Sitting of 19 April 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mallow Urban District Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gowerton Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Message from the Lords:—
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Nottingham to construct tramways and street improvements; and for other purposes." —(Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords].)
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the area of supply of the Reading Electric Supply Company, Limited; to confer further powers upon that Company in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes."—(Reading and District Electric Supply Bill [Lords].)
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide, in the case of certain gas companies, for the adoption of the Metropolitan Argand Burner (No. 2) as a standard burner in substitution of the various burners now in use for the official testing of the illuminating power of gas supplied by them; and for other purposes."—(Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords].)
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide in the case of certain gas companies for the adoption of the Metropolitan Argand Burner (No. 2) as a standard burner in substitution for the various burners now in use for the official testing of the illuminating power of gas supplied by them; and for other purposes/' —(Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords].)
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide in the case of certain gas companies for the adoption of the Metropolitan Argand Burner (No. 2) as a standard burner in substitution for the various burners now in use for the official testing of the illuminating power of gas supplied by them; and for other purposes." —(Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords].)
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Company; and for other purposes."—(Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords].)
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Metropolitan District Railway Company to capitalise the arrears of dividend on their guaranteed stock, to reduce the dividend on their first preference stock, and to authorise them and the London and South Western Railway Company to construct new railways; and for other purposes.' (Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords].)
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reading and District Electric Supply Bill [Lords],
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Local Government Provision Orders (No. 2) Bill—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Abertillery, New Hunstanton, and Stockton-on-Tees," presented by Mr. LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time. (To be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.)
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Burnley, Southend-on-Sea, the Croydon Rural and Merton Joint Hospital District, and the Middlesex Districts Joint Small Pox Hospital District," presented by Mr. LEWIS; supported by

1857
Mr. Burns; read the first time. (To be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.)
Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill—''to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Port of London Act, 1908, relating to the Registration of Craft by the Port of London authority," presented by Mr. TENNANT; read the first time. (To be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.)

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
Return ordered "of all Sentences of Corporal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic, c. 44, upon persons convicted of Offences under Section 43 of The Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of The Offences against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales from the 31st day of December, 1908, to the 31st day of December, 1909 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 138, of Session 1909).— [Mr. Lloyd Morgan.]
EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORK).
Address ordered, "showing the estimated position, as regards capital expenditure, of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1910, and the, proposed expenditure thereon during 1010–11 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 127, of Session 1909).—[Sir Robert Price]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Foreign Judgments Against British Subjects.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received representations with reference to the commercial inequalities arising from the courts of certain Foreign countries bringing within their jurisdiction, by registered letter or consular action, persons resident here but having no residence or property there, and pronouncing against them judgments which may be subsequently enforced if opportunity offers, while the courts of this Country do not extend their jurisdiction correspondingly; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to equalise matters in this respect?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have considered the cases which my hon. Friend has brought to my notice, but as far as I understand the question I am not satisfied that the suggested difference of practice exists. If, however, my hon. Friend will give me some more precise particulars, I will look into the matter.

  Icelandic Coast (Lighting).
  Mr. WINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will enter into negotiations with the authorities governing Iceland with a view to the efficient lighting of the southern coast of Iceland by lighthouses, and the erection of refuge shelters in the interest of the crews shipwrecked while trawling along that coast?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We learn that the Icelandic Government have in view the erection of a lighthouse at Cape Ingolfshöfde, and that they would have no objection to the erection of refuge shelters by foreign shipowners. I understand that there are no funds at the disposal of H.M. Government which could be applied to the erection of such shelters, but if the British fishing trade would be willing to contribute to the cost of providing additional shelters, I would be prepared to ascertain whether co-operation and assistance would be forthcoming from other quarters.

  Attacks on Persian Trade Routes.
  Mr. LINCOLNasked whether any attacks on, or interference with, caravans, posts, or travellers have taken place during the past ten weeks in the following places in Persia, namely, Tabriz, Ardelsil, Khasvine, Rescht, and along the road to the Caspian Sea; and whether particulars can be given of such attacks?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We have no information later than 24th March, when it was anticipated that the departure of Sattar and Bagher Khans from Tabriz would have a tranquillising effect. Order prevailed at Resht, but minor disturbances had occurred between Ardebil and the Caspian. We have no recent report from Kasvin.
  Mr. DILLON: Why was it anticipated that the departure of the Khans would have a tranquillising effect?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Because they had been a source of trouble in the past.

  Railway Construction, Far East.
  Mr. LINCOLNasked on what grounds His Majesty's Government supported the Imperial Japanese Government in their vetoing or effectually preventing the construction by a British firm of a railway from Chinchow, via Taonaufu and. Tsitsihar, to Aigun on the Amur; and owing to the attitude of His Majesty's Government, the financing of this railway passed to a large extent out of the hands of the British firm, and the rolling-stock and railway material, which was to have been entirely constructed in this Country, is now to be so no longer, and the British share in the orders for material has been diminished by a sum computed at not less than £500,000, which would have found work and wages for a large number of people in this Country?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I assume that the hon. Member has not read the answers given to previous questions on this subject, or he would not have put this question upon the paper. I have nothing to add to previous answers.

  Somaliland (Withdrawal of the British Forces).
  Mr. FELLasked if the Italian Government was consulted before the withdrawal of our forces from the interior of Somali-land was decided upon; and if such withdrawal is likely to affect the southern, or Italian, half of Somaliland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The withdrawal of our forces from the interior of Somaliland was a measure of internal policy on which the Italian Government were not consulted before the decision was taken. The second part of the question refers to a hypothetical matter on which I cannot express an opinion.
  Mr. FELL: Is it a fact that we are acting entirely in harmony with the Italian Government in this matter which must affect their interests?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Member give notice of that question.

  Indian Public Works Department (Reorganisation of Provincial Service).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has yet received a Report from the Government of India regarding the proposed reorganisation of the provincial service of the Indian Public Works Depart-
  1860
  ment; and whether, as this Report is overdue, and pecuniary loss is being caused to the officers concerned by the delay of over two years which has already occurred, the Secretary of State will communicate with the Government of India with a view to the speedy submission of its recommendations?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India recently laid proposals before Local Governments, but have not yet had time to receive replies. The Secretary of State will bear the matter in mind with a view to ensuring that no unnecessary delay takes place, but the question is one of considerable difficulty.

