag occasionally, told us plainly the difficulties of the Government in this matter some time ago. When a certain agriculture holdings Bill was taken up he accepted some Amendments in this House, but when it came back from the other place he told us in effect that, although he was in favour of them and thought them reasonable, and the Government were in favour of them, some of their supporters in the other House of Parliament were such terrible fellows that he could not get their consent, and we should have to give way. Having regard to the consideration I have put before you, there never was a time in the history of this country when, in my humble opinion, a Second Chamber, strong, trusted, and, as it must be in the nature of the case, somewhat Conservative, was more necessary than it is at present.
I turn to my own friends and say: Are you wise at this stage, in these circumstances, to make a new claim—for it is a new claim which you are making in the Resolution which is before the House to-night? I know quite well what many
1042
of you are thinking, that in matters of strategy attack is often the best defence. I know well when I look round the House and see the faces of people with the immense majority of whom I am proud to claim personal friendship—a friendship which I hope I shall never forfeit—that the immense majority of you are taking the course which you are proposing to take in what I believe to be a spirit of loyalty to the interests for which you stand, for no self-seeking or selfish purpose of your own. I venture to say, if you will allow me, that to some extent you have been put in a false position. You have been urged to take this course by those in the public Press and elsewhere who, in my opinion, are not the wisest friends of this House, and it is from an honourable feeling that you cannot betray those interests which I have mentioned that you will vote, as I am afraid you are going to vote, for the Resolution which is before you to-night. It is almost an insult for me even to say that I know from personal consultation, as well as from his own high character, that the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House has put down this Motion on the Paper from an absolute sense of duty, and because he thinks it the right and proper course. I am no out and out supporter of this Bill. I do not like its scheme of finance; I do not admire its contents, its form, or its history; I dislike still more the arguments of some of those who support it. In many respects it is not just, it is not fair as between man and man. For the first time our finance is being founded upon class hatred and class jealousy. I say also that its principles could not be permanent without, in my opinion, fatal injury to the best interests of the country. Nevertheless, I do not agree to the wisdom of stopping it in the way and by the method which is proposed.
I object to the tactics which combine the defence of a Second Chamber with taxation of some of the prime necessaries of food of the people of this country. I do not want to introduce more elements of division than it is necessary to do. The noble Viscount who spoke late last night said he would raise from thirteen to fifteen millions by a system of tariffs. The noble Lord who is to follow me is the presiding genius of the Tariff Reform League. If either of them will tell me how that amount of revenue can be raised by any of their systems, I will promise to give

1043
the most careful and earnest consideration to the matter. If they will add to their favour by explaining how they are to get that revenue, as some of them say, by taxing the foreigner, I shall be still more obliged.
While I say that I am open to argument, I am not going to have my course diverted either by abuse or ridicule, and still less by coercion. Not very long ago an anecdote was told as illustrating the position of that body to which I am proud to belong, the Unionist Free Traders, which so aptly describes the position in which I find myself to-night that I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I repeat it. The story goes that a negro evangelist who had not, perhaps, thoroughly mastered the principles he set himself to expound announced that in life there were only two paths, one leading to death and the other to damnation. One of his audience said, "In that case this nigger will have to take to the woods." My Lords, I propose to take to the woods.
Will you let me say as a last word that I think noble Lords on this side who are acting with a light heart and without, perhaps, fully studying the gravity of the decision which they are to give, but which I have endeavoured, however feebly, to put before them, are really walking into a trap which has been set for them by those who are not their friends. There never was, in my humble opinion, a time when it was more necessary to make a great effort to combine all those who are described as moderate men. Your action to-night will make that course difficult. You are going, if I may humbly say so to you, to offend the deeper conservative instincts of the country, and that feeling may be reflected at the polls. I think I understand, if I understand I honour, your opinion; I honour the action you take, believing it to be due to conscientious motives; you feel you must fulfil the expectations of your friends, that you will be thought traitors to them if you act otherwise, that you will be betraying them for the sake of saving your own skins, as I have heard it put, and no more odious charge can be brought against any body of men. As I have said, I understand, I even honour, your action. I would like to join you if I could, but my judgment is that it is a false step, alike in the interests of the country and of the House in which I have spent the whole of my political life.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I find myself unable to follow the masterly analysis of some of the worst faults of this Budget which has been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I shall be equally unable to follow him in his masterly inactivity when the Division bell rings. The House will have listened with interest to the review he gave of recent developments in both Houses and in the relations between those two Houses. The House will feel that there has been a difference in legislation of recent years, that there has been a consolidation of Parties, that there has been a tendency to make the power of the caucus more great, that there has been a tendency to make the power of the Government greater and the power of the House of Commons as such less. For those very reasons, and because the use of the closure attendant upon those reasons has changed the situation in the House of Commons, it is now more than ever important that this House should exist as a sound revising Chamber.
It is not, as I understand, a consideration of the details of the taxes imposed by this Budget that has induced the noble Marquess to put this motion upon the Paper. It is the collective effect of the whole system of taxation which is involved in the Bill. Practically the measure is all aimed at one class; it aims at what is vulgarly called "taxing the rich." That the rich should pay their share and more than their share is a principle which no man in this country denies. Indeed, the Secretary for Scotland showed that the working man would be paying an increased tax of 2d. on an income of 30 s. a week, whereas the man with an income of £5,000 a year would be paying 5d. in the £. That no doubt is proof that the rich man is to pay more under the present Budget. No defender of this Budget, so far as I am aware, has produced any proof to show that rich men are not now paying their full share of the taxation of this country. The taxation collected in the last ten years shows an increase of seventeen millions, and out of that increase direct taxation, which is practically taxation upon the wealthier part of the population, is represented by thirteen and a-half millions, or eighty per cent. During the last seventeen years the Income Tax, which is practically paid in its entirety by the wealthier classes, has increased from 6d. on unearned incomes to 1s. 2d. Is not this proof that the increased taxation which

1045
has been imposed for the necessities of the State within recent years has been borne in full proportion by the richer classes? Not one syllable of proof has been brought forward by supporters of the Budget to show that the rich do not pay.
Even if what are known as the rich are to pay under this Budget an increased share of taxation, the poor man does not escape taxation under this so-called "poor man's Budget." His whisky and tobacco are taxed, and his necessity of employment is more severely taxed than anything else in the Budget. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack admitted—I believe it is the first time that any defender of the Budget has admitted it—that this tax on capital must tend to produce unemployment. But the Budget has been placed before us a "poor man's Budget." But these taxes on capital, it is now admitted, are going to help to tax the poor man's necessity—namely, employment. Every Party in the State admits that the question of unemployment is one that needs remedying in one shape or another. No one can doubt that unemployment will be aggravated by the export of capital, so that neither the rich nor the poor escape the financial insecurity caused by the Government's proposals. Upon both of them falls the financial insecurity caused by the lack of credit which is inspired by these proposals, and the poor feel it more because the rich man, after all, has the power to invest his capital abroad, whereas the workman, whose capital lies in his labour, has a greater difficulty in finding an opening for it abroad. In the interests of both classes we should maintain as great a reserve of capital as possible for the time of stress and struggle. But with Consols down to eighty-two, the Income Tax standing at an admittedly extremely high figure—a higher figure than the Prime Minister thought too high two years ago—and a great raid being made on the Sinking Fund, likely to extend in the future, the possible reserve of taxation is already heavily drawn upon. In what position, therefore, would the rich and the poor be, in the event of a crisis, in finding the money necessary to finance the State?
The defence of the Budget is, after all, that the necessary money must be got. Why is it necessary? There are other sources of taxation open. Other countries have for years found large sums of money
1046
from the taxation of imports. Countries with a far smaller volume of imports than we have raise several millions a year. Germany obtains £7,000,000 a year from import duties on manufactured goods, and the United States obtain £38,000,000 from import duties on manufactured goods. It is argued that this state of things would be impossible here. All sorts of arguments are used, and it is said that the cost of collecting the duties on imports into this country would be from twenty-five to thirty per cent. I do not know why. Why should that be so when the cost of collection in Germany is a little over two per cent. and in the United States a little over three per cent.? We are at this moment collecting in Customs duties £31,000,000 every year. We already have in existence at every port in this country Customs' officers whose duty it is to watch every ship for the smallest evasion of our Customs laws. I submit that a small extension of the Customs staff already engaged would enable the authorities to undertake the additional work.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham stated, in the course of the debate, that it would be impossible to bring such a tariff into operation under three years; but not so very long ago a Unionist Government imposed a duty upon corn—a new import duty—which was imposed at once, the revenue from which in the first year was over two millions. The point is that that duty was imposed at once without any difficulty whatever. I have made a study of the literature issued by the Cobden Club and of other publications of the Free Trade party. This literature as well as the speeches and letters of distinguished Free Traders argue that it is impossible to raise more than an infinitesimal sum by the imposition of import duties. But when it was in the interest of Free Traders a few years ago to show that every penny got by import duties was going to be a burden on the trade of the country, they were anxious to show that a large sum could be raised by import duties, and the Cobden Club not so many years ago proved conclusively that we could raise seventeen millions by means of Tariff Reform, while a member of this House who is a great financial authority—Lord Eversley—made a calculation about the same time pointing out that under Tariff Reform you might raise twenty millions a year for the necessities of the nation. It may be to the advantage of

1047
Free Traders now, when the question of revenue is to the front, to try and show that the sums obtainable would be small, but the amounts which I have quoted—they are not my estimates and I do not endorse them—show that in the opinion of men who have made a careful study of the question it is possible and practicable to raise large sums from the imposition of import duties; and as other countries do tax us, so it is reasonable that we should endeavour to tax the foreigner.
Noble Lords opposite laugh as a rule when the question of taxing the foreigner is mentioned, and the notion that we can tax the foreigner is ridiculed as uneconomic and is looked upon as nothing more nor less, in the words of Mr. Churchill, than "a gull." But no less an economic authority than John Stuart Mill has written:—
"A country cannot be exported to renounce the power of taxing foreigners nnless foreigners will practice the same forbearance."
So that the principle is admitted to be possible. There are no doubt many who believe that it is impossible for us to raise this money; there are also a number who, while admitting that it is possible under Tariff Reform to raise a large sum of money for the needs of the State, yet find so many objections to the method of raising this taxation that they are unable to support it. I venture to say that in the proposals which His Majesty's Government have laid before us in the present Budget practically every one of the objections which can be urged against Tariff Reform will be found to exist in an aggravated form. It has been alleged, for example, that Tariff Reform involves the extended taxation of food; but at this present moment this country raises more per head in taxation on ordinary articles of consumption—food, drink, and tobacco—than any other country in the world. It raises twice as much as Germany, nearly twice as much as the United States of America per head of population, and this burden on the ordinary articles of consumption, already great, is increased by the burdens thrown upon them by the present Budget. I do not pretend that drink and tobacco are necessities of life; but that they are ordinary articles of consumption nobody will deny, and the burden upon them is increased and aggravated by a Budget which is intended to be opposed to a system which it is
1048
alleged would place burdens on food and ordinary articles of consumption. It is said that under a system of moderate duties you would have to tax raw material, and notwithstanding all the denials of Tariff Reformers, that statement is persisted in.
But, my Lords, under the Budget, by the duties on minerals you are proposing to cast a burden on raw material which everybody is agreed must ultimately fall upon coal, the most necessary of all raw materials for our industries. In placing these duties upon land, even though the burden cast immediately upon agricultural land may not be great, you are placing a duty upon the most necessary of all raw materials, Not only in the case of agricultural land, but in the case of undeveloped land you are placing a duty which will increase the cost to those who are anxious to develop land for industrial purposes. I have had put before me the case of a large landowner, not a member of your Lordships' House, but a business Company, the Trafford Park Estate. That Company acquired a large area of land for something over £900,000, and spent a quarter of a million in developing it as a purely industrial speculation on the soundest possible lines, and in the course of the debate in another place it was undertaken that that expenditure made by this Company upon the development of this property should be a development which would result in their not being charged increment duty. But in the Budget as you find it now, the provisions and exemptions made ostensibly to benefit that company have, as a matter of fact, not benefited them in the very least, because the exemption is only granted to those who made roads and sewers, and the expenditure by this company has been made on railway sidings and other similar undertakings. I mention the details of this undertaking to show that some of these land taxes in their natural incidence are not burdens on undeveloped land, but upon the development of land, and as such are a tax upon one of the most necessary raw materials of this country.
I would ask those who think that under a system of tariffs we should be invaded by a mass of corruption which it is alleged exists in the administration of Tariff Reform countries, to remember the danger of which this is one example indulged in that is involved by the present Government creating literally hundreds of new posts

1049
entirely at the discretion of a Minister temporarily in charge of an Office. I say not a word about the Ministers who have to make these appointments at the present moment under the Development Bill and the Labour Exchanges Bill and the various Agricultural Acts which this Government have passed; but I do say that it has been one of the greatest glories of this country that they have established their Civil Service by means of a competitive examination system, which is the best of all possible systems, and I deprecate the system which has grown up of late years of creating appointments which are entirely at the discretion of Ministers temporarily in charge of Departments. In this Budget there was included a proposal to take the whole of the Old Sinking Fund, and to apply that for different purposes at the disposal of the Government of the day. I think we all see that the tendency under the present Government has been, now that the control of the House of Commons is getting so much less than it was over the Government of the country, to create what was after all an oligarchical bureaucracy in the hands of different Departments, and to place more and more at their disposal the various appointments and the expenditure of national funds. That is a system which seems to me to tend more and more dangerously towards the corrupting of our political life than any system of Tariff Reform possibly could do. If it is alleged that Trusts are a dangerous feature behind Tariffs, I say that under your present system of driving capital abroad in increasing quantities day by day, you are perhaps not creating Trusts in your own country, but you are feeding plentifully foreign Trusts who have your own markets to exploit with the products of your own finances, and under your system you are encouraging perhaps not Trusts in this country, which might be benefiting perhaps in some ways England, but you are encouraging the development of Trusts in other countries which only use the British market to prey in.
I have already remarked that unemployment is definitely created and encouraged by this Budget. In that connection I remember a remark which was used by Mr. Gladstone, when he said that you ought, in considering your system of taxation, to operate on those articles which provide the maximum of employment for the people of the country. The Government
1050
by this Budget is operating heavily upon capital, which is precisely that article which does provide and could provide employment for the people of this country if only it was allowed and encouraged to be invested in the development of home industries. So, my Lords, under this Budget, which is paraded as a Poor Man's Budget, and the antithesis of Tariff Reform, and which does not contain the evils which it is alleged Tariff Reform contains, there are in reality more evils than there possibly could be under any system of Tariff Reform. On the staple articles of consumption you are imposing heavy burdens, and on the raw material of industry. In the memory of Cobden you are placing burdens day by day on production which his reforms were meant to lessen, and in the memory of Gladstone you are operating on those very articles which tend to produce the maximum of unemployment in this country. It may be, my Lords, that Tariff Reform is not the only alternative to this Budget, but I am quite certain it is the only practical alternative; and I am quite certain that it is the only alternative that you have the least chance of carrying. In this respect, many of the members of your Lordships' House are in close contact with the opinion of the people of the country, and I am sure you will be certain that it is the only alternative that has the least chance, and the only one which they will ever consider.
My Lords, I do not minimise the seriousness of the step which this House will take if it votes and carries the Amendment of the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House, but this I am certain that if this House were to take the advice given us by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, we should then justly earn the opprobrium of being regarded as a party House. It may possibly be in the interests of the Conservative Party to allow this Budget to pass because it may be that within a short time, if the Budget were in operation, the Government responsible for it would be hurled from office as the noble Earl more than once suggested that they would. But, my Lords, this House will not consider whether it is to the advantage of Party, or to the possible advantage of a Party in determining what its proper course of action should be. If we were an annex of the Carlton Club, we might consider the advantages derived from the passing or non-passing of the