  Eastern Bengal and Assam (Prohibited Conferences).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention had been drawn to the prohibition of public conferences by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam under the Seditious Meetings Act of 1907: and whether there is such an aggravation of public feeling in that province as to render it necessary to prohibit public conferences which had been allowed without objection in previous years?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Three districts in Eastern Bengal were proclaimed last month under the Seditious Meetings Act of 1907. Such proclamation has the effect of enabling the magistrates of those districts to prohibit a public meeting which is likely to promote sedition or to disturb public tranquillity. The intention of the Local Government is to prevent the excitement of lawlessness by meetings organised from outside the districts for the purpose of reviving agitation. The magistrates concerned were instructed to prohibit such meetings unless satisfactory assurances were given that the proceedings would be unobjectionable.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last part of my question—whether the feeling is worse in those districts than it was when conferences were allowed to be held without let or hindrance?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The latter part of the question was whether there is such an aggravation of public feeling in the provinces as to render it necessary to prohibit public conferences. I have explained that the Seditious Meetings Act has only

  1861
  been proclaimed in three districts, and not with a view of preventing the agitation that exists in those district's, but to prevent its being imported from outside. I think that is an answer to his question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the hon. Member aware that those responsible for organising these conferences gave an undertaking that no objectionable person and no extreme language would be allowed at either conference. Why under these circumstances were the conferences prohibited?
  Mr. REES: Was it not the case that at these conferences resolutions were put forward stating that no one approved of the partition of Bengali Is not that an aggravating and inaccurate statement?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information on that subject, neither do I think it arises here. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, the magistrates were only instructed to prevent meetings when there were no satisfactory assurances that the proceedings would be unobjectionable. If a meeting was not held, I presume it was because those assurances were not forthcoming.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Secretary for India cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances which led to these conferences being prohibited, especially in view of the statement made by the Viceroy that the situation in Eastern Bengal had improved?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member thinks he has knowledge that a particular meeting in regard to which the requisite assurance were forthcoming has been unnecessarily prohibited, if he will bring the facts to my notice I will inquire into them.
  Mr. REES: Is the hon. Member right in supposing that conferences were prohibited, or is it not the case that the magistrates were only empowered to prohibit them if they thought it necessary?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member had done me the honour to listen to my answer he would have noticed that that is precisely what I said.

  Territorial Force (Darlaston Company).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Darlaston Company of the South Staffordshire Territorials have no drill hall or covered place of assembly; if there is
  1862
  any way of supporting or assisting in the supply of a suitable building out of the public funds; and whether arrangements can be made for the hall of the proposed labour exchange to be lent for the purpose?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The Darlaston Company of the 6th Battalion South Staffordshire Regiment has hitherto drilled in the town hall. Sanction for the hire of this hall, when required, was applied for by the Stafford Association and granted in November last. The Stafford Association has recently proposed to purchase a site at Darlaston and to build a drill hall thereon. This proposal is now under consideration, and further information has been asked for. The association will be asked to consider whether the suggestion contained in the latter portion of the question would be feasible.

  Garrison Artillery (Walney Island).
  Colonel BATHURSTasked the Secretary for War, in view of his statement that instead of fixed units of garrison artillery with old guns, they found that the only form of defence that could be relied on was a mobile defence, he will say why the War Office is at present building a position battery on the island of Walney; and why two companies of garrison artillery are being raised in Barrow to man the said fort?
  Mr. HALDANE: The statement referred to was a general one applicable to the defence of the country as a whole; it was by no means intended to imply that no garrison artillery units are now required to man the fixed armament at defended ports. The battery in course of construction at Walney Island will contain fixed armament, for manning which two companies of Territorial Royal Garrison artillery are being raised at Barrow.

  Army Dietary (Fish).
  Mr. WINGasked the Secretary for War if he will take into consideration the advisability of further varying the dietary of the Army by placing fish among the fixed foods arranged in the daily dietary, in harmony with the proposal made by circular from the Fisheries Protection Society, and, if not, will he explain why?
  Mr. HALDANE: Various proposals for the inclusion of fish in the soldiers' dietary have been fully considered, including that of the National Sea Fisheries Protection

  1863
  Association. Trials have been made, but with unfavourable results. Further, it would appear from the reports on the subject that the soldier is averse to fish of any description as a general article of dietary. It is not therefore considered advisable to adopt fish as part of the dietary.
  Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek interviews more frequently than he has done with the soldier, as in our ports he is generally to be found in the fried fish shops?
  Mr. HALDANE: The soldier has his preferences.

  Arsenal Labourers (Woolwich and Gunwharf, Devonport).
  Mr. MILD MAYasked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the possibility of removing the disparity, amounting to the sum of over 3s. per week, between the wages paid to labourers in His Majesty's Gunwharf, Devonport, and those paid to the same class employed in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, the work in both cases, and the cost of living in Devonport and Woolwich being practically similar?
  Mr. HALDANE: The difference, which is 2s. 6d. a week and not 3s. as stated in the question, reflects the difference existing between the local rates in Devonport and London according to the information in my possession. Assuming this to be so no action appears necessary.

  Territorial Army Service Corps (Officers' Uniform Grant).
  Mr. JOHN LYTTELTONasked whether the Army Council are demanding the return of the £20 uniform grant in the case of officers of the Territorial Army Service Corps who have not attended an initial course of instruction, but have obtained I certificates for the transport and supply courses at a school of instruction; and whether the Army Council will consider the holding of the A and B certificates sufficient qualification for the retaining of the uniform grant, seeing that the Army Service Corps duties are mainly of a technical character, efficiency in which is necessary before the before-mentioned certificates are granted?
  Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. Member will give me the details of the particular case or cases to which he refers, I will have inquiry made.

  Ceylon Government Railway Staff (Fines)
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the fining system is still imposed upon the employés of the Ceylon Government Railway; if so, to how many of the oficials and staff does the system apply; and by whose instructions was it adopted?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I have no information as to the system in force in the Ceylon Railway Department, but inquiry will be made.

  Witwatersrand Mines.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he can state the working costs, profits, and dividends of the mines of Witwatersand and the outside districts for 1908 and 1909, namely, the tons milled, the stamps at work, the duty per stamp per diem, the number of tube-mills, the yield in fine ounces, the yield in sterlings, the yield per ton, the working costs per ton, the profits per ton, and the dividends declared?
  Colonel SEELY: I will circulate the information desired by my hon. Friend with the Votes, so far as it is available. — [See Written Answers this date.]
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are the dividends to which the hon. Member referred average dividends or dividends upon the different mines?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman will see when I circulate the answer in the Votes.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. GILL (for Mr. Hodge)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he could give the number of applicants for appointments to the. Labour Exchanges and sub-offices which are opened or to be opened, and who were selected by the Committee of Selection from which the 250 managers were selected?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The total number of applications received from males for positions in connection with Labour Exchanges was 13,078, up to the date of the Selection Committee's Report.
  Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take any steps to have one of the Labour Exchange inspectors or officials

  1865
  visit Galway with a view to ascertaining the number of persons there who are unemployed, and of making arrangements to have their names registered without delay; and whether, considering that Galway is the largest and most populous town in the province of Connaught, he will establish a Labour Exchange there and enable the poor people who so much need remunerative work to take advantage of the law passed for the purpose of bringing them relief?
  Mr. TENNANT: The claims of Galway are being considered in connection with the general question of the extension of the Labour Exchanges in Ireland.

  Railway Stock (Proprietors' Combinations).
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state under what Statute the Board of Trade has power to intervene in order to prevent combinations by private proprietors of railway stock in view to obtaining a moderate return upon their capital?
  Mr. TENNANT: Under Section 17 of the Railway Regulation Act, 1844, the Board of Trade have a general power to bring before the courts acts on the part of a railway company that, appear to be ultra vires if satisfied that it would be for the public advantage that the company should be restrained from so acting. This, so far as I am aware, is the only statutory power possessed by the Board of Trade in such matters as are referred to in the question.
  Mr. REES: Have any such cases been brought into court? Has any action been taken under the Section?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; I believe there were cases taken long ago, but not in recent years.

  Darlaston Post Office.
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Darlaston post office is far too small for the requirements of the community, and that inconvenience is caused to the public business thereby; and if he can take any steps to increase the public accommodation thereof?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The question of obtaining better accommodation for the work of the Darlaston office has been engaging attention for some time past; and I hope that it will not be long before a suitable scheme can be arranged.

  Sub-Post Offices (Provision of Safes).
  Colonel RAWSONasked the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to provide safes in small sub-post offices, where requested by the sub-postmaster, in view of the fact that stamps, postal orders, and change, often to the value of over £100 have to be kept, and that the small remuneration paid to the sub-postmaster makes it impossible for him to be able to provide a safe for himself?
  Captain NORTON: The scale of remuneration for sub-postmasters is based on the recommendation of the Select Parliamentary Committee, who stated that "it is intended to cover the provision of all office fittings except post boxes." I am not prepared to depart from the Committee's recommendation.

  Treatment of Boys on Welsh Farms.
  Mr. LLOYD MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case tried at the Cardiganshire Quarter Sessions on the 7th instant in which a boy named Gardner was charged with attempted suicide; whether he is aware that the boy was sent to a farm in Pembrokeshire from the Chase Farm Schools, Enfield, and that in his defence he stated that he attempted to commit suicide owing to the unkindness of the farmer's two sons; whether he is aware that on the 6th instant, at the New Chapel, Pembrokeshire, Petty Sessions, one of the sons of the farmer was convicted on the prosecution of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for ill-treating an industrial schoolboy, and fined £25 and costs; and whether he will consider the question of directing some police officer or other official to visit from time to time boys sent out to service from industrial schools so as to inquire as to their conduct, and, if necessary, to secure for them fair treatment?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have made some inquiry into the cases mentioned. The two youths had both been chargeable to the Edmonton Union and were not industrial school children. The situations in Cardiganshire had been found for them through the instrumentality of the guardians or their officers. So far as I have ascertained, the circumstances of these two cases were quite exceptional, and are by no means

  1867
  characteristic of the treatment which youths employed on farms in Wales or elsewhere ordinarily receive, but I propose to make some further inquiry in the matter.

  " PARNELLISM AND CRIME."

    SIR ROBERT ANDEHSON AND "THE TIMES" ARTICLES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the revelations published by Sir Robert Anderson with regard to what are generally known as the Jack the Ripper murders; whether he obtained the sanction of the Home Office or Scotland Yard authorities to such publication; and, if not, whether any and, if so, what steps can be taken with regard to it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Sir Robert Anderson neither asked for nor received any sanction to the publication, but the matter appears to me of minor importance in comparison with others that arise in connection with the same series of articles.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if there is a Home Office Minute in existence expressly prohibiting the publication of documents of this character?
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to discourage this daily, petty, vindictive persecution?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is my duty to give all proper information to the House, and I shall certainly continue to give it.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether Sir Robert Anderson was at Scotland Yard at the time of Pigott's escape from England; whether there is any explanation on record as to how he escaped, seeing that he was under the surveillance of two Scotland Yard detectives and one Dublin detective; and whether any official inquiry was ever held into the circumstances of his escape?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir Robert Anderson was at Scotland Yard at the time of Pigott's escape, and it was by officers belonging to his Department that Pigott was traced from place to place until finally his arrest was secured in Madrid. Pre-
    1868
    vious to his flight he was not in any way under the surveillance of Scotland Yard officers; he was attended by two officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not for the purpose of watching him, but to protect him from molestation. These officers reported his disappearance on the afternoon of 25th February, 1889, and the following day the Commission issued its warrant for his arrest. The warrant was directed to the Commissioner of Police, and thus for the first time brought Scotland Yard into the case, with the result that he was pursued and captured, though at the moment of capture he committed suicide. There was no occasion for any official inquiry, all the facts being notorious.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any record showing why the flight of Pigott was not reported on the night he escaped? I will give the right hon. Gentleman notice of that question.
    Mr. MOORE: Was this man brought up, born and bred a Nationalist?
    Mr. HAZLETONasked whether there are any records at the Home Office to show why, on the 15th June, 1888, both Sir R. Webster, then. Attorney-General, and Mr. Matthews, then Home Secretary, absolutely declined to give any information to the House on the question of whether alleged facts in the possession of the Government regarding Irish Members of this House had been communicated to "The Times "?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no record of anything bearing on this question.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state if Mr. Joyce, then attached to the Criminal Investigation Department in Dublin, was in the employment of "The Times" newspaper before or during the sittings of the Parnell Commission; whether such employment is on the official record; whether any other police officials, Crown solicitors, or resident magistrates received money from the same source; whether Mr. Joyce received any further Government appointment after the termination of his connection with the Criminal Investigation Department; and whether he is in receipt of a pension?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no official record of Mr. Joyce having been in the employment of "The Times" or of any pay-