1051
Budget, but your Lordships' House considers no question of Party advantage, and I agree that your Lordships would be right in saying that you would give the authority which alone can decide this matter the opportunity of deciding for themselves in regard to it. Notwithstanding what noble Lords opposite have said and may say, this issue was not created by your Lordships' House. It was created by no section of the State, except by the Government in power, who only a year ago announced that at the next election the dominant issue was going to be the House of Lords, thus carrying out the various announcements made by the former Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. When the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, made his eloquent speech at Glasgow, it was known to him, as well as to everybody else, that the present Prime Minister had declared that the dominant issue at the next election was to be the House of Lords. If there be an issue, therefore, it is not the seeking of this House, but of the present Government who have taken this means of forcing it to a conclusion.
I am but a young member of your Lordships' House, and I have the greatest hesitation in saying one word upon the constitutional principle, or on the constitutional power of the House, but there is no Member who values his seat here more than I do, or who would more willingly retain his privileges in this House than I would. But I would not value this seat, I would not care for its privileges if I did not feel that the House was going to act up to its duty as a Second Chamber in this matter, because of the scarcely veiled threats of the other side, even if it were certain that it was going to lose its power for ever. I remember the late Lord Goschen saying in this House that to propose a change in the tariffs was to gamble with the food of the people. But my Lords, this Government is gambling with their very existence. Upon the financial naval and military stability absolutely depends the existence of this Island Power, and it is upon that that this Government is gambling. It is for us, therefore, by passing the Resolution which the noble Marquess has moved to say that we trust the people to vote for themselves and that they must trust us with the power which is ours as a Second Chamber, to see that it is used for the
1052
benefit of the nation, and that on a chance majority of four years ago we cannot surrender the people to the tyranny of modern Liberal bureaucracy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, we always listen with the greatest interest and attention to the noble Viscount who has just spoken. He stands at the head of a very powerful political body in this country in whose programme and movements we are, of course, very much interested, and we always listen to the noble Viscount in the hope that we may learn something of what the policy of the Tariff Reform League may be. I must say, however, that at the end of his speech we are not much wiser than we were before. The noble Viscount quoted a chance remark of a great Free Trader on the question of taxing the foreigner, but he carefully refrained from telling us how it was to be done. That is a question, my Lords, which has got to be discussed, and which has got to be discussed openly, and if the noble Viscount and those who think with him wish to obtain the following of the country, the sooner they tell us, in view of the election that is at hand, and the clearer they make it to us how this is to be done the better chances they will have of success.
Then the noble Viscount went on to discuss not the question of the Budget itself but the question that has arisen over the action which your Lordships are taking, and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said, that is for the moment the more important question of the two. My Lords, this Budget will now go to the arbitrament of the country, and the justice or the injustice of the taxes which it imposes will be discussed by the people who are going to pay them. But there is one question, and it is a very great and important one indeed, which has not yet been fully put in all its bearings before the country. I too, like Lord Ridley, am a very young Member, an even younger member of your Lordships' House than he, and I am grateful, as an evitable fate has made me a member of this House, that I should have been lucky enough to become a member of it at a period, what one may call a culminating period perhaps, but certainly a critical period, and one which can only be described as an era of great change in the position which

1053
this House occupies in the political machinery of the country.
The remark has often been passed by Liberals, and the question has come up from time to time during many years, that something must be done in order to deal with the House of Lords. Of recent years that cry has become more and more insistent. The reason of it is not very far to find. You have only to look at the list of the measures which have been sent up to this House by Conservative Governments and by Liberal Governments to see the reason why this cry is becoming more insistent. It is becoming more insistent, my Lords, and the reason is in the fact that every successive Liberal Administration find that a larger proportion of their Bills are rejected and killed by this House. I was going through the list to-day. During the three Liberal Parliaments which preceded the present one eleven Liberal Bills were killed by your Lordships' House. During the four years of this Parliament, seven Liberal Bills have been killed by your Lordships' House, or to be more accurate, will have been killed by next Tuesday night. Of those seven Bills, three of them—the Education Bill, the Licensing Bill of last year, and this present Finance Bill—represent the main work of three out of our four sessions of Parliament, and were the three biggest Bills which this Government has been responsible for. When you realise that in the period covered by the last four Liberal Parliaments not one single Conservative measure of any kind has been rejected by this House, you are brought face to face with the fact that there has been a frank abandonment by the House of Lords of its ancient position as a revising Chamber, and that it now stands in the political arena as a competing body with the House of Commons on Party lines.
My Lords, how does that work? The noble Marquess, rd Salisbury, said last night that when this House differs from the House of Commons on any measure that the House of Commons sends up to it, that measure should be submitted to the considered judgment of those who are our masters. That is a very sound maxim, my Lords, but if you are to follow that it would mean that the General Election before us now would have been the third General Election since this Parliament came into power four years ago, and that under a system of that kind you are going to have Septennial Parliaments for the Conservative
1054
Party and Annual Parliaments for the Liberal Party. Lord Onslow's statement last night that this country will not stand a Single Chamber Legislation was cheered by noble Lords opposite, but I do not know whether noble Lords opposite realise that at this moment we are governed by the most insidious form of Single Chamber Legislature. When the Conservative Party are in power there is very little of the House of Lords and when the Liberal Party are in power there is very little of the House of Commons. What is the result of this? The result seems to me to be as clear and as certain as that night follows day, that when any Liberal Prime Minister takes office he will have to ensure that he has not merely, as heretofore, a majority in the House of Commons, but that he must have a majority in both Houses of Parliament, or, at any rate, that the present power of the House of Lords, acting as it does on Party lines, must be so curtailed that the work of Parliament can go forward. My Lords, when you consider the methods by which this, the final act in a long stage of acts, has been reached, I think it shows that the position as it stands at the present moment is an impossible one.
Let us look at the history of finance as it has been carried on during this present year. Noble Lords opposite connected themselves with the demand for a very great increase of expenditure at the beginning of this year. When preparations were made for that expenditure, when the sums which Parliament would have to vote in due course were marshalled together, and when they were presented to Parliament ear-marked for separate purposes, as they are in the Appropriation Act—when that Bill came up to your Lordships' House your Lordships were perfectly aware of the methods which were proposed for raising the money which was required by the Appropriation Act—I think that under those circumstances, knowing the means by which that money was to be found, it would have been better, had your Lordships decided to stop the ordinary financial working of Parliament by dealing with the Appropriation Bill. But you allowed the Appropriation Bill to pass and thereby pledged the Government to the expenditure of money which you now refuse to allow them to find. What was done in the case of the Appropriation Act was done in an even more aggravated

1055
form in the case of the Development Bill, because the Development Bill, which is now an Act, depends for the money which is to be spent under it entirely upon the Finance Bill which is before your Lordships' House at the present time. Those two Bills have been passed and that money is therefore pledged, and now your Lordships step in and veto the finding of this money. Had this House wished to protest against and to stop the present financial methods which have been followed by this Government; had they wished to arrest them because they thought it a matter of some danger to the country, surely they could have taken earlier steps and left the issue a good deal simpler and clearer than it is at the present moment.
When one considers all the obvious and inevitable consequences of the attitude which the House of Lords has taken up on the most important political questions of the day, and when on the top of that one considers the way in which the House has conducted this last stage with regard to the finance of the country, it is not for me to ask your Lordships to pause and consider the seriousness of it. And for this reason: because I think I should be insulting your Lordships if I assumed that your Lordships must yourselves have realised clearly that this step which you are going to take at the end of this debate is just as much an incentive to revolution as was, for instance, the levying of ship money. I would like to put to you the financial position created by the killing of the Budget as it appears to one who represents in this House one of the great spending departments of the State. An absolutely impossible situation is created thereby from the point of view of conducting the Governmental administration in this country, and I must say that the position created by your Lordships' action seems to me to preclude, when we do come to a settlement, the setting of it again on existing lines. The Army Estimates were passed at the beginning of last April but they represented the work of the War Office and of the Treasury dating back very many months previous to that. It was about a year ago that those Estimates were settled and that the policy of the War Office for the coming year was thrashed out, item by item, and was finally decided upon. It was at that time that the actual sum which was to be spent was fixed. My Lords, at the beginning of the
1056
financial year, when the House of Commons passed its financial resolutions, the War Office began spending that money which was voted in the Estimates, and the Exchequer began to collect it by means of the Budget resolutions. It is only on the certainty that those resolutions have hitherto provided that the money you are spending on your great services, the money agreed to in the Estimates passed in the Autumn previous to the year in which the Budget is introduced, will be raised, that the policy of the great Government Departments can be settled. At the present day probably something like half, or possibly more than half, the money that was voted in the Army Estimates has been already spent, and if any uncertainty arises with regard to the finding of the money, as uncertainty is bound to rise in view of the attitude of your Lordships, not only will that uncertainty paralize the whole of the work of the great Departments, but will make it impossible for any man in charge of a Department to carry it on. Suppose the Government were to refuse to go to the country, what position will your Lordships find yourselves in then? This House has rendered the action of the House of Commons in financial affairs perfectly futile.
The House of Commons is now helpless. On the other hand what can the House of Lords do? It seems to me that you are forced into this position if you are going to allow this House to absolutely nullify the work of the House of Commons in matters of finance, that the obvious and the only corollary to that proposal is that you should allow this House to make use of some part at any rate of those powers of which it has deprived the House of Commons. By this breach of the custom of the Constitution you find yourselves face to face with what is frankly and openly an illegal and an unconstitutional position, and the logical conclusion is that it ought, if it is possible, to itself initiate a money Bill. That is the position your Lordships are in at the present time. I quite agree, as regards the War Office, that means will have to be found for legalising the collecting of the money that has already been spent but I repeat unless you have a certainty that the machinery which has always worked so well and which has now in these matters been brought down to a very fine point of organisation, is not to be interfered with, you will destroy all

1057
confidence in those Government offices where the money is spent and all possibility of their working out and practising anything like a continuous or an economical policy.
My Lords, in all this debate I have felt that the most impressive of many impressive speeches and which but for one or two omissions in it, has been the most powerful indictment against this Budget, was the brilliant speech of Lord Revelstoke on the first day of this debate. I know Lord Revelstoke said that he only appreached this question from the point of view of the City and the attitude that the City took towards it. I hope, my Lords, that if what from my point of view struck me as omissions were simply omissions because he did not want to cover the ground too widely, that the noble Lord will put me right. The City, my Lords, represents a part, and a most important part, of the great fabric which we call British commerce. It is, if one may so express it, one end of that great machine. It is the end at which all problems tend to become to a certain extent de-humanised. Those problems which at the other end of the machine are problems of flesh and blood, at his end of the machine are problems of gold and silver. A great many of the questions which effect what I call the other end of the machine, which are to a great extent social questions and which have a very important bearing on the working of the other end, are questions which cannot enter into a place like the City, and I think one is always inclined to ask oneself whether the City does or does not take an interest in what you may broadly call social problems, and how far they allow things of that kind to enter their calculations.
I do not think I misconstrue what the noble Lord stated when I say his opinion was that the feeling in the City was that they would like to go back to the days before the Government took office. That was the point of view from which he looked at it as being far preferable to the position in which it is at the present day. If that is so, if the City thinks that this country, as it was in the days immediately preceding the advent of this Government, was in a safe condition and one suitable for the development of industry and enterprise, then, my Lords, all one can say is that the City does not consider social problems.
1058
Because in so far as you were building up any great enterprise in those days in this country which involved the expenditure of large sums of money, you were raising an edifice on a base in which there were fissures, and those fissures were getting a little bit wider every day. The fissures I refer to, that we were faced with then, were a decreasing birth-rate, a deteriorating national physique, a growing state of discontent due to the fact that little or nothing was being done for unemployment in the way of organising the labour market, that great hardships were being borne in consequence, and that there was nothing in front of the workers of this country beyond a penniless and hopeless old age. Further than that, my Lords, no social reformer can get away from the fact that there was also growing and becoming more serious every day the effects of what we regard as the great vested monopolies, the Land and the Liquor trade. There is another thing that I thought the City would have taken great notice of because I think it is a thing which affects them most of all, and that is that in the ten years preceding the year 1905 there was probably the greatest growth of Socialism that this country has ever seen simply due to the fact, in my opinion, that there existed those great growing evils amongst us, and that nothing was being done to cope with them.
My Lords, that was the position at that time. What was it due to? I believe it was due to totally insufficient attempts having been made to try and combat, by every scientific means possible, the hopelessly unnatural conditions which have existed in this country for over 100 years, ever since the date of what is called the industrial revolution, and that those evils, the crowding into towns, and all the other evils that we know of, were allowed to grow unchecked and were coming so rapidly to a head and had reached so great a size that nothing would meet them. And nothing will meet them now, because after all they by no means are reformed yet, except the application of a surgeon's knife; and there is no question that a great deal of difficult work and a great deal of social upheaval and a certain amount of uneasiness and of unrest must be the result of the operation. My Lords, I think that is, putting it in as few sentences as one can, the position broadly with regard to what I may call social

1059
reform at the present day. One could not help feeling all through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Revelstoke—I hope I am not misconstruing him in any way—that although these social conditions were plain for everybody to see, this great dehumanised money-making machine asking for its toll of money or mead of human labour, and all those things which go to make up trade, was regardless of and even prepared to thwart, because that is the position it occupies at the present day, social reform if social reform tends to decrease those supplies which it requires.
It seems to me if that is the true attitude of the City, that it is a thing which is capable of doing infinite harm; and above all it is a machine which will grind out a far larger number of Socialists than anything this Government can do. My Lords, I do not believe that is the position of the City at all in this matter. One knows it is not, and therefore one feels this, that when the City realises that this Government are not Socialists but are Social Reformers who are trying to wipe off some of the arrears of the last 100 years in the way of reform which previous Governments have left behind them—I hope that there will be, and I think one ought to feel a certain amount of confidence in feeling that there will be, a revival of confidence on the part of the City and that they will realise that after all what we are striving for is to make that base upon which all their interests, all the labours and the industry which they create depends, as sound as it possibly can be made. Surely my Lords, that is a thing, when it is realised, as I think it will be realised very shortly, towards which the City as well as every other part of the community will co-operate and help. The noble Lord said that a great deal of the money which is being invested by the City was being invested abroad. I do not know how far people who have money to invest take it to the City and insist on the City investing it for them in exactly what they themselves want, or how far they are prepared to take the advice of the City as to how it should be invested. It is pretty certain that both things happen and that the general attitude of the City is responsible to a great extent for a percentage—I cannot say more than that because I have not the remotest idea of what the percentage is, of how that money is invested. We all know that the knowledge, acumen, and foresight of the City in
1060
all matters connected with its work is very great; and when you say that, you give it credit for a knowledge which covers a very large field. But, I do not think it covers everything in a world where no one is infallible, and there undoubtedly are a number of things which do not come within the purview of the City. I do not think they are anymore infallible than the rest of mankind, and one of the things on which I would question their infallibility is in their inability to conjecture the outcome of what this extraordinarily complicated and difficult political situation is going to be, because when the noble Lord tells us the view of the City on the political situation, that political situation being the speeches of the members of His Majesty's Government they might be right or they may be wrong, but I do not suppose they are any more right or any more wrong than the rest of us.
My experience of these things is very limited but I know of one instance, which although quite outside the present case is perhaps on all fours with it, of how far the City was right or wrong in forming an opinion. It is with regard to the South African war. In those days I was a journalist and used to follow those things more closely than I do now, and I can only say that the information one got in the City was very much less trustworthy than that which came from any other source. So much so that it became a common saying if you wanted to know what was not going on in South Africa you must go and ask the City. Following up this, I was looking up old files of The Times the other day and I saw that on the eve of Colenso Consols were rushing up because the City thought that Ladysmith was relieved, and the same thing happened—Consols were going up—on the night when our troops were pouring down the sides of Spion Kop and the Boers on the summit of it. Again, when the day came that the Boers decided to accept peace at Vereeniging, Consols were two points lower than they were on the day before. To talk about the City packing up its stocks and shares and bonds and sending them abroad as ballast, because they have read into some sentence of a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a kind of savage Socialism, which does not exist in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's breast, recalls, I must say, to a certain extent the not very pleasing spectacle of the City rejoicing on the eve of British defeats, and depressing Consols on the eve of a great British victory.

1061
Now my Lords, I return for one moment to the subject on which I began my speech, and particularly with regard to the question which is before your Lordships' House. The policy which has been followed by the Opposition in this House has been a perfectly plain one. I do not think its best friend could call it a democratic one; and therefore, my Lords, when we suddenly see that the opinion of the country is going to betaken on this question, it is at any rate a change from what the steady trend of policy, about which I spoke earlier in my speech, has been. My Lords, what is the question that is going to be pat before the country next January? The question is not going to be whether we do or whether we do not want to raise an extra seventeen millions in taxation. That is a point which has been settled. Whichever Party comes in, we are committed to the expenditure of money. The question which is going to be asked the country at the next election is, whether we wish to raise it by Free Trade methods, as exemplified in the present Budget, or by that alternative method which the noble Marquess mentioned in his speech, that is to say the method of Tariff Reform? My Lords, the importance of the step which is being taken in order to be in a position to place this matter before the country we are all agreed upon. Therefore, I should have thought that the obvious corollary of that is that the country should be put in a position in which they really can form a judgment on this question; and there is only one way in which a judgment on this question can be arrived at, that is by putting the two alternatives boldly before them.
The noble Marquess suggested the other night that my noble friend the Leader of the House might have in his box a complete scheme for dealing with this perfectly unprecedented position which has arisen. Is it too much to suggest that the noble Marquess might have in his box a document that he has had seven years to prepare, that is to say a Tariff Reform Budget? I do not wish to ask an impossibility, and I would not ask the opposite Party to produce the Budget which it proposes to bring in if it is returned to office; but I think the country has a right to demand to know something of the broad line of the alternative you are going to ask them to vote upon. Is food going to be taxed or not? We have been told that
1062
food is not going to be taxed and that the cost of living is not going to be increased, but that imported manufactures are going to be taxed for the purposes of revenue and for improving the conditions of employment in this country. My Lords, I do say this, when you have taken up the position you have taken up at the present time, when you say you are prepared to go the length that you are going, when you say you are prepared to overthrow the fabric of the Constitution in order that you may obtain the judgment of the people, it is cant if you do all that and say all that, and at the same time prevent the people from having that information without which it is impossible for them to form a judgment.
You cannot get away from the fact, my Lords, that you are at one and the same moment upsetting the existing order of things on the one hand and holding back the information from the country so as to prevent them from forming a fair and a just judgment of the position, on the other. I admit, my Lords, that the tactical advantages of the situation lie with you. Our position is exposed, and you do not have to expose a single gun on your position. But, my Lords, I do not think the country cares for that, and I believe that unless you are prepared to give the country the opportunity of forming a judgment in the only way in which it can be done, by laying your alternative proposals before them, the country will agree with us in thinking that the democratic, attitude you have taken up with regard to this matter of refusing to pass the Finance Bill until the country has had an opportunity of pronouncing judgment upon it first, is not a genuine one.
LORD FABER: My Lords, after a strenuous fight lasting for over six months a difficult and complicated Budget has been produced by the other House. That Budget, of course, has been radically altered since it was first introduced into the House of Commons, and to my mind the most important clause in the whole of the Budget, I mean the clause annexing the Sinking Fund and taking it for development purposes, has been entirely dropped. We have had also the Licensing Clauses and the Land Clauses tacked on to this Budget. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to whose speeches we always listen with so much respect and with so much interest

1063
said the other night that he thought the Licensing Clauses had not been tacked on to the Budget. With your Lordships' permission I should just like for one moment to argue that question from a commonsense point of view and not from a political point of view, because I feel that they are not always the same. What are the facts with regard to the Licensing Clauses?
It will be in your Lordships' memory that last year a Licensing Bill was brought in in the House of Commons; it was passed there by a large majority; it was sent up to your Lordships' House and it was rejected by your Lordships by an equally large majority. After it had been rejected we began to hear for the first time threats and mutterings uttered by people in high places in the Liberal Party that the last state of the Licensing Bill would be worse than the first; and then suddenly, for some reason or other, the Liberals seemed to have discovered that those great Licensing Clauses, which surely were important enough to be included in a Bill by themselves, were not important enough for a separate Bill, but should be added to the next Budget. What is the common-sense of the question? Is it not this, that the House of Commons thought with their big majority of 300 that they would be able after being defeated on the Licensing Bill in a straight fight, to tack these clauses on to the Finance Bill and to press them through your Lordship's House. That is why I think, looking at it from a common-sense point of view we are entitled to say that the Licensing Clauses at any rate were tacked on to the Budget.
Now, the Commons have thought it reasonable to say to your Lordships' House: "Here is this Budget Bill, pass it unaltered, or take the consequences." So far as human actions are concerned, no man can tell what the consequences may be. The consequences of any action men may take are in the lap of the gods. For my own part, having to choose, as I have to choose, between this Budget and the rejection of the Budget I unhesitatingly say that I am in favour of the rejection of the Budget, and I must take the consequences of that action. The country no doubt will be flooded with a considerable deal of violent eloquence. We cannot wonder at that because, after all, the leaders of the Liberal Party have indulged in violent invective, and in those circumstances Under-
1064
Secretaries of course follow Secretaries of State, and those who are anxious to get into Parliament and those who are in Parliament follow in the wake of the Under-Secretaries. I have two quotations here which I think will interest the House if the House is good enough to allow me to read them. One of them will certainly make the House laugh and give us an opportunity of congratulating the Liberal Party on what is evidently a very valuable recruit. It was William Pitt who said "Where men complain without cause, they complain without temper." The first quotation I want to read to your Lordships is one from an address issued by Mr. Masterman, an Under-Secretary of State, to his constituents. He says—
"The difficulty all through in carrying out the will of the people expressed at the last election has been the insolent opposition of the House of Lords to all reform."
The next quotation is a very laughable one, and funnily enough was made in a speech addressed to a meeting of ladies in one of the Yorkshire constituencies. I will not mention the names, although I have them before me if necessary.
"They would fight and beat the House of Lords. They would go to the gilded Chamber and ram the Budget down the Lords' gilded throats even if it gave them pain and produced a cataclysm in their gilded shirt fronts."
I congratulate the opposite party upon possessing a gentleman who is evidently a very valuable recruit, in Yorkshire at any rate. Let us look at the tendency of Radical finance in the past so that we may, if possible, arrive at what the minds of their leaders may be in the future with regard to finance. I noticed that in 1906 they took a shilling off coal, which realised two and a half millions sterling. In 1906 they took a penny off tea, which represented one million and a quarter sterling, and in 1908 they did what I think was a very extraordinary thing from a financial point of view—they took off half the sugar duty, which amounted to no less than three millions. This was extraordinary, because they were face to face with this position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to find eight millions for Old Age Pensions, three millions for Dreadnoughts, and four millions for what I call fancy legislation, such as the Development Fund, money for roads, and land valuation. So that they had to find altogether fifteen millions of money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer began by taking three millions off the sugar tax. I

1065
think that was bad finance, and showed a desire to make it as difficult as possible in the future to find the money that was necessary to carry on the business of the nation. To my mind there would have been no difficulty, if only ordinary prudence had been exercised, but there seems to have been a desire to make vast changes all at once. I cannot help feeling that in the history of a nation, for after all the life of a nation is long, if you have to make large changes the proper policy is to spread them over a series of years. If you make them all at once, it will lead to inevitable unrest, especially in regard to finance. The next point I desire to refer to is with regard to land taxation. I allude to it because I think, judging by a quotation I am going to read to you from a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on August the 18th last, the right hon. gentleman has departed from the ways of previous great masters of finance, who, in the past, first sat down to calculate what the financial needs of the nation would be during the coming year, and then tried to find a way of meeting those needs, each separate year standing on its own basis.
What Mr. Lloyd George said on August 18 was as follows:—
"We have budgeted as regards the Land Tax for £675,000 this year. We are going to have the money. Next year I venture to say it will be double that amount, and it will grow from year to year until it will amount to millions a year."
So you see he went altogether outside the boundary of one year, and seemed to have in his mind millions and millions of money which would come to him out of land in years to come. So far as I understand the position of land during late years it is very bad policy and very bad finance to say that you are going to get millions and millions of money out of land whether it is agricultural land or urban land, because I verily believe that if any man in either of these Houses of Parliament thirty years ago had invested his money in either agricultural or in urban land, and had left it until this day, he would have done quite as well by investing his money in Consols. Now we come to a very interesting tax indeed, and it is interesting because it can be applied in such novel ways—the increment duty on site values. It will be in your Lordships' minds that this is a very one-sided proposal, because the valuation of sites is to be made every five years,
1066
and if the value has gone up in the meantime the Government are going to get twenty per cent. of the increase, whereas if the value has fallen the individual owner has to find the money himself. That seems to be grossly unfair. As has been said, why should land alone be singled out for this increment tax? That is where the gravity of this policy comes in, and the policy of extending this increment duty to what I should call the general business affairs of life has already been mooted, because on the 24th of September last no less a person than the Home Secretary said this—it is very interesting and may be very far reaching—
"I do not see at all why at some future time when more money is wanted the principle of the unearned increment should not be applied to other forms of property as well as property in land."
Now, does the country realise the gravity of a statement of that sort? Let us take one or two ordinary transactions in life. A stockbroker goes into the Stock Market, and buys £100 Consols at the price of eighty-five. He waits until Consols go up, and when the next valuation comes round they may be at ninety-five. He has to pay, under this new Budget, twenty per cent. of that increase to the Government. If on the other hand, however, they fall to seventy-five, the stockbroker has to bear the loss himself. Take another case. A man goes into the Wheat Market, and buys wheat at 40 s. a quarter. Wheat goes up to, say, 45 s., and the buyer would have to pay part of that increase to the Government, but if it falls to 35 s., he has to bear the loss himself. It is obvious that no dealings of that sort would be undertaken if the increment duty is placed on anything but land. A trader is willing enough in the ordinary course of trade to say "I will take an even chance if it goes up or down," but he is not willing to play with loaded dice. If you apply the increment principle to the business affairs of everyday life, I say without hesitation that it will mean ruin to the business of this country.
Then, my Lords, we come to what I can only describe as these amazing increases in the liquor licences. No trade could bear such increases as we have in this Budget. Messrs. Buxton and Whitbread wrote to The Times to say that their increases in taxes under this Budget would mean that they would have to pay no less

1067
than £104,000. It has been already pointed out in this debate that their dividend amounted to £61,000 and therefore the whole of the ordinary dividend would be swept away, and they would be £50,000 short to pay the interest on their Preference Shares and Debentures. As I said before, when I spoke in this House on the Licensing question, this means the ruin of very many innocent shareholders. On-licences are worse treated than anything else under the Budget, because no less than half the yearly value of licensed premises is put on as a tax. For instance, a man who now owns a house worth £400 a year pays £40 in taxation. Under the new Budget he will pay £200 a year. I have some figures here that are rather interesting, and are quite new. They refer to a city which I know something about—the City of Leeds. I only had them sent to me the other day to show the enormous increase in licence fees in a city like Leeds. The first set of figures refers to on-licenced houses owned by brewers. The present duty is £9,172, and the proposed duty is £27,460. On-beer houses, that ought to be specially well treated by reason of their strong position under the 1869 Act, pay now £1,216, but they will pay under the new Budget £10,561. There are 105 ale-houses not owned by brewers, and they pay now £3,450, but they will pay £11,844. Ninety-one beer-houses now pay £336, but they will pay £3,333. I think, my Lords, I am justified in saying that these increases are really amazing. As regards hotels, that are so very necessary to our comfort, and to the comfort of our foreign friends, who come to us, the increase of taxation is large, but I allow at once that there are rebates made as regards that taxation if the amount of liquor sold in those hotels bears a small proportion to the food and bedrooms which are provided for their customers. But we must not forget that the site tax comes in with regard to the big hotels in London, and if the site value of a large hotel like, for instance, the Hotel Cecil goes up, the hotel has to face that. I call these clauses very revengeful clauses. They bring in no revenue, and we know quite well that education and temperance, if let alone, are doing all and more than is necessary to bring the liquor trade into a proper condition. It seems to me that the country or, at any rate, the House of Commons does not recognise the gravity of smashing a big trade like this all at once.
1068
I come now to a very interesting question indeed, I mean the question of Death Duties. Under this new Bill, the incidence of these duties is as certain as death, and is as capricious as death itself. The most interesting figures and the newest figures I have come across lately were the figures given us in the most interesting speech delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. He told us what I had not known before, how much it is necessary for a man who is fifty years old to pay in insurance if he wants to guard himself and his estate against (1) Income Tax, (2) Super Tax, and (3) Death Duties. Those figures were full of interest, and if I can put them before your Lordships in a clear way I think you will see that the new duties are very large indeed. I doubt if there is any country in the world at the present time that puts such a large taxation on estates as will be put on large estates in this country under this Bill. The noble Earl gave us instances of estates worth £50,000 and £100,000, and half a million and one million pounds. Let us take the case of a man who is aged fifty, and who is the owner of a million either in property or in money. He, we may suppose, is a family man, and he has a very earnest and proper desire to leave the property that he received from his father without any reduction. Now what has he got to do under the old Budget? It would cost him an insurance of £5,600 a year. Under the new Budget it would cost him £9,000 a year. He is going to get three per cent. for his money, which comes to £30,000 a year, and he has to pay one-third of that, or in round figures £10,000 a year to the Government, or rather to the Insurance Company to enable him to leave to his successor the money unimpaired. Take 30,000 sovereigns a year, and out of every sovereign, for all time, he will have to pay 6s. 8d. to the Government of this country, and not only will he have to pay it, but his son will have to follow it up, and his grandson and his great grandson. All of them will have to pay 6s. 8d. in the £ to the Government to enable them to maintain their estate intact. If the head of the family happens to have more than one son, God knows what he will do to keep his estate intact. He cannot do it, and I say advisedly that unless there are most prudent generations of men coming on one after the other, these tremendous Death Duties, because they are nothing else, will ruin every estate