    1869
    ment to him or other Government officials by that paper. He is now in receipt of a pension from the office of resident magistrate, which he held prior to the Parnell Commission.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister if he will state what steps have been or will be taken to secure that there can be no recurrence of a breach of the rules of the Civil Service similar to that committed by Sir Robert Anderson?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It has not been thought necessary to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of what I hope is a unique breach of the rules referred to in the question.
    Mr. BRADYasked whether there is any official record of leave having been given to Captain Malcolm McNeile, R.N., then on the active list, to visit America on behalf of "The Times" newspaper prior to the sittings of the Parnell Commission, or whether his American visits were paid during the period of his usual vacation?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There is no record in the official service books of the Admiralty of any visit being paid to America by the officer referred to at any time from the first publication of "The Times" articles to the conclusion of the Parnell Commission.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any record of visits by this officer to America before the sittings of the Parnell Commission?
    Mr. McKENNA: There was a visit to America at the beginning of the year 1885, but I have not been able to trace any visit subsequent to that date.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the gentleman himself deny having made this visit before the sittings of the Parnell Commission?
    Mr. McKENNA: The latest visit I have been able to trace was in January, 1885.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether this officer himself has denied having gone to America on behalf of "The Times"?
    Mr. McKENNA: Of that I am not aware. I do not know.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has he admitted it?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked whether Mr. Home and Mr. Joyce, who were in the employment of "The Times" newspaper before and during the Parnell Special Commission, and who collected and supplied information to that paper through official channels, being at that time resident magistrates in Ireland, are now employed in any branch of the public service; and, if not, if they, or either of them, are in receipt of pensions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no official record that these officials were ever in the employment of "The Times." They are not now in the public service. Both" are in receipt of pensions.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a question put by Lord Morley on 18th March, 1889, the present Leader of the Opposition, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, admitted that these gentlemen had collected information by order of the Government, and that this information, so obtained was subsequently supplied by the Government to "The Times"?
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the advisability of reprinting the charges which were found proved by the Parnell Commission— [Mr. HAYDEM: "And the verdict."]—as far as they affected Members of this House?
    Mr. HAYDEN: Let Lord Ashtown do it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think any object would be served.

    Burglaries (City of London),
    Mr. MORTONasked the Home Secretary whether he can say how many cases of housebreaking and burglary were committed within the City of London during the year 1909; how many cases within the Metropolitan Police area during the same period; and how many arrests were made respectively by the City and Metropolitan Police during that year for these offences?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There were 169 cases of housebreaking and burglary in the City of London in 1909, and 3,423 cases within the Metropolitan Police district. The number of arrests made was thirty-five and 1,301 respectively.

    Barking Road Police Station.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that over twelve months ago two houses and land attached, situated at 442 and 444, Barking

    1871
    Road, Plaistow, were purchased for the purpose of erecting a police station on the site; if he can state the price paid for the land and houses; how long will it be before the work will be commenced; and if he is aware that the accommodation at present existing at Barking Road police station, Plaistow, is insufficient for the work of the force?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The purchase of a site in the Barking Road was made by direction of my predecessor in office at a cost of £2,300. Plans for the new station are in course of preparation, and it is hoped that, notwithstanding the pressure of other and more urgent building works, the erection of this station will be commenced within the current financial year. The inadequacy of the accommodation at the existing station was the reason for the purchase of the new site.

    Harrod's Stores (Female Searcher).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that girls employed at Harrod's Stores, Brompton Road, S.W., are from time to time searched by the female searcher at Walton Street Police Station, and that a retired police inspector from Scotland Yard is present at the time of the search; if he can state the method employed for searching, whether the female searcher and the inspector are remunerated by the firm; and whether such proceedings are sanctioned by the Home Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commissioner reports that no person has been searched at Walton Street Police Station unless brought there and specifically charged with a criminal offence. It appears that a woman employed as cleaner at Walton Street Police Station for certain hours of the day has during other hours taken employment from Harrod's Stores, and has, at their instance, searched girls employed there. She asserts that no man has ever been present at the searches, but that her remuneration for work thus done has been paid to her through ex-police officers, who, being on pension, are not under the control of the Commissioner. These proceedings are not in any way sanctioned by the Home Office, but the connection appears to me to be undesirable, and I am making further inquiry.
    Mr. H. K. NEWTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries from Harrod's Stores?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I have not made any inquiries. I am going to make inquiries. The undesirable feature in these proceedings is the apparent connection of the woman with the police authorities.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managing director of the firm is treasurer of the Tariff Reform League?
    Mr. H. K. NEWTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be better in cases of this sort, where it is so easy to get information rapidly, that the information should be asked for from a firm such as this, so that the answer may hi given at the same time that the question is asked?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not at all concerned with what Harrod's Stores do. That does not come under the Home Office. I have no doubt they conduct their business in a very proper way. I do not express any opinion on that at all. All I am expressing an opinion on is the connection between a person employed in the police station and any work of searching which may be undertaken by a private firm. That would seem to suggest that the searching was done with police authority. That is what I mean by undesirable connection.
    Mr. L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the facts stated in the question are correct?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiries, and this is the result of my information. The further inquiries I am going to make will terminate the proceedings in a manner which will not inflict hardship on any person concerned.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether this practice does not amount to trespass and false imprisonment?
    Mr. H. K. NEWTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the practice which he reprobates in this case does not prevail in the case of every large house in the City of London?
    Mr. CHURCHILLL: That does not touch the point at all.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think a worse state of things could exist under a state of Socialism than this?

    Identification (Finger Print Method).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communication asking for some official recognition for the scientific work of Dr. Faulds, of Stoke-on-Trent, in originating the finger-print method of identification for the detection of crime; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Several communications from Mr. Faulds have reached the Home Office; but I cannot find that he has any claim on the Department for recognition. So far as the Home Office is concerned, I am informed that the adoption of the finger-print system in 1894 was due entirely to the labours of Mr. (now Sir Francis) Galton.