1069
in this country. As I said, these figures are very interesting, and they brought home to my mind what I never thoroughly realised before, the enormous propositions made by the Government with regard to these new Death Duties.
Let us now consider for a moment the Super Tax. That is perhaps a reasonable tax from some points of view. I would not say it is not; I think it is, but it is inquisitorial, and it is a very difficult tax to understand. I notice with some degree of amusement, and perhaps a little alarm, that the penalty for a wilful mis-statement is six months imprisonment with hard labour. I think there can be no doubt that the Budget itself, the speeches made by those of high official position—the hen-roost men—and the threats made especially against one of the greatest trades in this country—I refer to the railway trade, in which there is no less than £1,200,000,000 of capital employed—have thoroughly unsettled the financial mind of the country. There is no doubt that all these things are frightening capital out of the country. I see that. I have means of judging that, and I have no doubt at all that it is so. It is not for me to say whether it is wise for people to be frightened, or to think that they can get in a foreign country five per cent. as safely as they can get four percent. in this country. Perhaps greediness has had some little to do with the flight of capital from this country, but I am convinced that the great and the dominant reason is due to a feeling of fear. It is not for me to give advice. It would not be right for me to give advice to the great British public, for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, and who are in the long run generally in the right. My first set of statistics has been used already. I think it was Lord St. David's who said these figures were not to be relied upon, but I think upon the whole they can be relied upon. Of course, they do not give the money raised in England privately for English things, but as some noble Lord said speaking earlier to-day, they give the general tendency of the investments now going on. In the last nine months £155,000,000 capital has been raised—£86,000,000 of it for foreign loans, £53,000 for Colonial loans, and £16,000,000 only have been raised for things in England. Then again, we see Consols and other gilt-edged stocks at the lowest price they have touched since 1880. Enormous
1070
losses have had to be paid owing to the continuous fall in the very best class of Stocks.
There is another fairly sure sign of the flight of capital from this country at the present time. It is a sign that has not been alluded to by any speaker in your House up to the present, but I think I am right in my conclusion that it is owing to capital leaving this country. I mean the gold famine that at this moment is reigning in the City. It is not a credit famine, for money there is in plenty, but it is what is called a gold famine. Have we been buying more cotton, or more wheat, or more wool? Certainly not, but we have to find a great deal of gold for foreign countries, and that is evidently because we have been buying largely of foreign loans, much more heavily than before, and that has given foreign countries, especially countries in South America, a power over our gold market they have never had before. We have been buying their loans, and they have decided that they would be paid in gold. The result has been that there has been a gold famine in this country during the last few weeks, and it is more difficult and more expensive than ever to get credit in our markets just now.
In the last nine months British and Indian stocks have fallen from £763,000,000 to £753,000,000, a fall of £10,000,000 in the last nine months. Now what of foreign stocks of the like class in the last nine months? They have gone up from £813,000,000 to £826,000,000, so that while our British and Indian stocks have gone down within the last nine months £10,000,000, foreign stocks have gone up no less than £13,000,000. The Prime Minister, in the argument that he used in the House of Commons, rather hailed the flight of capital to foreign countries because, he said, and said with a certain amount of truth, that we in this country would get the interest from these investments, and that those foreign countries who took our money would spend a good deal of it in buying articles from this country. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but it is not the whole truth, because evidently the most important thing of all is that sufficient capital should be left in this country to enable us to look after our own industries and our own businesses. That is a very vital thing, to keep sufficient

1071
capital in this country for all our needs; but that is not what we are doing at the present moment. There are two trades suffering very much just now, namely the building trade and the railway trade. The building trade, I apprehend, is not suffering from want of capital so much as from fear of the Land Clauses of the Budget. I allow that, and I cannot use it as an argument, but I can use this as an argument for all it is worth, and that is that at the present moment if any of the large and important railway companies of this country want to borrow money, not on their ordinary stocks—investors may reasonably be frightened of ordinary stocks—but on their preference and debenture stocks, they would have to pay more for their loans than they have had to pay since 1878. That shows very conclusively that capital is scarcer than it used to be in our own home markets.
What the nation wants at this moment more than anything else is employment for its men, not charitable employment, but regular employment, and a rest for some years, if I may say so without disrespect, from the meddling and muddling of Parliament. I say, my Lords, go to the people. Consult the people. Do not go to a four-year-old House of Commons that has ceased to represent the people, if any inference we can get from recent by-elections is to be drawn. I do not think, and I never have thought, there is any need for revolution, either financially or in any other way. Of course, the ways of Governments and of Government officials are very difficult to understand, but where a £50,000,000 deficit is going to arise I cannot understand, except in one particular. We know quite well that the great bulk of the Income Tax of the country falls to be collected between December 31st and March 31st. Now there is one grave danger, and only one, and that is, if we do not pass a Budget Bill before the 31st March, we should lose, perhaps, £30,000,000 or £35,000,000 of Income Tax. But if we do pass a Budget Bill before the 31st March, I do not see myself that there will be any great need for borrowing very much money. I am sure there will not be this need unless the great Liberal Party are, may I say with all respect, foolish enough to try and bring about financial chaos because, forsooth, after being in power for four years they find it necessary to consult the people of
1072
this country. Surely a big party like the Liberal Party will never think that that is good policy or good tactics. For all the reasons that I have been so kindly allowed to put before your Lordships, I feel sure the right course is being pursued when we say that we shall support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, before I commence I should like to express in common with your Lordships my regret that we have been deprived to-night of a speech from one of the most distinguished members of this House, Lord Curzon. I have had the pleasure of knowing him more years than I like to remember, and I shall always remember with some pride that I had the privilege of following him in the House of Commons, and endeavouring to answer him in the very first speech he made there, and in the very first speech which I made. The noble Lord who has just sat down will, I am sure, not think I am guilty of any discourtesy if I do not follow him in his very interesting speech. He is a great authority on financial matters. I am not an authority on such matters, and I do not intend to-night to refer to matters of finance. I must confess, although I think I may say I have taken part in almost all the great debates in this House for the last fifteen years, and although I have had twenty-five years of political life in one House or the other, I never rose to speak in any debate with a deeper sense of responsibility than I do on this occasion, a responsibility which attaches itself to the voice and vote of even so humble a member of your House as I am. I have followed this debate with great attention. I have listened to and admired the very admirable and statesmanlike speeches that have been made, but—and I say it without, I am sure, at all wishing to give any offence—when I have listened to the witty and somewhat light-hearted remarks of this noble Lord or that noble Lord, I have rather wondered whether this House in its entirety thoroughly appreciates the enormous gravity of the question which is before us, and which has been raised by the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite.
I have often in the past, as most of those I see around me have, been present when great Bills have been sent up from the other House, and I have often heard it remarked on those occasions by authorities on both sides, that in discussing these Bills which

1073
have received so much attention from the other House, and in the papers before they come to us, we seem to be speaking as it were in a sort of atmosphere of unreality. Everything that ought to be said had been said, and all that remained for us to do was to repeat the wise and party sayings and clothe them with the best eloquence which was at our disposal. My Lords, that is not the case here to-night. We are debating a subject which has not yet been debated in the other House. We are debating the proposition of the noble Marquess opposite. The fundamental question which we are debating to-night is that of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not going to discuss the Budget. After very nearly a whole year's discussion in another place, after the multitudinous speeches that have been made upon it and the myriad of leading articles that have appeared in the newspapers about it, I do not think any noble Lord is anxious that I should go over these arguments again. But if there is such a noble Lord, I would remind him that I see in the Press we are shortly to have the benefit of another book on the subject, the author of which is no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I do not want to minimise for a moment the responsibility of any vote that I am going to give with regard to the Budget, but I say without hesitation that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the Budget was doomed and dead when the noble Marquess first tabled his Amendment and announced it to your Lordships' House.
What then, my Lords, is our position? We are called upon to endorse or not to endorse an accomplished fact, as far as we sitting here are concerned. And what is that fact? That fact is the refusal of all Supplies to the Services of the country—Supplies which have been voted by overwhelming majorities in the other House, and, of course, on the authority of the chosen Ministers of the Crown. That is surely a very serious position, the seriousness of which is, I am certain, acknowledged by noble Lords opposite as much as by myself. But perhaps noble Lords would add, and it is possible that I should agree, that in any certainly most exceptional case, a case which seemed to be not even dreamt of, almost a nightmare, circumstances might arise in which it would be the duty of a Second Chamber at all risks and under all conditions, to take the extreme course that I have spoken of; but surely my Lords, they
1074
would add at the same time, that this course could only be taken when the financial propositions of which I have dreamt constituted a vital and a permanent danger to the existence of the State. I will say at once, speaking honestly as an independent and a somewhat moderate member of the Liberal Party, that when the Budget was first brought in, there were provisions in it that have been in many eases most beneficially amended. There were provisions which if I had had a seat in the House which has the power of amendment, I should have done my best as a private member to alter or to delete.
But, my Lords, this House has no power of amendment. I was rather surprised when I heard the noble Lord who last spoke say that the Commons could not send up a Bill which we were not to amend in any way. The noble Lord perhaps does not know that this House has no power of amendment. It has been relinquished by this House. It has been admitted by all authorities, and if you want us to mention the reason for it you will know perfectly well that when we pass an Amendment touching financial matters, and the Speaker rules it out of order on his own authority, we accept his ruling and we withdraw our Amendment. The noble Lord says this House has the power of amendment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD BURGHCLERE: Well, someone else will probably point out where I am wrong. I say that this House has no power of amendment. The astute Statesmen who in 1860 for the first time sent up to this House the money Bills en bloc instead of sending them up Bill by Bill as they had done in the past, knew very well what they were about. In my humble opinion that revolution—for in some ways it was a revolution in the relations of the two Houses—removed from this House for ever practically the financial control which they had assumed in the past, except in the violent and extreme cases to which I have referred. I say that without hesitation, and moreover, I say that the situation which was then created in 1860 has been assented to, and been acquiesced in by all parties in the State, because since 1860 there have been many Conservative Governments in power, and many distinguished Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, and yet with their

1075
majority in the other House they have never tried to reverse that practice which was instituted in 1860 of sending up these Financial Bills, and which in my opinion took away from this House its financial control.
If I might make a homely illustration as to this action of taking away our financial control, I would ask you to consider what a surgeon would think if he was called in to operate upon a patient and was told that the only operation he could perform was to cut off his head. I do not think that that surgeon would consider that he was put in thorough surgical control of the full body of the patient. Yet that is our position with regard to Money Bills. I have heard it said, and I think somewhat loosely said, that there was a close analogy between the veto of the Crown, and the power which your Lordships have of rejecting Money Bills. In my humble opinion there is no analogy at all. In a Constitutional Monarchy the Sovereign acts by the advice of his Ministers who command a majority in another place, and it is perfectly obvious that if they bring in their Bills and pass them with their own majority, they will not advise the Sovereign to use his power of veto upon them. If I may be allowed to indulge in imagination for a moment, it does bring in some analogy as regards the position in which we are placed. I ask you to imagine, if it were possible, that a Ministry having a majority in another place, introduces some rather disputed measure. It passes the Lower House and the Upper House, and then at that moment the Ministry falls, but having known by the usual means, by the Press and by meetings, that the opinion of the country was against this measure which had received the assent of Parliament but not the assent of the Sovereign, the Prime Minister would take upon himself to advise the Sovereign to use his veto. I ask to be allowed to put that forward as an illustration, because the noble Marquess stands somewhat in the position of that Minister. He is advising your Lordships to use the veto which you had in your hands, but on what sole condition alone would a responsible Minister advise the Sovereign to take such a step? On one condition alone—that he was quite certain that he had behind him the voice of the people, and that at the ensuing election the steps he had advocated would be endorsed by the electorate of this country.
In taking the action which you are
1076
going to take, are you quite sure that you have behind you the voice of the people? If you have not, have you considered in what position you are placing this House, and what dangers you are raising for the Constitution? I have heard it said that if you had taken another course you would not have shown courage. No one on this or the other side of the House would accuse either the noble Marquess or his friends opposite of want of courage, but if I am not presumptuous I would venture to say that courageous as their action may be, they would have shown a greater and a higher courage if they had resisted the impetuous enthusiasm of their followers, and the daily diatribes of their Press, and had reverted to the calm, patient, prudent course which has characterised this House in all its great quarrels with the House of Commons since the days of the Duke of Wellington and Catholic Emancipation down to the passing of the Disestablishment Bill for Ireland. I think if they had taken that course they would have taken the wiser course; for if their action is not now confirmed by the country I think they will do great harm to the authority of this House, and if they have rushed into it not knowing what is going to happen, they have gone perilously near, if they have not actually attained, to the position of gambling with the Constitution of the country. If I sat on the other side of the House, and if I thought all the bad things of the Budget that every speaker, responsible or irresponsible, has laid to its charge during the course of this debate, I could not follow the noble Marquess into the Lobby, for I feel that it may be the action he has taken will not only arouse great political difficulties in the Constitution, but it may, under very conceivable circumstances, be a very serious danger to the Empire itself.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I am unwilling to give a silent vote on this occasion. Having had for many years the honour of a seat in this House, as well as having been for several years in the other House of Parliament, I feel that it is of serious importance the vote a member has to give, but he must have perfectly good reasons for the vote he is prepared to give. I do not propose at the present moment to embark on the whole question

1077
of the constitutional rules of this House for that has been freely discussed before. What I take exception to, however, is the remark made by Lord Burghclere just before the House adjourned that this House had no power whatever to amend any Money Bill. I believe when any tax is put on perfectly separate from any other, it is competent that this House should have the power of amending that tax as it pleases. But there are in this Budget several matters of contention and injustice, most of which have been alluded to.
There are two points to which I should like to direct your Lordships' special attention because in them is started the idea of tracing the source from which the income comes. I allude, in the first place, to the question of Royalties on Minerals. A royalty unfortunately is frequently called rent whereas really it is payment on capital. The owner sells absolutely the mineral, coal, iron, clay or whatever it may be, at so much a ton to the purchaser, and on that he has paid for many years, and now pays, his Income Tax. At the present moment that amounts to 1s. 2d. in the pound. Under this new Budget, if it became law, he would have to pay practically another shilling Income Tax on that same article, and if the amount it produced happened to bring him within the scope of the Super Tax he would practically have to pay 2s. 8d. in the pound Income Tax—really that is what it comes to—on one source of his income. I would ask your Lordships and the country is that a fair method of taxation?
But to my mind the most dangerous point in the Budget is the question how far the present Government has mixed up Imperial and Local Taxation? It is proposed that one-half the money collected from a certain number of taxes should go towards the relief of rates. Up to the present time the ratepayers have always known that the money they contributed to the rates was spent on their locality and was of use to that locality. They could see for themselves what was the benefit, and locally elected bodies have had the power of criticising and checking the expenditure and seeing that the rates to which they themselves contributed were properly expended. As I gather from the present Budget the money that is disposed to the rates will not go back to the locality, or at all events the amount it has subscribed
1078
will not. Take the case of ratepayers in the Midland counties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should so choose their money might be spent on afforestation in Scotland, or in Devonshire, or anywhere else. As a rule ratepayers all over the country feel that whatever they contribute to the rates should be locally applied and locally spent. I believe that clause was put in with the view of bribing municipalities to accept these terms, but I ask your Lordships does it not lend itself to still greater danger in the future? There may be these sums at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which he may give to any locality he likes to prefer. I have no wish to make any remarks about any future Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we all know there is such a thing as political pressure, and I have grave doubts myself—I don't know whether it is put in the Bill—whether that money so disposed is under the control of Parliament at all. I think that is a very important question, that there should be large sums of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have at his disposal to suit different localities according to their different complexion, possibly without the control of Parliament.
I now come to the more serious question, that is with regard to the vote this House is going to give early next week. No member can approach it without feeling a sense of the gravity of the vote he has to give, but at the same time we must look at the various remarks that are made about your Lordships' House by speakers on the other side. We have had several violent communications and threats of extreme measures possibly through His Majesty's Government; but there is one statement which appeared in Tuesday's papers from a speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty in which he said—
"They were going to teach the House of Lords their last final lesson. It was their duty to bow to the will of the country."
I take it by the vote we are going to give we wish to find out what is the will of the country, and I do not see on what ground, considering the terms of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Mr. McKenna has any right to object to the course that is being taken. What your Lordships' House propose to do is to test whether the will of the country is in favour of this Budget or not. I think myself that is not an unreasonable line for your Lordships'

1079
House to take. We have had various stories told us with regard to the Budget—how far it would benefit different classes and different people; but nobody on the other side of the House has yet ventured to get up and say it would seriously diminish the great evil of unemployment. There is no doubt the additional taxes they are putting on agricultural land must naturally decrease employment in agricultural districts. I do not take the cheerful view which the Minister of Agriculture took last night, because after all is said and done he cannot prove to your Lordships' House that by putting additional taxes on the land, no matter in what form, it will conduce to agricultural employment in the country.
What is the advice which is given to your Lordships' House? I regret the speech of my noble friend below the Gangway, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, because he disapproved of the Budget but he did not drive it to its logical conclusion, that is that it must be submitted to the will of the country. I hope and trust your Lordships' House will not be induced to follow his advice, because it has not always proved successful in the past. I would say with regard to the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, that it strikes me the advice he gave is hardly worthy of his great position and his great oratorical powers which we all acknowledge and admire. What does it come to? He disapproves of the Budget in every possible way. He said it would bring, practically, disaster and ruin on the country, yet he advised your Lordships' House to let it pass; so that the country may suffer for six months from it and possibly thereby eject from power the authors of the Budget. It does not seem to me a worthy position for your Lordships' House to occupy—that you should let the people of this country suffer injury and ruin when you believe and know in your own hearts it will bring upon them both these disasters.
We are the only Second Chamber at present, and I do not believe for a moment that the country wishes to have an uncontrolled House of Commons. The country looks to the Second Chamber to save it from having all these measures thrust upon it which in your Lordships' thoroughly determined opinion will bring disaster upon it. I hold, therefore, without any hesitation that we shall be false to our duty
1080
as the Second Chamber of the country if we do not give the people the chance of passing their opinion on what we honestly believe—and I feel sure many noble Lords on the other side who may vote the other way believe—is fraught with grave risk and danger to the country. We must do our duty as a Second Chamber. We are driven to it. It is not our seeking. We are driven to it by the action of His Majesty's Government, and I feel it is our bounden duty to give the country an opportunity of recording its opinion on a Budget which all of us who vote with the noble Marquess, believe to be fraught with such danger and ruin to the country.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, after the speech of the most rev. Primate last night it may seem to your Lordships somewhat rash on the part of a rural Bishop like myself who can claim no special influence in the House to take part in this Debate. The most rev. Primate, as will be remembered, with his unfailing consideration for his brother Bishops, and his unfailing courtesy, allowed it to be assumed that we should all retain our individual liberty in the matter, yet he informed the House that he and his Grace the Archbishop of York and the majority of his brother Bishops had deliberately decided to take no part in this debate or in the division, presumably leaving to Caesar the things that are Cæsar's. I cannot but feel some reluctance in stepping aside from that decision, but my reluctance to do so was much lessened by the reason that was given. The main reason given by his Grace was that they understood the division on this great question on this critical occasion would be a division on strictly party lines. I hold it is a very great misfortune if, on a very critical constitutional occasion like this, it should even be understood that the division was going to be on party lines.
I desire, therefore, for myself and the two or three others who may act as I do, to say that on this and such like matters we owe no party allegiance. We give our vote on one side or the other and we speak according to our convictions as independent members of this House, and because of the function which we feel we are called to discharge as having the honour of membership in this great Assembly. If his Grace had been here

1081
I might have ventured on a suggestion, and that is that it would be perfectly easy for the two Archbishops and all my brother Bishops who agree with their view, to prove conclusively on this occasion that the division was not on party lines if they would simply join my brother of Birmingham and myself that we may all go into the same lobby in support of the Budget. I desire your indulgence for a few minutes because of what I conceive to be the function of a Bishop here on such an occasion. If we who are Bishops have any special function at all in this House I venture to think that it is that we may speak and vote here on behalf of the multitudinous poor whenever occasion arises—a part of the population which is very numerous and which is not largely represented in this place. I hold that one of the chief functions of a Bishop here is to be, according to his reasonable convictions, the advocate and the procurator of those poorer classes whom he represents more especially than any other member of the House.
It is for this reason that I desire to say a few words explaining why I give my support to this Budget, and more particularly why on this occasion of constitutional crisis—for I think I may venture so to call it—I deeply deplore the dangerous revolutionary course which your Lordships are invited to take. I support this Budget for a very simple reason; because as was very well stated a few days ago by one whom I consider our greatest living political economist in England, it is a Social Welfare Budget and based on sound finance. In spite of all I have heard from the other side during this long debate I am still convinced that this is the right view of the Budget, that it is a Social Welfare Budget and based on sound finance. At any rate as an old student of political economy I am well content to take my stand on the verdict of Professor Marshall in this matter.
But, on the other hand, what does it really mean to reject this Bill? Unless I am mistaken it will do a good deal towards letting loose and stirring up and stimulating the dangerous spirit of revolution in the masses of our people. And none can pay any attention to European history without seeing that there is a danger wherever you artificially stimulate, as you will be doing on this occasion, that spirit of revolution, of angry revolution, whether it be dormant or not already. As your Lordships know
1082
very well, with the spread of education everywhere our life inevitably becomes more democratic. You cannot expect an educated democracy and their leaders to remain content with the survivals which represent the present constitution of our society. You must recognize that in connection with this growing intelligence and knowledge there is a growing sense of impatience, and a democracy under those circumstances, if you rouse its spirit of revolt and stimulate it by such opposition as you are giving, may become very dangerous. That is what I dread as one of the results of this action. That is why I wish this Budget to be passed in the usual way, as a protection and safeguard against the spirit of revolution, and that is why I would make an appeal to your Lordships on the Opposition Benches, if the opinion of such a person as myself were likely to be of any avail.
Well then, I give a very hearty support to this Budget as a Budget of Social Welfare based on sound finance, but I have freely to confess while doing so that I cannot do it without a word of protest. I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves the very highest credit for his Budget, given the necessity for it, but I am inclined to protest against the alleged necessity for all this immense expenditure year by year. Our bloated Estimates, and not ours only, but the bloated estimates for military armaments all over Europe—why, on any dispassionate consideration in the twentieth century of Christian history, such competitive instruments for destructive purposes area discredit to European civilization, and more than that, they are a continual menace to European peace; and, as we know very well, they are a constant hindrance to all social progress and reform. But your Lordships who oppose this Budget cannot join me in this protest because you and your friends are more responsible than the Government for these bloated Estimates.
And yet I do not entirely acquit His Majesty's Government from some blame in this matter. Four years ago many of our hopes were raised about peace, retrenchment, and reform, and we had some very noble utterances, one in particular by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in which he asked what nobler rôle could our country have than to place herself at the head of a League of Peace so that arbitration might succeed the competitive armaments. He said he looked for this at the fitting

1083
time. We are waiting, a good many of us, hoping to see that fitting time; but in the meanwhile I personally should like to hear our leading Statesmen on both sides declaring their earnest desire for this happier time in more articulate terms than they are in the habit of using.
Turning for one moment to the Budget itself, as I have listened to this Debate it has been borne in upon my mind that your objections to it are mainly three. Your Lordships, not all I am happy to think, but many of your Lordships oppose it because you desire Tariff Reform. Many again oppose it because they object to the Land Taxes and Land Valuation; and Land Valuation necessarily follows the taxes. Your third objection is because you take the side of the Liquor Traffic in this matter. Well, I will not presume to enter into details on all these matters; I will only ask your indulgence while I say a word on each of them. As to Tariff Reform I am old enough to remember what men called "the hungry forties" in the North country where I was brought up. It is engraven in my memory what a dismal and wretched time it was for the poorer people in this country, and not only for the labouring classes but for the farmers and many others. I desire not to see again anything like that. If a majority of the electors of England were as old as I am and had the same memories of that dismal and wretched time, there would be no Tariff Reform. But I venture to say with regard to Tariff Reform, which is but a new name for the old Protection, that it is a gamble with the necessaries of life. I would challenge any noble Lords opposite to say that there are not two fundamental objections to it. One of these objections is that while no doubt it will make many of the rich richer—the gospel of the millionaire—yet it will sink the poor into deeper poverty. All experience shows that when you look into it. And the other objection is this, as experience again teaches us if we choose to read contemporary history, it will honeycomb our political life with intrigue and corruption from which it is now happily free.
I pass from Tariff Reform to the Land Taxes and Valuation. I cannot but feel that all through this discussion there has been an endeavour in many directions to confuse the issue. This Budget as I understand it—I say this with all deference—will be of benefit to agriculture in the long run. Purely agricultural land will gain by
1084
it. Our farmers should recognise that and so should landlords. And with regard to urban land, who is there who really dares to assert that the greater part of the increment on such land is not the real property of the community? In my own city only yesterday we had to buy an acre of land for a boys' school, and after much difficulty we obtained an acre of land for £1,200—a small city, remember. And on turning to the rate book what do we find? That acre of land has been hitherto valued, as I am informed, for rating purposes, at about £6. Is it not reasonable that the rate-paying community which has added to the increment of that land by industry, by enterprise, by sacrifice, should have a fair share of that increment? I venture to think it is hardly decent for owners of such land to stand up in either House of Parliament and oppose this tax.
I turn for one moment to the Liquor Taxes. Now the liquor trade is a dangerous trade and it is doing a good deal to debauch the population of England. It has far too long enjoyed a very cheap monopoly from the State, having an annual licence at almost a peppercorn rent in many cases. And now, forsooth, we are told by the friends of the Liquor Trade—and your Lordships by your action, I am afraid, are supporting it; I am surprised it should be so—that we ought not to raise the rent, that it ought not to be introduced into an annual Budget. Is there any one who will seriously say to us, as we have been told outside, that taxes which are accepted as just and reasonable in New York and Massachusetts, or one of our Colonies, are nothing short of spoliation and iniquity here at home? The noble Earl, the late Prime Minister, a few years ago uttered a prophecy which has become famous, that if we did not take care this trade—and many members of it are constantly reminding us that their trade is their politics—would throttle the community. I begin to fear that this prophecy is being fulfilled.
My Lords, I have done, and I will conclude with one word of respectful appeal. I believe, as I said before, that this much abused Budget is really a protection and safeguard against the upraising and the stimulating of an angry revolutionary spirit in the masses of the people, while on the other hand the noble Marquess's motion, what is it? It is revolutionary in its essence, and in its consequences it will be no less revolutionary. I can hardly believe that its origin is really

1085
to be traced to the mind of the noble Marquess himself. Admiring, as we have had so many occasions to do, his high political instinct, his dispassionate approach to all the great questions of State, I cannot believe that the origin of this movement was in that mind, nursed in such noble historical and constitutional traditions. I am inclined to believe that people outside are right who say we must look to another quarter for its origin, and that the remarkable man, the highly distinguished man, who is now your guide, philosopher and friend in this matter, but was not always so, had a good deal to do with the origin of this motion. [Cries of, "Name."] I think the record of the history of later years in England has proved to the hilt that that highly distinguished man has been revolutionary in spirit at every stage of his career, and that being so your Lordships in your constitutional position, as I venture to think, could hardly take a more unsafe guide. Several speakers have urged on the noble Marquess the desirability of pressing through this motion uncaring consequences, none more so than the noble Viscount, Lord Milner. But it is not the first time, I think you might do well to remember, that the noble Viscount has pressed for strong measures on the noble Marquess and his friends. Let us hope that this advice will prove less disastrous than the advice given on that other occasion. In this House we are too apt to forget the people of England outside, but can any of us really imagine that the people of England will forget, that they are so degenerate as to forget, the great historical struggles for their fundamental liberties, and above all for the liberty and the power of the purse which cost so much and which we have long held so dear? Can you imagine that these people at the present time are at all likely to forget, or are in any degree likely to surrender these fundamental liberties under the thin disguise, the very thin disguise, of such a phrase as this Amendment?
No, my Lords, you may send this Budget to the country; but, living among the people, having grown up among the people and come out from among them, I have some knowledge of their fundamental feelings and ideas; and my belief is that the answer will come back to your Lordships in very plain English, and I fear it may come in tome form which you may regret. The answer will come, I think, something like this—
1086
"Never again, never again, in this country shall the fundamental liberties of the people be endangered by any privileged class."
It is not the answer I fear when I regard with something like dread your Lordships' action, or proposed action. It is not the answer that I fear so much as the storm and the tumult and the class antagonisms and the strife and the bitterness for which you are making yourselves responsible to-day.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the question of the right of your Lordships' House to reject this measure has been dealt with and I wish to allude to the remarks made by the Lord Chancellor in this connection. He said that constitutionally we were wrong to do so, and he referred to the constitutional aspect and the legal, saying the constitutional point of view was more elastic and less rigid than that of the law. Now, as far as I can gather he wishes to claim that the constitutional situation should be made rigid in respect of our action, while in regard to the Government there should be allowed full elasticity. Well, after that very telling quotation of Lord Salisbury last evening, I do not think it necessary to have any better authority for our rights in this matter than that of the Lord Chancellor himself, but I think the feature of the evening's debate has been the declaration of Lord Balfour of Burleigh for whose judgment and experience I, like every other Member of the House, have the most profound respect. He drew an alarming picture of what would happen if the Amendment now before your Lordships' House is acted upon. These views have been supported by the speech of the right rev. Prelate just delivered. I confess I do not share their alarms in the slightest. We were told the other evening, by Lord Russell, that time after time your Lordships' House had thwarted the will of the people of the country. I think that statement in itself goes to disprove the idea that when we had rejected measures from the other House we had done so against the will of the people, but that we had correctly interpreted what were the wishes of the people. It would be perfectly impossible for a House constituted as this House is time after time, year after year, to impose a barrier to the wishes of the people. In some indirect way we do really represent in some degree what are the wishes of the people.
I believe that during the last quarter of a century the feeling of the public towards

1087
your Lordships' House has grown favourably. Since the last great Franchise Act, whenever we have ventured to oppose any important measure coming from the other House, we have always been threatened, but I consider that if Mr. Gladstone with all his power, prestige and authority failed in his attack upon this House, I do not think it will be the present Government who will bring the walls of this House about our ears. I believe this, too, that the people of this country have been so long accustomed to engage themselves in politics that they have such an intuitive appreciation of constitutional government that year by year, as the House of Commons seems to be degenerating in its procedure and practice, so there is a growing respect for your Lordships' House. It may be an unconscious act, but I believe that your Lordships' House is responding to that feeling. Since I have been a Member of this House I have spent a considerable time abroad. When I came home two or three years ago I was enormously impressed by the change that had come over this House. Formerly the Debates were stereotyped and confined practically to the two Front Benches. I came back and found the attendance regular; I found Members, young and old, interested in and participating in the Debates; and I believe intuitively they are qualifying themselves to play a more important part in the government of the country than they had previously done.
I do not wish to go into many details of the measure before us, but the right rev. Prelate has just informed us that in his view the Budget is a "Social Welfare Budget," "a philanthropic Budget." I do not believe in any Government indulging in philanthropy. It is not their mission and they almost invariably fail. It is well enough that out of the ordinary reforms of the country a certain proportion of them may be devoted to what we term philanthropy. We have very recently had presented to Parliament a report of a most important Commission on the Poor Law. It is one of the primary and rudimentary duties of any Government to look after the very extreme poor of the country. What is the general result of that report? What may be gleaned from it? Why, even in this rudimentary duty the Government have hopelessly failed in the past. This is said to be a Social Welfare Budget. Well, if you had, say, a Military Budget would
1088
you not get an expression of opinion upon it from your most competent Generals or those versed in military subjects? Suppose you had some Budget connected with the Crown Colonies, would you not get their opinion? As to this Social Welfare Budget I ask whether there are not plenty of earnest devoted workers in this country who give up their lives to philanthropy? That being so you would only reasonably expect that these men and women who lead these laborious lives would have made their voice heard when this great measure came before them to help them in their toil, but have we heard a single word from the leading philanthropists in this country? I certainly have heard none. You have good Societies like the Charity Organisation Society. Have they given any support to this Budget? You have great Friendly Societies whose mission is to help the people in time of need. Have they made any representation in support of the Budget? You have your great Hospitals which directly administer to the suffering poor. Have their directors or managers said a single word in favour of this Social Welfare Budget? Not one of them. Why? Because they are not affected by a partisan spirit in the matter. Their concern is with the strict purpose of trying to relieve the necessitous poor. They have no political aims, and they know well enough too that were such the case, not to try to administer philanthropy by the State, because it would invariably fail. It must needs be so. A Government must work on strict lines. They cannot discriminate. If they do they are very apt to become lax, and perhaps lead to corruption.
Well, the Lord Chancellor drew a very dismal picture of the condition of the lower working classes at the present time. For myself, I believe that he overdrew that picture. I believe that year after year there is some improvement in the general welfare of the masses, but if that is not so, I only say his description is a most terrible indictment of that paternal legislation which has been a marked feature of the last half century. I consider the result of these attempts to cure all evils by legislation is very often that where you manage to heal one sore you open two sores elsewhere. But there is one particular aspect of this question to which the noble and learned Lord is never weary of drawing your Lordships' attention. It is what he terms the serious diminution of the agricultural