    Forcible Feeding of Prisoners.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent death in Portsmouth prison of John Pattle; whether this man's death was due, according to the coroner's verdict, to heart disease; whether he had been twice forcibly fed; and whether he had been medically examined before forcible feeding was authorised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention had not been previously called to this case. On inquiry I find that the prisoner was committed on remand on a charge of attempting suicide—his second attempt. He appears to have been of unsound mind and could not be persuaded to take food. Food had therefore to be administered by force. His heart was tested first, but artificial feeding was in this case the only alternative to allowing him to commit suicide. According to the medical evidence death was due to heart disease and not in any way to forcible feeding, which probably prolonged his life. The coroner's jury expressed the opinion that he had received every consideration at the hands of the prison officials.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inquiry held on 8th March by the Salford coroner into the death of Mary Pilsbury, in which a verdict of suicide was returned; whether the girl had just been released from prison; whether she had been forcibly fed whilst in prison; whether she left a note saying that this had been her first experience of this treatment and would be her last; and whether he proposed to take any steps with regard to the
    1874
    regulations for forcible feeding of prisoners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has not been called otherwise than by the hon. Member's question to the inquest held on Mary Pilsbury, but I find on inquiry that it was found necessary to administer food by force to this girl on three occasions when she was serving a sentence of one month's imprisonment last July, and on three occasions again during another term, of imprisonment last November. She was received in prison again on 10th January last, and compulsion had to be used again for thirteen days; but from 26th January till her discharge on 5th March she took food naturally. She never made any threat of suicide while in prison, and I believe her suicide was due to circumstances quite unconnected with her imprisonment. The House is familiar with the arguments upon the general question of the forcible feeding of prisoners who refuse to take food voluntarily, and they do not appear to me to be affected in any way by this case.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Do not the facts in these two cases and others give grounds for thinking that it would be desirable to have an inquiry into the whole question of forcible feeding in prisons, without any reference to the Suffragette movement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to ask as to an inquiry without notice. If he puts down a question I will give my best attention toit, but I do not think I shall be able to grant an inquiry.

    Ministers of the Crown (Police Protection).
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH (for Earl Winterton)asked whether it is the practice of his Department to request the local police authority to take special precautions to protect from violence Ministers of the Crown when visiting localities outside the Metropolitan Police area for the purpose of making a political speech; and, if so, whether the Home Office makes any grant towards the cost of such precautions; and, if not, under what Statute local authorities are asked to incur this burden?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The preservation of order and maintenance of the peace is a matter for which local police authorities are responsible, and expenditure for this purpose falls on local funds, but half the cost of the pay and clothing of the police is repaid from the Exchequer contribution. Cost incurred by local police

    1875
    authorities on the occasion of visits by Ministers of the Crown forms no exception to the general rule.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Have not representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman expressing dissatisfaction at the additional charge cast on a locality, and if that is so cannot he see his way to allowing a grant from the Treasury, or else restraining the unpopular Ministers who perambulate the country?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also apply the same principle to unpopular ex-Cabinet Ministers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to the Noble Lord, the answer I have already given to the question covers the case of any of His Majesty's subjects who may stand in need, or may be thought, however erroneously, to stand in need, of special police protection. I see no reason to depart from the ordinary methods by which the charge is defrayed.
    Mr. MacNEILL: On a point of Order. This question stood in the name of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) yesterday. It was reached, and the Under-Secretary was quite prepared to answer it. The Noble Lord, however, said he would postpone it till to-day. As far as I can understand, under the new Rules in reference to questions one is not entitled to defer a question if the Minister is prepared to answer it, and the question stands unless notice be given to the Clerk beforehand.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to any hon. Member to postpone a question.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether Miss Ellen M'Carthy, of Cahirhayes, Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, who is totally blind and helpless, was granted a pension of 5s. a week by the local sub-committee (No. in Register, 662), and that the pension officer has appealed against their decision to the Local Government Board; whether the ground of appeal is that the pension officer is calculating interest at 4 per cent, on a deposit receipt of hers, although the actual deposit rate of interest is only 2 per cent.; and, if so, whether he will notify to the officer that the basis of calculations on the deposit is the actual interest she receives from the bank, which will validate her case and instruct him to withdraw the appeal?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): As the case is before the Local Government Board on appeal the decision as to whether or not Miss M'Carthy is entitled to a pension, and, if so, at what rate, must be left to that Department.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not state, in answer to a question, that the actual interest was to be calculated in deciding these cases, and not any fixed rate?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have answered a great many questions with respect to old age pensions, and I am afraid I cannot carry in. my mind all the questions and answers. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further information, I would ask him to put a question on the Paper.
    Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the pension officers only appeal from the decisions of the local committees when the decisions are favourable to the old age pensions applicants?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That again I cannot answer. There are thousands of cases of appeals, and whether there may or may not be isolated cases of that kind one way or the other is a question which I cannot answer without notice.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether, in cases where claimants for pensions can produce no documentary evidence of age, pension officers, if satisfied that claimants are of the required age, are still compelled to appeal; if the officer does not appeal in such cases will a supervisor be sent to inquire; and has it ever occurred that this supervisor has required the pension officer to fill a form stating that, in his opinion, the claimant was disentitled on the ground of age though he had previously reported the contrary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This question appears to relate to the duties of pension officers, over whom I have no control.

    Ex-Soldiers in Government Departments.
    Captain COOPERasked whether ex-soldiers employed by Government Departments receive the ordinary rate of pay for their rank, or whether they are liable to deductions in respect of their Army pensions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The general practice is that ex-soldiers (not officers) employed

    1877
    in Government Departments receive full civil pay in addition to their Army pensions; but in certain classes of cases civil pay is specially fixed with reference to the fact that the recipient has a military pension.

    Royal Navy (Dietary).
    Mr. WINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will take into consideration the advisability of further varying the dietary of the Navy by placing fish among the fixed foods arranged in the daily dietary, in harmony with the proposal made by circular from the Fisheries Protection Society; and, if not, will he explain why?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not necessary to vary the standard ration in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, inasmuch as facilities already exist for the supply of fish by the various firms holding canteen tenancies in His Majesty's ships. The meat ration is the daily dietary is for the men's dinner only, and the custom in the Service is to use fish for breakfast or supper when obtainable. A money allowance for this is made to the messes.

    H.M.S, "Thunderer" (German Workers).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement of the chairman of the Thames Ironworks to the effect that, in connection with the erection of the floating crane necessary for the building of His Majesty's ship "Thunderer," several German engineers and erectors will be employed; whether he adheres to his assurances that only one German would be so employed; and whether he will state upon whose authority such assurance was given to the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the statement of the chairman of the Thames Ironworks Company to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I adhere to my statement made in this House that I was informed by the responsible representative of the Thames Ironworks Company that only one German would be employed upon the erection of the jib. The responsible official referred to was the secretary of the company.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the divergence of the information given by the secretary and the chairman of the Thames Ironworks Company, respectively, may I
    1878
    ask whether it has ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to call for the production of the contract between the German building firm and the Thames Ironworks Company, and if it has not, may I request him, with great humility, to act on the suggestion?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I would point out to my hon. Friend that in this matter the last word remains with the Admiralty. Under our contract with the Thames Ironworks Company we are entitled to see that absolute secrecy is observed, and in these circumstances, no matter what the contract may be between the Thames Ironworks Company and the German firm we shall see that secrecy is observed.