1089
population. I am not going into the question of the general revenue of the landowners connected with the Budget, but I wish to say a word upon this point because it has so often been put before your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord seems to forget that this tendency of country people to move into the towns is not peculiar to this country. I believe in every country in the world, and every new country with countless acres of fertile land to be cultivated, you will see the people congregated in the towns. I need not now enter into the reasons for this, but if the noble Lord had been present he might have derived some solace from one consideration. I know it in the part of the country in which I live. Small villages have disappeared and the people have migrated to the towns and the mines. My view is that they go into the towns and engage in industrial occupations because there is suitable employment. There is also a movement of people from the crowded districts to take up life on the borders of even the smallest country town in which you see springing up small residences, villas and detached houses. These are the people who have made their money and become prosperous in the towns. In mining villages you will find that even miners possess their own houses. I contend that by a natural process far better than any you can devise by a legislative system there is a continual movement into the towns, and then when better off, people come out of the towns and enjoy better conditions of life and fresh air.
I shall be informed that this has nothing to do with the rural population. I do not know what the noble Lord would like to see. Would he like to see two men working a plot of land which could be cultivated by one man? This migration is due solely to natural causes, and if two men were to do the work of one man would he like to see the wage obtained by one man divided between the two? Or, if not, would he expect the State to step in and supplement the wages and provide the men with decent conditions of life? There is the noble Earl sitting opposite whose care is the Department of Agriculture. He has been in Australia. I wonder if he has ever visited any of those communities set up by Government, communal communities, so that one man should not have any advantage over another, but should be
1090
strictly settled on the land under conditions very favourable to everyone. What do you see there? You find, perhaps, one or two men remaining; otherwise derelicts, weeds everywhere, land lapsing again into the bush from which it was originally carved. Yet these were people who were settled on the land under every condition of prosperity, land provided free, houses provided, implements supplied, and so on, and yet they have failed. While touching on this question he referred to the unearned increment. In Australia he will find a community who are living strictly under Socialistic principles—that is they have no religion, they have no property; they are the aborigines of Australia. I see the right rev. Prelate smile. I am not taking an exaggerated view at all. These are not degraded people in the slightest, but men of intelligence and fine physique. But ask anybody who works among them to try to save them from the civilisation that is pressing on them. What would you be told is the essential difficulty in trying to preserve them? First, the absence of any strong religious belief, and secondly, the absence of any knowledge of the rights of property. These are the two principles which have to be inculcated in them. There you have an instance of what pure Socialism is. Communism is from Socialism. It is a parasite which drops off that which created it. It is not initiative; it is purely destructive.
We are told this is not Socialism, but that is ridiculous. The Socialists in this country and the Socialists on the Continent hail the Budget as a big instalment in the carrying out of their Socialistic principles. There is one reason which has been given very forcibly why it is sought to heap so many taxes upon the land, and that is because the land cannot escape them. It is quite true. Capital in other forms does escape, whether it be the Death Duties or the Super Tax in regard to the Income Tax. That telling speech of Lord Revelstoke showed very clearly how capital does manage to escape. In my own experience I know it. I have come across two foreigners, one a very distinguished British Indian subject, a man of considerable wealth, who told me he was taking care to withdraw his money from this country. So also I heard a Spanish gentleman, who has a large connection here, say. Moreover, some months ago I was told by a Banker abroad that he was simply being inundated by requests

1091
from this country as to how people could so place their accounts that they might escape the taxation of this country. I quite agree that luxury is a very bad thing, and there is a great deal of luxury in this country, but I do not think that those who are living in luxury are the landed classes of this country. I think the money will be found to be chiefly derived from foreign sources, from our kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic. Certainly for the most part it does not come from incomes derived in this country. It may be you will find this luxurious system will disappear, but I do not think so. I think what is more likely to happen is that these taxes, the Super Tax and graduated taxation, which may be theoretically very fair but may be unwise, will cause capital to take flight out of this country. It is taking flight, but the luxury will remain here. Therefore you will be beset by both evils. Lord St. David's last evening seemed to be quite indifferent as to whether capital was driven abroad or took itself abroad. I don't quite know what he wants. I suppose he wishes to see the country reduced to having a prairie value. It may be a very sound state of affairs. Money and happiness are not necessarily co-existent; but I don't think anybody has yet put forward as a practical proposition that it is desirable to impoverish the sources of the wealth of the country. I believe there is a perfectly sound maxim that any system of taxation, if it is permanently or continuously applied, should fall fairly on all people in the country, but it must not be liable to violent fluctuations and changes.
And it is the worst feature of the Budget that it proposes to tax certain classes and sections for the benefit of others. This will involve changes year by year. You are simply trying to get as much money as you can out of small sections of the people. I quite agree with what the right rev. Prelate described as the evils; similar evils will result from the imposition of the Budget. You get change and uncertainty and you draw into politics a number of people who are ordinarily engaged in commerce or trade who find themselves liable to be injured and are desirous of obtaining some benefit under a system of high protection—trying to obtain either protection for themselves or benefit for themselves. Thereby you run the danger of introducing a system of corruption. I deplore the Budget because I regard it as a system, or an attempt to set up a system,
1092
of a kind of philanthropy based on the destruction of our present financial system. I think it is extremely unfortunate that it has been introduced at the present time. I am no believer in the hostile intention of any particular Power, but, as Lord Cromer pointed out the other evening, there are very disquieting features that demand that at home we should have strength and calmness. The present Government have done nothing in this direction. They have done everything to promote disquietude instead of trying to instil a sense of order and stability which are the factors absolutely essential for the proper conduct of affairs at the headquarters of the world-wide Empire.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord with pleasure. We must feel he is looking at affairs in this country with a comparatively new eye, instead of the way in which we regard affairs in the country with a vision which is perhaps a little dulled by the constant habit of microscopic observations. We recognise that he has fulfilled high service abroad. He conies back to us and the first thing he tells us is that this House has improved. As he has returned during the time when a Liberal Government is in power I think that we on this side of the House may accept that as a compliment. He also said, at least so I understood, that the Government is guilty of philanthropy. I do not quite understand why anybody should defend himself against an accusation of philanthropy. So far as I am concerned, the only reason I ever took part in politics or entered into political life was from philanthropic motives. I do not use that term as if I were better than anybody else, but I do use the term as one who sees that the chief object of a Government should be to do what they can to better the condition of the men who live around us. After all, the noble Lord has given us an interesting speech of his experience in one direction, but has hardly dealt with the vital issue before the House at the present moment.
There has been raised a new issue with which the House has never had to deal before, with which the country has never had to deal before, and we have to deal with a new claim on the part of your Lordships' House. The new claim is the right of the Opposition in this House to cause by their action a General Election. We are perfectly well accustomed to the power which this House has claimed and exercised of dealing with

1093
Liberal legislation whenever Liberal legislation is brought forward, either by rejecting it or by altering it in such a way that it is impossible for any self-respecting Liberal Ministers to accept the alterations. But to-night and during this debate the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess has raised an additional question and claimed a fresh power.
Now I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question, which I am perfectly certain he will not answer, and it is this. If this Liberal Government had introduced this Finance Bill in the first year of their existence as a Government, would the Opposition in this House have rejected that Bill by a large majority? If they had introduced it in the second year, would the Opposition have opposed and rejected it? Is it a question of the lapse of time or a question of the Finance Bill which we are deciding? I do not believe for one moment that the noble Marquess or any responsible noble Lord on the opposite side would have risen to reject the Finance Bill if it had been introduced in the year after the Liberal Party had come in with a very gigantic majority, when the whole flood of the tide had gone in their favour and swept them in and swept you out. If you say "Yes"; if it was so iniquitous, if, according to the language of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, it was so unclean, if it was so wicked that it would have been rejected the first year, in spite of the gigantic majority, then we can understand what the claim of the Opposition is. It is that, whenever the Liberal Party come into office, whatever may be the majority, whatever may be the feeling of the country, if a measure they bring in is distasteful to the Opposition, they will reject it. On the other hand, I do not believe for one moment that you would have rejected this Bill in the first or in the second year of the existence of the present Government. But you do move to reject it in the fourth year. A change has come about, the change being that, owing to certain circumstances, certain signs, you think that the present Government is no longer able to get a majority. I wish the cheer had been more universal on the other side. It was only one or two who were incautious enough to cheer that remark. If you still admit that you are rejecting this Finance Bill because you think you are going to get a majority in the country, then all the speeches that have been delivered by noble
1094
Lords on the Opposition side are unreal speeches, and the only reason why you are objecting to this Finance Bill is because you think you will be able to place yourselves in power and turn out those who are in power at present.
I am anxious, if I can, to place before noble Lords opposite the knowledge of what some of us see is going on in this House and what will probably be the result. A gradual change has come about. Your majority has grown larger and larger through no fault of your own. The Liberals have tried at times to feed the minority in this House by making Liberal Peers. I look round now and I wonder how many of the Liberal Peers who have been made Peers in the last twenty years are still sitting on this side of the House. You have gradually absorbed them for reasons which I cannot state, except that, I imagine, in some cases they have got what they want, and, having got what they want, they prefer to sit on the other side, and, perhaps, in other cases they have not got what they want, and therefore they have changed to the other side of the House. We have suffered from a gradual loss. Yes, and we admit it. We are in a small, weak minority in this House, and that time after time, owing to measures that we have brought forward, we have lost some of those who have hitherto supported us. We are quite alive to the fact but that does not change the situation that in this House, the Second Chamber, there has come about such a state of affairs that we have a gigantic political majority permanently here, representing whom? Whose policy or what? A gigantic majority that at the present moment are using their power solely with the idea of defeating Liberal legislation, defeating Liberal ideals, whose sole idea at the present moment is to get rid of a Liberal Government. Will any one deny that? And with the idea, the mistaken idea, that they themselves will soon enjoy office.
I have once before spoken in this House and made a gentle appeal, on behalf of a very small Bill, against party tactics. Nobody knows better than the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment what party tactics really mean. We know perfectly well the forces that are being brought into action in order to force the Opposition into taking the course they have taken. It is no secret that there has been every influence—political influence—

1095
brought to bear upon the noble Marquess and those around him to make them, perhaps against their will, reject the Finance Bill of the Government. The result is that, with a general election that returned the Liberal Government by a large majority we have had four short years during which Liberal legislation has been recklessly vetoed. We have now almost the new claim to reject the Finance Bill, and we have the further additional claim, according to the words of the Amendment, that any moment the Opposition in this House may cause a General Election. We are to have the rejection of legislation and the rejection of taxation. At this moment it seems to me that it would be better if wiser counsels had prevailed. There are one or two independent members of this House. I am not one of them, but I recognise to the full the value of the fact that we have some independent members. They are very few indeed. Every independent member of this House who has spoken has recommended that this Amendment should not be accepted.
I do not for one moment imagine that I shall influence a single vote, but I do think I might appeal to the House that the views that have been put forward by moderate men should be carefully considered before we come to an ultimate decision. We are asked at the present moment to take a step which is in antagonism to immemorial custom. We are asked, in the language of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, after all, cannot be considered an extreme man, to enter upon a gambling transaction. Can any of us foretell what the result of the General Election will be? I daresay you have been advised that you have a chance at the General Election, but no noble Lord opposite will venture to say that it is a certainty. We are asked to throw into the melting-pot some of the best parts of our constitutional system, and to enter upon a great war which will last, perhaps, for many years, but can only have in the end one result.
I have hitherto only spoken on the constitutional aspect, but I feel that it would be almost cowardly, although that aspect is the most important in my mind, not to say something as regards the Budget itself and what the Budget proposes to do. In the first place we are asked to tax "the trade." It does seem to me a most unfortunate thing that, whenever there is a
1096
question in regard to the taxation of the licensed trade, the whole Conservative Party should unite in one solid body on its behalf. We who have been in the House of Commons and have fought many an election know quite well the power of the trade. Noble Lords who have not gone through contested political elections will hardly be aware of the power the public-house has. I am quite ready to admit that at General Election time, or during by-elections, it is a valuable asset to any political party to have the public-house on their side. But it is a very disreputable asset, and I am astonished sometimes that the Conservative Party should have such a very strong political alliance with the trade, whose houses, certainly during political elections, are allowed to be used in a manner of which none of us would approve. It is, however, the other taxation that I imagine forms the chief difficulty of this Budget. There is the question of the taxation of land. I happen to be one who has urban property as well as property in the country. I am not at all anxious to pay more than I need. I think all Budgets are detestable. I think the amount of money we spend is much too large. But we have to look facts in the face, and I see at the present moment that there is a serious demand in the country for a large sum of money which must be raised somehow. Personally I thoroughly approve of the principle that the largest share of the taxation should be placed on the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it. I do not say for one moment that it is a good thing for the country. I think this gigantic expenditure is a bad thing for the country. We are face to face with circumstances which none of us can overlook. In the first place both Parties pledged themselves to grant Old Age Pensions. Both Parties must carry out that pledge. It will not matter which Party is in power, that pledge will be carried out.
Then we heard the speech which was delivered by my noble friend, Earl Cromer. I do not take, perhaps, quite so gloomy a view as he does of our position in the world and the dangers which surround us, but I acknowledge, as a Liberal, that I think it is the duty of our country to place our two defensive forces, the Navy and the Army, in a perfectly safe condition, so that we may depend upon them in any circumstances, and certainly that, above all, our Navy should be supreme, in order

1097
that we may fulfil our duty to the Empire for which we are responsible. But that means spending money. Money must be provided, and when some noble Lords opposite, who are Imperialists just as I am an Imperialist, say that this revenue which we see foreshadowed in the Finance Bill is something very bad, I feel that that prospective revenue is the one thing that this country requires, for we owe a large debt as regards social reform and we must put our Navy and our Army into efficient order.
My Lords, I feel that it is almost a waste of time even to speak about this matter, because it is practically already decided, but I do think noble Lords opposite ought to consider what really takes place when Liberals are in power and when Conservatives are in power. When the Conservatives are in power and Bills are sent up from the House of Commons, they are received here by the majority—a gigantic majority—with content. They are passed almost without discussion. They are hardly ever amended. But when Liberal measures are sent up here we know the fate of them even before they arrive. When the Conservatives are in power your Lordships send, as it were, blank cheques to the House of Commons to be filled in as the House of Commons likes. When the Liberals are in power you refuse payment. Is it possible that a Second Chamber can go on under these conditions? Is it possible that the people of a free country will always submit to this fact, that if they return Liberals to power, the Liberals have no voice and no power? Do you think it is really the popular wish of the present moment that the House of Lords should be supreme and that the House of Commons should be powerless?—for, after all, we are gradually getting to that. We are to be supreme. We are to reject measures. We are to mutilate measures. If we pass measures we pass them, not because we approve of them, but because for some political reason we think it is better to pass them. We are going in the future always to say that if a Finance Bill does not suit us we will reject it and we will have a General Election. We are claiming to say that the Government, on any question that comes, most go to the people. We are laying claim to a power which no free people will stand for one moment. You are going to the country now and you are going to place yourselves in a position from
1098
which you will never be able to withdraw until the people have declared that you shall not have the power which you profess is your right at the present moment to exercise.
I feel the seriousness of the position; I feel the danger of the position. No one is more alive than I am to the social unrest existing in our country. I do not believe that any noble Lord in this House has ever done what I have done. I have gone among the Socialists and spoken to them against Socialism. I have gone amongst them where I was the only one who was anti-Socialist. I have gone amongst those who are the most extreme and the most determined. I have had no fear of them in the past, and I will not say I have any fear of them in the present. But if anything is to increase Socialism, if anything is to give Socialists power, it will be the action which this House is going to take on the Finance Bill. You are playing into the hands of the extreme party and against the moderate party; and I believe that your only reason for taking this step is that you think you will be able to get rid of the Government to which you are politically opposed.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, nobody will question the sincerity of the noble Marquess in supporting the principles of this Budget, because, if I am not mistaken, he is one of the persons who is largely affected by it. But I regret that the motives which he has imputed to Peers upon this side of the House are of so uncomplimentary a nature that I do not think it worth while to comment upon them. As for the enquiries which he put to the Opposition Front Bench, they are of a purely hypothetical nature, and as to the question as to why so many Liberal Peers eventually change their politics on attaining a place in this Chamber, that is a question which has perplexed many persons besides himself and will probably continue to perplex other people to the end of time. Although I, personally, am unable to appreciate the moral beautie of this Budget, and although, unlike the right rev. Prelate, I am unable to see that it is likely ever to promote social welfare, or that it is based upon sound finance, for I should have thought that if it were based upon sounder finance, if it would have obtained the support of any of those members of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, somewhat impolitely described, as the "de