    Torpedo-boat Destroyers.
    Captain COOPERasked whether the experiment is being made of posting midshipmen to torpedo-boat destroyers; whether it is proving successful; and whether it is proposed to continue the practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative, but experience has shown that it is advisable that the periods served by midshipmen in torpedo-boat destroyers should be of short duration, and instructions to this end are being issued.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers have been provided for in the financial years 1906–7 to 1910–11 for the British and German navies respectively; and how many have been completed?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member will find all the information he desires in the Dilke Return, which is shortly to be published, if he compares it with the issue of previous years about which he inquires.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it impossible to state the figures? There has been some controversy in regard to this matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think a statement read in the House would be such as to enable the hon. Gentleman to follow the figures. I think it would be far better if the hon. Gentleman would put down a question for a written answer.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Dilke Return will be available for Members?
    Mr. McKENNA: Immediately.

    British and Foreign Navies (Heavy Guns).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether any British ship carrying more than ten heavy guns has yet been launched; whether any such vessels have been launched for any Foreign Powers; and, if so, how many ships, and for which Powers?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked what foreign nations have laid down or provided for ships which are known to be armed with more than ten heavy guns?
    Mr. McKENNA: With regard to these questions, if the hon. Gentleman will state what he means by a heavy gun, and how far back he wishes the information for, a statement will be got out.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I mean by heavy guns—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is intended that the hon. Gentleman should now make his statement.

    Devonport Dockyard (Wages of Riggers).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, with the exception of the abolition of classification, the ship riggers in Devonport Dockyard have only received a rise in their pay of 2s. 6d. during a period of thirty-five years; that the pay of ship riggers employed in the yard is much below that of riggers employed in private yards; and whether, seeing the hazardous nature of their work, he can see his way to raise the weekly pay of the established rigger to 30s. per week and that of the hired rigger to 31s. 6d. per week?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the circumstances relating to the pay of ship riggers in His Majesty's dockyards, but they do not quite bear out the statement in the question. An increase of 1s. a week was granted last year, and petitions from the workmen for a further advance have recently been under consideration, to which a reply will shortly be sent. It is not considered desirable to anticipate the reply to the petitions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in what respect the facts, as stated in the question, differ from the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has received?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, further information will be given in the reply to the petitions.

    Sailmakers' Wages (His Majesty's Dockyards).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the difference between the wages of sail-makers in His Majesty's dockyards and the wages of other mechanics; whether he can explain why shipwrights receive 35s. 6d. per week, boilermakers, fitters, and blacksmiths 36s. to 42s., and sail-makers only 30s. 6d. for hired men and 29s. for established; whether he is aware that the average rate of wages in the principal sailmaking departments of private firms is 5s. per week in excess of the amount paid in His Majesty's dockyards for precisely the same work; whether he is aware that sailmakers are required to serve an apprenticeship and skilled labourers are not; what is the difference between the wages of the sailmaker and the wages of the skilled labourer; and what are the duties that the sailmaker has to perform?
    Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative With regard to the second part, the services of the sailmakers are assessed at a lower value than those of the other trades named. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative; to the fourth part in the affirmative; and to the fifth part, 2s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. a week. As to the last part of the question, the making of sails, awnings, and various other kinds of canvas articles, are the duties performed by sailmakers. I might add that a petition from the sailmakers in regard to their rate of wages has recently been under consideration, and will shortly be replied to.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask, in respect to the word "shortly," if the right hon. Gentleman will give a more definite statement?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I am unable to give a more definite statement.

    Dry Docks (Accommodation for "Dreadnoughts").
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many days per month the Fountain Lake entrance to No. 4 basin and the one dock at Portsmouth capable of admitting ships of the "Dreadnought" class can pass or accommodate such vessels at their average cruising draught; what is the difference in depth between such average cruising draught and the draught to which

    1881
    the ship has to be usually lightened for entrance or docking; what is the approximate weight that has to be removed to effect such lightening; and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that this entrance and dock are of adequate dimensions for the reception, except under extraordinary circumstances, of a ship of the "Dreadnought" class which has been injured in action?
    Mr. McKENNA: The "Dreadnought" class at average cruising draught can pass the Fountain Lake entrance to No. 4 basin and be accommodated in No. 15 dock three times throughout the year. The difference in depth between the average cruising draught and the draught to which these ships have to be usually lightened for entrance or docking is about two feet. About 1,700 tons must be removed to lighten ship from average cruising draught to ordinary docking draught. When docking is in contemplation, arrangements are made to obtain the necessary draught by not completing with fuel and stores. The answer to the last part of the question depends on the circumstances. I would remind the Noble Lord that a new lock, a floating dock and a graving dock, are in course of construction at Portsmouth Dockyard.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the earliest date on which the docking accommodation to which he refers will be available?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would require to have notice of that question.

    Ordnance Survey (Ireland).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked what are the numbers of the Royal Engineers employed on the Ordnance Survey of Ireland; what is their Ordnance Survey service; what is the total cost of each to the Government service; and whether these men are in receipt of their Army pay in addition to that received from the Ordnance service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): There were 162 Royal Engineers employed on the Ordnance Survey of Ireland on the 1st instant. Their Survey service varies from about six months to upwards of twenty years. Their pay and allowances vary from 2s. 6d. to 10s. 9d. a day, and are borne wholly on the Survey Vote with the exception of some small allowances, e.g., clothing allowance, which are defrayed from Army Votes. No Army pay in addition to that
    1882
    which they receive from the Survey Vote is paid to these men while they are employed on Survey work.
    Mr. NANNETTI: May I ask the hon. Gentleman-whether it is the fact that these men have no skilled training and yet are retained in the service, though trained civilians with long service are being dismissed, and, if so, will he see that the men with long service are retained?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I think they have training.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Are these men skilled in their work, and is it fair to dismiss skilled civilians for the purpose of retaining these men, and thus throw the skilled civilians on the unemployed labour market?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes. I assume that these men are skilled at the work.
    Mr. NANNETTI: With six months' training?
    Mr. KETTLE: How does it come about that the English Board of Agriculture is responsible for the Ordnance Survey of Ireland? Is that system considered satisfactory? What is the connection between war and agriculture?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: It is under the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. KETTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say under what Act?

    President Local Government Board (Salary).
    Mr. TOBINasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take effective measures before the Spring Recess to make the salary of the President of the Local Government Board equal to that of the President of the Board of Trade?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it will be impossible to take any effective steps until the Speaker has been got out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
    Mr. T. LOUGH: Has any change taken place in the salary of the President of the Board of Trade? If so, is it under the Act that was passed last year, the terms of which state that the salary shall be fixed at the sum which Parliament may determine; and has Parliament yet determined what the change will be, and if not, when will it have an opportunity of doing so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will appear in the Estimates.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does my right hon. Friend think that that is the way for Parliament to determine the salary? If it appears on the Estimates, it will be the Government that will determine, and Parliament will have to approve.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will make their proposal, and Parliament will cither approve or disapprove.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that he will not guillotine that Vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present give any undertaking.

    Army Horses (Instructions to Breeders).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the increased interest in the subject of horse-breeding for military purposes evoked by the recent speech of the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates and the prevailing lack of knowledge as to the exact types and sizes of horses required for such purposes, the Board will cause to be circulated among all farmers and other horse-breeders in Great Britain the pamphlet issued by the Board in January, 1909, containing photographic illustrations and a full description of each of the various types of horses required for remount purposes in the Army?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board issued copies of the pamphlet to farmers and other owners of horses in April last. Some 327,000 were sent out.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Have these copies been circulated only among members of breeding societies, and not among the smaller classes of horse-breeders in this country?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: No. That is not so.
    Sir MARK STEWART: Do those figures apply to Scotland as well as England?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Was it intimated to all secretaries of agricultural associations that these pamphlets are at the disposal of members of these associations?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I am sure that they are quite aware of that.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: When were these circulars sent out? I am connected with an agricultural association, and have not yet received any pamphlet.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Board will consider the desirability of issuing a circular to all agricultural associations and farmers' clubs in Great Britain which hold an annual show, expressing the hope that they will include in their show schedules classes for different types of horses suitable for both draught and saddle purposes in the Army, and whether, in order to stop the custom of some of the smaller societies and clubs of including in one competition all types of horses under the vague description suitable for military purposes, the Board will indicate clearly to such bodies in what different classes, and under what several descriptions, such horses can most usefully be grouped and most easily be judged?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, the Board will be pleased to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member, and will confer with the War Office on the subject.

    Eynsham Charities (Inquiry).
    Mr. MASONasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he can say when they expect to receive the Report on the inquiry held over a year ago into the Eynsham charities; and what action is proposed to be taken thereon?
    Mr. CHARLES P. ALLEN: The inquiry into the Eynsham charities necessitated an investigation of the accounts from 1887. The Report has now been received; the accounts are in process of adjustment; and it is proposed that a scheme should be made remodelling the trusteeship of the charities and providing for their better administration.

    Tyrone Riots (Transfer of Licence).
    Mr. REDDYasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether a transfer of a licence was granted at the last Strabane quarter sessions to Thomas Evans, of Donemana, county Tyrone, although he had pleaded guilty at the last assizes for county Tyrone to a charge of riot; whether the Crown gave an undertaking on this occasion not to oppose the transfer; and, if so, whether he sanctioned the course taken by Crown counsel and the Crown Solicitor?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the answer is in the affirmative. I am further informed by the Crown Solicitor that it was agreed at the recent assizes that the plea of guilty entered by Evans should not, in the absence of any other objection, be used against him in his application for a transfer of a licence. Personally I was not aware of the arrangement, but I am informed by the Crown Solicitor that it was made in the view that Evans' submission in pleading guilty was a sufficient vindication of the law, and that in the circumstances no advantage would be gained by pressing the matter further.

    Old Age Pensions (Appeals).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the difficulty constantly experienced by local pension committees, pension officers and, in case of appeals to the central pension authority, by officials of the Local Government Board, in interpreting the expression failed to work according to his ability, in Section 3, 1 (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill more clearly defining, in the light of the. experience gained since the Act has been in operation, the class of cases intended to be covered by such description?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am aware that it is frequently difficult to determine in individual cases whether the disqualification imposed by the enactment referred to does or does not attach to a claimant for an old age pension. The difficulty is, however, almost inherent to any such disqualification. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make for reducing the difficulty I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider them.

    Anglesey Education Authority.
    Mr. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the names of the present members of the Anglesey local education authority, and to what religious denominations they belong?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir, the Board have no information on either point.
    Mr. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information and let me have it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no right to ask for the information. The hon. Gentleman can take his own means to obtain it.
    Mr. CARLILEasked whether, while there are four religious denominations in Llangoed, near Beaumaris, all the four school managers recommended for appointment by the selection committee of the Anglesey local education authority are members of one denomination only; and whether this policy of the authority referred to has the sanction of the Board, of Education?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand the question to refer to the appointment by the local education authority of managers of public elementary schools under Section 6 of the Education Act, 1902. That is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the authority, and does not require the sanction of the Board of Education. The Board have no information as to what actually has been done in this connection by the authority in question.
    Mr. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

    Finance Bill, 1910–11 (Resolutions).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the-Exchequer if the Financial Resolutions to lead to the Budget for the year 1910–11 will be brought in before the House adjourns for the Spring Recess?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): No, Sir.

    Four Courts, Dublin (Appointments).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state in what part of the Parliamentary Return on Government Servants (Ireland) the names will be found of those appointed to offices in the Four Courts, Dublin?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The officers of the Supreme Court in Ireland are not under the control of the Irish Government, and I understand that the Lord Chancellor held that the Order of the House of Commons for the Return in question did not apply to them.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Do they mot come under the heading of persons employed in Government Departments in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor thought that they were not in Government Departments, and consequently they Are not in the Parliamentary Returns.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Chief Secretary say who pays the salaries?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The salaries are paid out of public money.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If the salaries are paid out of public money, how can the Lord Chancellor arrive at the conclusion that these persons are not public servants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor does not agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he does not agree with him?
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to reconsider this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I will approach the Lord Chancellor on the matter.

    Extra Police in County Galway.
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the people of Roevagh, county Galway, pointing out that perfect peace and good order reigned in the district since the dispute which led to the disturbance in the parish was settled by the Lord Bishop of the diocese; whether a considerable force of police are still maintained in the district at the ratepayers' cost; and whether, having regard to the interests of social order and domestic peace, he will direct that the number of policemen in the district shall be reduced to the normal strength?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the resolution referred to. The question of reducing the extra force in the district has been under consideration, and the police authorities hope that a reduction may be possible.