1099
humanised monetary machine" which is his euphemism for the City—I should feel there was some greater ground for the statement if this view were supported by any sound financial or commercial authority who is other than a political partizan. But although, as I have already said, I have been unable myself to detect the good qualities of this Budget, yet I confess that I hoped for a long time that a contest upon this question would be averted. For one thing I candidly confess that I always hoped, in common with other members of this House, that when it came to a struggle with another place that struggle would be fought upon what is called favourable ground. In this particular case I am afraid that we cannot flatter ourselves that we are going to embark upon the contest on favourable ground, and I find myself entirely in accord with a member of the present Administration who, when he was asked by an opponent with whom he was on friendly terms as to what he thought would be the best method of making the Budget unpopular, replied with, I think, profound political insight, "If you wish to make this Budget unpopular you ought to pass it."
It appears to me that the temptation to pass the Budget is exceedingly strong. It would not have taken long to have shown the futility of the proposals, and the result to the Government would have been to have forced the Government into a more desperate course. On that ground it certainly does not strike me as either a very straightforward or a very courageous course of action to adopt. For that reason I regret more than I can say the speech which was made yesterday from the Cross Benches by my noble friend, Earl Rosebery, whose absence I regret at the present moment. But the sentiments of the noble Earl appear to me to be so admirably expressed in a British classic, which I hold in my hand, that I am unable to resist the temptation of quoting it in full, because it appears to me so exactly to typify the position adopted by the noble Earl—
"Ruin stared me in the face. I took a desperate resolution. I left my home early one morning, with one suit of clothes on my back and another tied up in a bundle under my arm. I arrived on the cliffs, opened my bundle, deposited the suit of clothes on the very verge of the precipice, took one long look down into the yawning gulf beneath me and walked off in the opposite direction."
That appears to me exactly to describe the conduct of the noble Earl upon the occasion
1100
in question. He did not lead; he invited the Opposition to advance towards the edge of the precipice and when the edge of the precipice was attained he himself executed a right-about-face.
There is another ground upon which I, at all events, should not have felt myself bound to oppose this Budget, and that is on the stereotyped ground that I, like, I presume, nearly everybody in this House, have long ago come to the conclusion that whatever Government is destined to rule us in the future rich people will, undoubtedly, have to pay more in the future than they have had to pay in the past. That is precisely, as everybody knows, what this Budget does not do, and as long as it specially and vindictively singles out two forms of wealth only for the purposes of taxation I, naturally, was disappointed in this expectation. There is a third reason why I desired, if possible, to see a compromise effected on the question of the Budget. That is, frankly, because it was perfectly apparent to me that the more aggressive and pugnacious members of the Government are only too anxious to have a fight upon this particular point.
No great intelligence is required in order to realise what has led to the present situation. This Government, like all other Governments, has been steadily losing ground. It has seen its measures rejected and so far from that indignation being manifested which the noble Marquess appears to think rankles in the breast of every voter in the country the country notes the rejection of those measures with absolute indifference. In the endeavour to regain popularity, the leadership of the Liberal Party has fallen into the hands of the extreme men and those extreme men see an opportunity, not only of regaining popularity, but of destroying—a thing which they value much more—for effective purposes this House. Now, to do the Government justice I honestly believe that if any member of the Government, whom I see opposite now had been in charge of this measure, it would have been perfectly possible to have arrived at a compromise and there would have been no crisis, such as there is at the present moment. But whatever the feelings may be which actuate peaceable people like myself, what vestige of evidence has there been all through that any compromise of principle would be entertained by the persons who

1101
are really, and not nominally, responsible for the policy of the Government? Owing to the attitude of those Ministers and owing it must be admitted, partly to the attitude adopted by some of ourselves at the earlier portion of the controversy we have, for some time since, arrived at the stage when, as the French say, "the guns go off of themselves."
It is perfectly true, as has been pointed out over and over again in this debate, that this Budget has been so altered as to be almost unrecognisable. It contained so many absurdities and so many crudities that even with the gigantic mechanical majority which the Government command in another place they were fairly and honestly argued out of those absurdities by the small Unionist minority which exists in the House of Commons. But, on the other hand, in spite of those concessions, every speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it perfectly plain that he never meant to yield, that he saw there was a good chance of a fight and that he was determined to make us fight upon it. Well, it is only fair to say that this line was not adopted by all Liberals. As long as there appeared to be a reasonable chance of carrying the Budget, the time-honoured Parliamentary dodge was tried on of producing bonnets to assure the world and to assure old-fashioned Liberals that this Budget really meant nothing in particular, and that it was only a very moderate scheme of Liberal finance which Mr. Gladstone himself would have been glad to give his benediction to, and all the "heavy fathers," official and non-official, of the Party, who belong to the Parliamentary cast, were introduced so that they might be brought forward and give their benedictions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the classical macte novâ virtute, puer: sic itur ad astra being rendered somewhat in these words, "Go on, my boy, put the burden on the widest shoulders; I am with you heart and soul, so long as my shoulders are not affected by the burden." It is wonderful the enthusiasm which can be created in the hearts of these noble-hearted patriots when they see that the burdens have to be borne by other people. But now that the Budget—to put it mildly—is in extremis there is no further occasion for these histrionics and everybody in the Party has now got to join in the shouting—I might almost say the bellowing—against this
1102
House, or else it is clearly intimated to them there will be no longer room for them in the Party. The long and short of that is that there is no longer room for any moderate men in the Liberal Party. Noble Lords know that as well as I do, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade have got their own way and a general election and a possible war of classes and the destruction of the old Liberal Party, and the elimination of the moderate men from that Party, is the price which you pay for being led by those adventurous spirits.
Speaking for myself, I do not hesitate to say that I would sooner be the most insignificant Under-Secretary that ever crouched upon a Front Bench, the humblest private Member that ever tramped through the division Lobby at the bidding of an imperious Whip, rather than be known as the man who has utilised high office, and such gifts as nature has given me for the purpose of setting class against class and of hounding on one set of men against another. And when I study, which I do occasionally, the utterances of those twin protagonists of the Liberal Party, who like
… "two coursers of ethereal race With necks in thunder cloth'd and long resounding pace"
are whirling along the Liberal chariot at the present moment, completely free of any control from those who are supposed to guide the Party, I confess I do not know whether I am most repelled by the nauseous cant in which they occasionally indulge, or by their almost blatant appeals to the predatory instincts of their fellow creatures. Take the case of that austere moralist, the President of the Board of Trade, who has invented a new political theory with regard to the attitude of the State towards wealth. In future the new Liberal Government is going to the taxpayer, saying in a homely sort of way,
"It is not your money we want; we are not actuated by any sordid feelings of that kind; we want to know how you made it. If you made your money in land, or if you have anything to do with what is called 'the Trade,' your wealth is obtained in an unsatisfactory manner, and you will be heavily fined; but if, on the contrary, your money has been made by manufacturing, shall I say, cocoa, chemicals, or aëraled waters, or soap, there is nothing criminal in that, and we think it only fair to spare you as much taxation as we consistently can."
What a vista this opens up for the really imaginative Liberal Chancellor of the

1103
Exchequer of the future! Why, in pursuance of this doctrine, he may say to himself—
"There can be no more pernicious occupation in the world than to purvey Conservative political opinions. You are the owner of one of those pernicious newspapers, let us say The Times, or the Winning Post, or the Spectator. It is you who provide this unclean, deleterious stuff. You shall pay through the nose. Whereas as there can be clearly nothing more meritorious than to advocate Liberal opinions, it can only be fair that the Daily News and the New Age should escape from taxation altogether."
I pass from one moralist to another: to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not likely to be left behind in the race. If there is one thing which nobody claims for this Budget at all, it is that it is going to do anything for unemployment. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the audacity to announce that he is about to wage what he calls "an implacable war against poverty;" that "no cupboard is to be left bare," and that he is "going to bring rare and refreshing fruit to the parched lips of the multitude." Yes, rare and refreshing fruit were brought to the parched lips of our old acquaintance Tantalus, but they never attained as far as his lips. He was never allowed to taste them or, so to speak, "get his teeth into them." And on the top of this we have the amazing statement. "To deceive the poor is the meanest of all crimes." These Pecksniffian sentiments may excite derision, but the shameless appeals to what I can only term the predatory instincts of the people are naturally of a more serious character. Nothing annoys the Government more—and it is not difficult to annoy the Government—than to be accused of Socialism.
For my part I willingly acquit all noble Lords upon the Front Bench of any sympathy with Socialism, just as I acquit them of being responsible in any way for the provisions in this Budget. But if they decline the imputation; if, like my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, they are unable to detect any Socialism in the Budget, how do they account for the fact that Socialists, not only in this country but all over Europe, have risen as one man, or as one woman, and called this Budget blessed—not the Government but the Budget; in fact it would be hardly correct to say the Budget, but a portion of the Budget! If the Government cannot quote one single, solitary, impartial financier or commercial
1104
authority in favour of their Budget, can they quote one single Socialist who is not in favour of it? I am afraid they cannot quote a banker or an agent, or a manager, or a builder, or even an auctioneer in favour of the Budget; but I repeat, that it would be impossible for them to name one single Socialist in this or any other country, who is not in favour of, at all events, some portions of it. As a matter of fact it has been received by Socialists all over the world as "glad tidings of great joy," and the new principles which have been introduced are considered, and probably rightly considered, to be the greatest advance which Socialism has made since it originally started. And the only real difference between the bonâ fide Socialist and the present Government is this—and I am afraid it is not a very complimentary difference—the difference is that the pure Socialist is logical, and, according to his lights, a perfectly honest person, who proposes to appropriate the whole of private property for public benefit. The Government, on the other hand, only propose to appropriate a certain portion of a particular form of property, which, unhappily, happens to be identified with their political opponents.
Nobody is really in the least taken in by the elaborate and ingenious arguments which are being constantly used in order to differentiate the case of land from anything else. The explanation is perfectly simple, the Lord Advocate, lapsing for a moment into accuracy, said, with extreme felicity, "Land cannot run away." Of course that is so. It stares you in the face, and nothing is easier than to create prejudice against people because they are the owners of land and their wealth is evident and it is stationary. They cannot get rid of it, whereas other people may be infinitely richer in every sense and yet, because their wealth is not apparent and is not fixed and stationary, they escape altogether.
This very simple plan of helping out the Socialist case was pointed out by Karl Marx many years ago when he said that really England was the most favourable soil upon which to plant the Socialistic seed. It is almost pathetic, considering the efforts which have been made by the Government to placate the Socialists, to see the extreme ingratitude which they receive in return. The Socialists and the Labour people—and personally I never can see any more difference

1105
between the Socialist and a Labour leader than I can between, say, a coloured gentleman and a full-blooded negro—the Socialists and the Labour people won't even give the Government credit for originality. They won't even give the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for originality. They say that the Limehouse speech was only famous because all its economic and social items were copied substantially from the speeches of obscure street-corner talkers who had been spreading the views of the Labour party for years. That seems to me a perfectly true assertion, more especially that part which refers to street corners. It is in vain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer humbly follows in the train of Labour-cum-Socialist processions. The only return that he gets for the subservience is that whenever the Socialists or the Labour Party can manage to do so they run a candidate against a Government candidate. The attitude of the Labour-cum-Socialist coalition towards the Liberal Government suggests to me the attitude of the boa-constrictor towards its attendant. That somewhat unsympathetic animal receives all that is given it without evidencing any gratitude or any emotion. It takes all that it can get, and it will be quite ready to take the attendant himself and appropriate him should an opportunity arise.
If the Socialists and Labour Party show less gratitude than might be expected for this heaven-sent gift in the shape of the Budget, it actually seems doubtful whether the ordinary voter appreciates it at its true value. This Budget is loudly described as the "People's Budget," the "Poor Man's Budget," and, above all, the "Popular Budget." Yet it is a most remarkable thing to me that the most enormous pains are taken to emphasise the fact that the Budget really is popular—efforts before which even the exertions of Mr. Haldane and Lord Esher on behalf of the Territorial Army, pale. In order to emphasise the fact that the Budget is really popular a gigantic League has been started to proclaim the fact. A distinguished law officer of the Crown has been liberated from his duties in older to perambulate the country and to present the Budget in its most attractive, or perhaps it would be more correct to say, its most alluring, lights. Even such things as gramophones and other mechanical appliances have been introduced; and finally even the spirits of the illustrious have been invoked to bestow blessings, couched
1106
in such vile grammar, that the language certainly would have been disowned during life.
Then, too, I do not infer for myself that the by-elections which have taken place since the Budget was introduced, convey any idea of excessive popularity. There have, I think, been four. One of those elections was lost. In the other seats—they were all carefully selected—the Government candidate was returned in each case with a largely reduced majority. Upon the whole it is not so very surprising that the Budget may turn out to be less popular than was abundantly supposed, because although it sounds very well at first if you tell A that B is going to be heavily taxed, yet if A finds he does not benefit by it, and that C, for instance, is gravely inconvenienced by it his enthusiasm for the proposal is likely to evaporate to a very considerable extent. Upon the whole I am personally inclined to hope that the reputed popularity of the Budget must rest largely upon the speeches which have been made against it in the country by members of this House; speeches which, unfortunately have been interpreted in a somewhat different sense from that in which they were delivered. Then it is assumed that even supposing the proposals are less popular than is commonly supposed, nevertheless thousands, and, indeed, possibly millions, of voters, will be so goaded to frenzy at the idea of any infraction of the privileges of the Commons that there can be no possible doubt as to the result. Now I desire to speak with all respect of the House of Commons, for one reason because I was for some years a member of that Assembly myself; but I cannot resist the feeling that at the present time a great many people have what I venture to call privilege on the brain. There are many estimable persons who enter Parliament firmly convinced that they are the only people in the country in whom any real interest is taken, and that what seems to them matters of supreme importance, such as the forms of the House, the procedure, resolutions, and privileges are matters of equally absorbing interest to the outside world. Not even a perusal of the halfpenny papers, which never report anything at all of what happens in the other place unless it be in the nature of an incident, seems to convince them to the contrary. I myself believe this view to be an absolute delusion.
My firm belief is that the ordinary voter in this country does not concern himself in the very least with questions of this

1107
kind. He sends people to represent his opinion and to get certain work done. And if that work is not done, or if it is done in a way he disapppoves, he replaces them with somebody else. But to suggest that the ordinary voter is violently agitated over, for instance, the exact meaning of a resolution passed more than two hundred years ago is too heavy a draft upon my credulity at all events. This is the kind of question which enormously excites professors and dons and people who write long letters to the Spectator and to papers of that kind. But does anybody seriously suppose that the voters are going to work themselves into an uncontrolled fury because we say that they ought to be consulted upon what is admitted by the Government itself to be nothing but a revolution. Does any voter draw elaborate distinctions between Bill or Budget? Does he care whether a Bill, if it is a good one, is introduced in this House or the other House, and does anybody believe, for one single moment, that because an abnormal step is to be taken by this House that this House is going continually to interfere in such matters to the end of time? I do not believe there is any person possessed of the smallest amount of common sense who entertains those views for an instant; and my firm belief is that when the contest takes place the purely constitutional question will play a very little part. With regard to this contest I myself embark upon it, I freely admit, like everybody else, with the greatest reluctance. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I had hoped for a long time that there would be no contest at all. I cannot help realising the extreme disadvantages under which we fight. As a matter of fact we have been driven, or jockeyed into a fight. It is not one of our seeking. My hope is that the commonsense of this country will once again come to our assistance and that people will realise that the mere collection of money is not the end in view; that they will realise at the same time that the Licensing Clauses embody a principle already rejected and that the Land Clauses are not remunerative but vindictive, and that if these proposals are allowed to take effect they will injure, and probably finally destroy, that credit and confidence upon which the prosperity of the country depends.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I think there should be some division of labour
1108
in a debate of this kind, and that each member of the House should endeavour to deal with two or three points. For this reason I shall not attempt to deal at length with the constitutional question. I am quite satisfied with the manner in which that has been treated by the Lord Chancellor in his most able speech, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in a speech extremely able, lucid, and courageous. We all feel, on this side, that in abstract law there is a right on the part of this House to reject the Finance Bill, but what we say is that, by the usages of Parliament for many centuries that right has practically been abrogated, and that the House of Commons has acquired supremacy in the finance of this country. For my part I cannot believe that that supremacy can be set aside without considerable danger to the State. If this Amendment is carried it will form a precedent for the future of a most dangerous character, and I do not believe for a moment that any Liberal Government can take office after the General Election, if the election should prove favourable to them, or could resume office at any future time if this election should be unfavourable to them, without obtaining powers for the purpose of upsetting the decision at which your Lordships will probably arrive on this Amendment, and for resuming, on the part of the House of Commons, full control over the finance of the country. Whenever that comes about other questions undoubtedly will have to be dealt with affecting the relations of the two Houses.
I think no one can have sat through the debates on the many measures which have come up from the House of Commons during the last four years and seen the manner in which those measures have been treated by your Lordships without having felt that the position of the Government in this House is a somewhat humiliating and impotent one. They are completely at the mercy every night of the Opposition. They cannot practically carry any measures without the consent of the Opposition. Perhaps the most conspicuous instance of this position is the case of Bills affecting Ireland. Bills affecting Ireland come up from the other House, where they have been supported by enormous majorities of the representatives of the Irish people; they come here and are dealt with by a House in which there is

1109
not a single representative of the Irish Nationalist Party and where the overwhelming number of Peers representing Ireland represent one interest only. They are dealt with by this House in a fashion which was exhibited in the Land Bill only a few days ago, and they are sent back to the other House and eventually some kind of compromise is arrived at. Legislation dealt with in this way cannot possibly, I think, give satisfaction to Ireland. It appears to me, therefore, that some change is absolutely necessary in the relations of the two Houses. What that change will be I cannot at the present moment enter upon; but my own impression is that it is more likely to take the line of the recommendations of the late Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, than any great change in the construction and constitution of the House.
Turning to the Budget before the House, I should like to say one or two words upon the land clauses, and especially upon the clause dealing with increment value. It has been said by many speakers in the course of the debate that this clause amounts to confiscation, and is Socialistic. I cannot myself take that view of the case. The first, I believe, who advised the principle of the taxation of unearned increment was the late Mr. Mill, and he was very far removed indeed from Socialism. I think I was present at the birth of the idea, because something like forty-five years ago I was a member of the Political Economy Club, of which Mr. Mill was a leading member, and it was there that he first broached his idea of unearned increment. That club consisted of members of the most orthodox economic type, but it was never suggested by any one of them that the proposal of Mr. Mill was Socialistic. The only difficulty that was ever raised by the club was that it would be extremely difficult to work out in practice, and that was my view of the case until quite lately. But it seems to me that the Government have very cleverly devised a scheme under which it can be practically worked.
I should like to give the House an illustration of the possible working of the increment clause of this Bill. A good many years ago I was concerned with a number of others in the purchase of a very large property adjoining Hampstead Heath with a view of adding it to that open space. We arranged for the purchase
1110
of 240 acres there, from two large owners, and with the assistance of the London County Council and other local authorities we were able to raise the money for the purpose. The price was something over £1,000 an acre. It transpired from the title deeds which were examined on the purchase of this property that a considerable part of it had been bought some thirty or forty years earlier for £50 an acre. Therefore this land bad increased in value during thirty or forty years from £50 an acre to £1,000 an acre, and during the whole of that time it had paid nothing in the shape of rates to the local authority except as agricultural land. Now it does seem to me that land under that condition may fairly be called upon to contribute something to the State and equally to the local authority. I am told that quite recently some more land adjoining that of which I speak, some four or five acres, has been sold to one of the local authorities at the price of £5,000 an acre. Therefore there has been yet a further increase from £1,000 to £5,000 an acre. It seems to me that that, again, is an illustration of a case where it is not unreasonable that a considerable contribution should be made to the State.
Turning to another point, I observed that the noble Marquess who opened this debate said in the course of his able speech that in his view the Budget exhausted all the possibilities of raising revenue on Free Trade principles, and apparently it was on that ground, to some extent, that he gave his adherence to the scheme of the Tariff Reformers. For my part I cannot think that the revenue to be derived on Free Trade principles is exhausted by the Budget. It would be easy enough for Parliament to revert to the taxes which were put on in 1900–1901 by the late Government under the auspices of their then Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord St. Aldwyn. We might put on another penny to the Income Tax. We might raise again the Sugar Duties and the Tea Duties to the level at which he put them, and we might also again reimpose the import duty on coal, which, although in my opinion a bad tax, is not half so bad as a duty upon the import of foods. If we imposed those duties we should raise a revenue of £11,000,000—a very considerable amount—all within the purview of Free Trade doctrines. Although I consider that there is this

1111
alternative to the Budget I do not propose it as an alternative. On the contrary, I think that the Government have done exceedingly well in not imposing extra duties on tea and sugar. At the present moment, when the prices have been rising of almost every kind of food, it would be a very great burden to the labouring people if the prices of tea and sugar were increased. Although I hold that there is another alternative to the present Budget compatible with Free Trade doctrines, and which is an important reserve in the event of war, yet I also think that such an alternative is not likely to come from the Opposition in the event of their succeeding at the General Election. From all appearances, if a Unionist Government should be returned after the General Election it is more likely to adopt the scheme of the Tariff Reformers.
I should like the House to consider what would be the incidence of the two schemes—the Budget scheme and the Tariff Reform scheme—upon the two classes of the community, namely, the agricultural labourers and the agricultural landowners. These classes occupy two extremes of our social system. The effect of the Budget upon the labourers will be an extremely small one. Lord Pentland, with great justice, said the burden of the Budget on the working classes would be equivalent to two pence in the pound on their wages. He referred, I think, to an artisan earning 30 s. a week, and if we take the case of the agricultural labourer, who does not earn more than half of this. I do not think the burden would be more than 1½d. in the pound at the outside. What will be the burden under a Tariff Reform scheme? I must make this assumption, which I am told the Tariff Reformers will not admit, that an import duty will raise the price of the article upon which the duty is imposed by at least the same amount as the duty and probably by something more. I believe that the assumption that the foreign importer will pay any part of the duty is a wrong one, and that there is no warrant for it in political economy. In fact, it is a fable worthy only to be told to the marines. All economists of any repute have always recognised that an import duty raises the price of the imported article. This is the experience of all protected countries. There is a warrant for that in the case of drawbacks allowed on exports of articles which have paid duty and in various other ways. I must assume that an import duty
1112
will raise the prices of imported articles. Upon that assumption it is not difficult to work out the effect of the Tariff Reform scheme. It would be to raise the prices of the articles consumed by the labourer by at least the average amount of duties which it is proposed to raise—namely, seven and a half per cent., if you take into account not merely food, but other necessaries of life. The burden on the agricultural labourer would be something like 16 d. in the £1, compared with 1½d. in the £1 under the Budget. The difference is enormous.
Then how do the two schemes bear upon the landowner? I do not mean the fortunate man who owns land in a suburban district, but the owner of agricultural land. I will take the case of an agricultural landowner, and I think the Budget, when carefully examined, will be shown to bear very lightly upon him. Take the case of a landowner with gross income of £10,000 a year, and a net income of £5,000, the difference being accounted for in part by the burden of repairs and maintenance of the property, and in part by family charges and interest on mortgages. Under the Budget the landowner with a net income of £5,000 a year will not have to pay the Super Tax; he will only have to pay the extra twopence on the Income Tax, and he will have the great boon under the Budget of the relief of further abatements as regards the Income Tax in respect of one-eighth of the gross rental expended upon repairs and maintenance. Under the present law he is only allowed one-eighth, but under the Budget he will be allowed another one-eighth abatement, and he will save the Income Tax of 1s. in respect of that additional abatement. That will amount to a considerable sum of money in excess of that payable under the twopence extra Income Tax. The abatement in such a case would be £62 per year, whereas the twopenny Income Tax would be only £40. On the other hand it may be reasonable to take into account that the landowner may be a provident man and may desire to insure himself against the increased Settlement Duty. Under the Budget the increased Settlement Duty is one per cent., and to insure that for an average age of fifty years he would require an outlay of £50. Taking all these into account, the landowner with a net income of £5,000 would only have to pay under the Budget £28 in the shape of increased burdens, and that seems to me a very small amount—it is not so much as the wages of a single gardener.

1113
Under a Tariff Reform scheme the landowner with a net income of £5,000 would have to meet some increased cost on food and other necessaries of life for himself and his family. That would not be a very considerable sum, and, on the other side, he would very greatly benefit; he would gain an increase of rent in consequence of the increased prices of agricultural produce. If I am right in my statement that the price of agricultural produce would be increased exactly in the proportion of the import duty, so the rent will increase in the same proportion. We have statutory authority for this. In the case of a Tithe Act it is provided that the tithe, which is in fact a part of the rent of land, rises and falls exactly in proportion to the rise or fall in the price of corn from year to year. This is a statutory recognition of the fact that rent will rise in proportion to the prices of food. If the average import duty under the scheme is to be seven and a-half per cent. upon imported food of all kinds, we may be perfectly certain that, sooner or later, rent will increase in the same proportion; moreover, a landowner with a net income of £5,000 a year will get an increase of this rent, not upon the net, but upon the gross income of £10,000 a year. Calculating that at seven and a-half per cent. there will be an increase of £750 a year to his income. Therefore the landowner in this case would gain £750 and would lose only the increase in the price of food for himself and his family. I think I have shown, therefore, that under the two schemes the agricultural labourer would, in the case of the Budget, have a very small burden put upon him, and a very heavy one by the Tariff Reform scheme, where as in the case of a landowner the present Budget would impose only a very small burden and the alternative scheme would also impose only a very small burden, whilst on the other hand it would increase his rents very largely.
The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, in alluding to the landowners, referred to the fact that no less than one-fifth of the land in this country is owned by members of your Lordships' House. That was the calculation, I believe, arrived at by the "Domesday Book" of twenty-five or thirty years ago, and I do not think there has been much change since that time, except that a certain number of Irish landlords have sold their property to their tenants and some territorial magnates have been added to the members of the House. On the other hand,
1114
there has been a considerable reduction of rent, to the extent of at least thirty per cent. But taking this into account, it would appear that the average rental of members of this House is at the present time—and there are over 600 members in the House—£16,000 a year. Lord Rosebery seemed to think that the House of Lords, which is so deeply interested in land, ought to have some voice in the finances of the country. If by voice he merely meant the opportunity of discussing the Budget in this House, they have that already. But if it is intended that they shall have some share in the responsibility of passing a Finance Bill and some power of controlling the finances of the country, I venture to differ from him in toto. I think it would be dangerous for the House of Lords, being so deeply interested in the land of the country, to have a voice in the finances of the country. Looking at the Budget as a whole, I believe it to be a just and fair one. It imposes charges on all classes of the community—very light charges upon the labouring people and those of small means, rising by gradations to a higher charge in proportion to their superfluities, but not in a manner to cause them any embarrassment. It seeks out new sources of revenue in the increment of land and the monopoly of the license holders. I think, therefore, it is a fair and reasonable Budget. On the other hand, the alternative proposal which has been suggested tends in the opposite direction. It relieves property of all kinds from any charge, and throws immense burdens on the labouring classes. In short, it can only be described as a scheme for robbing the poor for the benefit of the rich.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I do not propose to touch upon the grave constitutional issues which have been raised, further than to say that I fully concur in the view expressed by the noble. Marquess in his Amendment. I cannot think that the course which has been recommended, that this House should pass this Bill for the present and trust to a rebound taking place in the opinion of the public when the nature of its provisions come to be known by experience, would be either right or straightforward, But apart from that higher view on which I confess that I feel most deeply, and taking the much lower view of policy and expediency, I do not think it is a course that it would be judicious to adopt. Should that rebound take place, the odium attaching to the

1115
framers of the Bill would be shared in by this House, and would fall even more severely upon it, because it would be said the promoters of the Bill believed, however erroneously, in the excellence of its provisions, while the House of Lords adopted it knowing it to be bad, and the public would say that the House of Lords was far the worse of the two. Among the large section of our countrymen opposed to the Bill there would be those who would say "the House of Lords shared our convictions that the Bill was a bad one, and still they passed it and deserted us in our hour of need." Therefore, from both quarters we should lose what respect attaches to the decision of this House.
I should like to say a word upon the effect this Bill will have on Ireland and the impression it has created. Lord Mayo has said that it has been received in Ireland with marked hostility and even with a feeling approaching to dismay. He told the House that a great many local bodies had protested against it, and that some had even taken the extreme and unusual course of appealing to the members of this House to vote against it. Ireland has been favoured in the case of the licence duties, but, on the other hand, all the objections raised to the Bill in this country apply with more force to Ireland, because increased taxation presses harder upon a poor country than the rich one. Talking about rich men in Ireland reminds one of the old story of the man who began a scientific dissertation on snakes in Iceland by saying "There are no snakes in Iceland." In Ireland there are no rich men, or so few that they don't count. People there lead somewhat hard and struggling lives, and find it extremely difficult to make both ends meet. The acceptance of this Budget means retrenchment in consequence of the increased taxation, and retrenchment
1116
means reduction of the labour bill. In this way labourers will suffer acutely when the enhanced taxation comes into force on the more well-to-do people. Another class that would suffer severely is the new race of peasant proprietors—those who have purchased their farms under the recent Land Purchase Acts. These men, the great majority of whom are small farmers, will suffer both by the Death Duties and by the increased duties on transfers or dealings in land. It may appear to be a small matter, but it would be a big thing to them. Some may say that no facilities ought to be given to such transfers. A certain class of politicians hold that the panacea for the woes of Ireland is the subdivision of the land into small farms, the boundaries of which are to be stereotyped for all time, tilled by the present occupants and their descendants, without change, for ever. This is manifestly impossible, and it is not at all desirable that if a man has good reason to part with his farm he should be precluded from doing so. In my opinion it is better that he should do so, and that another man better qualified should succeed him. Transfers of land will take place, and that there should be any impediment to legitimate transfers is, in my opinion, extremely undesirable. In conclusion, I do urge that the new duties on excisable commodities press very hardly upon the poorer sections of the community. It is their position that I submit to the House, and I appeal to your Lordships to take that into consideration and to express your objection to this Bill by supporting the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition.
Debate again adjourned to Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.