    Land Purchase (County Longford).
    Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked whether, now that Colonel M'Cutchan, of 5, Middleton Road, Camden Road, London, is willing to sell his estate in the parish of
    1888
    Moydow, county Longford, he will call on the Estates Commissioners to acquire these lands in order to reinstate Joseph Coughlan, of Cloonmucker, an evicted tenant of this estate, and to enlarge the uneconomic holdings around this grazing ranch, so much needed by small tenant farmers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The untenanted lands on this estate have not been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners. Coughlan's application for reinstatement was not lodged within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot be dealt with under that Act.
    Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked if the right hon. Gentleman will call on the Estates Commissioners to acquire the lands of Middletown, in the parish of Killashee, county Longford, now for sale, in order to enlarge the uneconomic holdings in this poor district of country, and give the poor farmers a chance of living at home, instead of emigrating, as their sons have nearly all emigrated already?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify these lands as pending for sale before them.

    Arrest of Constable, Thomastown, County Kilkenny.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked whether District Inspector Fleming, Thomastown, county Kilkenny, recently caused a constable in his district to be illegally and improperly arrested on a charge of felony, the result of which was that the constable was lodged in Waterford Gaol; whether the resident magistrate who heard the charged refused informations; and what action was taken in the matter by the Inspector-General?
    Mr. BIRRELL: On 9th February last District Inspector Fleming arrested a constable on a charge of rape. He brought him at once before a magistrate, who remanded him for eight days, and he was lodged in Waterford Gaol. The charge was investigated before a resident magistrate on 15th February, when informations were refused. The constable subsequently asked permission to take an action against the district inspector for false arrest and imprisonment, and was informed that he might take whatever legal proceedings he might be advised. He has not yet acted on this permission, and while the matter is pending the Inspector-General has taken no further action.

    Royal Irish Constabulary (Phoenix Park Depot).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the constabulary officers stationed at the depot, Phoenix Park, are allowed £45 per annum for the employment of a servant man; whether it has been the custom to send in addition a.squad of constabulary once a week to perform menial work in the officers' quarters; and whether the Chief Secretary will take steps to prevent the spending of the taxpayers' money in providing both private and public servants to wait on this department of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary receive an allowance of £45 a year for a man servant. The work referred to in the question as being performed by constables at the depot consists of cleaning the windows throughout the building and serving out the weekly allowances of fuel and light. The Inspector-General sees no reason why this practice should not continue. No saving could be effected by altering it.

    Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Dublin).
    Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked whether the present Assistant Inspector-General of the Dublin Metropolitan Police was at any time engaged in the collection of information for "The Times" newspaper; whether he was present at the Special Commission; whether he received remuneration from "The Times"; and whether, ii so, his action at the time had the approval of his superior officers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Assistant-Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police was never engaged in collecting information for "The Times," and never received remuneration from that paper. He was not present at the Special Commission.

    Athenry Agricultural Station.
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked whether the Agricultural Station at Athenry is under police protection; if so, how many men are detailed for that duty; what is the cost to the ratepayers each year for such protection; and when this protection is to be withdrawn?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Agricultural Station at Athenry receives protection, but no police are detailed solely for that duty, and it is therefore impossible to state the
    1890
    cost to the ratepayers. The protection cannot be withdrawn at present.

    Congested Districts Board (Colemanstown, Athenry).
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked whether a man named H. V. Smith, of Cootehill, county Cavan, purchased a grazing ranch of 1,000 acres at Colemanstown, near Athenry, some years ago under the Ashbourne Act; that in the immediate vicinity of this ranch there are a number of slum holdings and many persons in a most congested condition; that there is no other land available in that part of the district for the enlargement of these holdings; whether a memorial has been forwarded to the Congested Districts Board asking them to purchase this ranch; and, if so, whether the Board will, in the interests of peace in that part of Galway, open negotiations with Mr. Smith with a view to purchase and redistribution?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received the memorial referred to. They have no power to acquire compulsorily any lands in the occupation of a tenant-purchaser. If the owner is willing to soil, the Board would be prepared to negotiate with him for the purchase of the lands.

    Untenanted Lands (Mount Henry, County Limerick).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to acquire the untenanted lands at Mount Henry, Coolcappa, in the county of Limerick, the property of Miss Delmege, with the view to apportioning them into small holdings amongst the applicants in the locality entitled to them under the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1909?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements for the tenanted portion of this estate have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The estate includes about 133 acres of untenanted land, which the owner proposes to sell to the Commissioners. It will be dealt with in order of priority.

    Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
    Mr. DELANYasked whether the scheme for distribution of the untenanted land on the Caldbeck estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County, at present under consideration of the Estates Commissioners, contains, a proposal to make an allotment to Mr. Thomas

    1891
    Cunningham, Ballacolla; is he aware that Mr. Cunningham, who is a wealthy merchant, keeps the post office in Ballacolla worth £150 a year, and in addition has a large farm purchased on another estate; and, in view of the fact that the untenanted land on the Caldbeck estate is not sufficient to supply the needs of the small holders and labourers in the locality, will he see that no allotment is made to Mr. Cunningham?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether, if a proposal to give an allotment of untenanted land on the Caldbeck estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County, to Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, the estate bailiff, is contained in the scheme at present before the Estates Commissioners and drawn up by their inspector, Mr. Booth; whether he is aware that Mr. Guilfoyle has already a large farm on the estate and also holds a farm of forty acres, purchased out on another property; and, in view of the fact that the untenanted land on this estate is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the uneconomic holders and labourers of the locality, will he see that the intentions of Parliament are not frustrated by making an allotment to this wealthy man already in possession of over eighty acres of land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on the 12th instant.
    Mr. DELANY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in accordance with the spirit of the Act or the intentions of Parliament that these wealthy men should receive allotments of this untenanted land to the exclusion of the small occupiers in the locality?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The whole scheme is under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners, and it would be most improper at this stage to make any further statement with regard to it.

    Boyle District Council, South Sligo.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the rural district council of Boyle (No. 2), South Sligo, at a meeting held on the 2nd instant, passed a resolution protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in forcing the council to adopt the Cowsheds and Milkshops Order; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in regard to the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have received the resolution, and in reply have fully explained the effect of the Order in question, and have requested the council to carry out their duties as defined therein. At the same time the Board have warned the council that, in the event of non-compliance, legal proceedings will have to be instituted.

    National Schools, Ireland (Assistant Teachers).
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether, in the case of assistant teachers of over three years' service in Irish national schools, the Treasury will consider the advisability of allowing the Commissioners to retain their services on averages somewhat below those that warrant appointment, reducing the assistant's income, if necessary, by one-sixtieth for each unit of decrease below the average required for appointment?
    Mr. BIRRELL: While the rules with regard to the payment of teachers' salaries cannot be altered without the sanction of the Treasury, the matter is one in the first instance for the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education, and I am not aware that they consider it advisable to alter the rules in the manner suggested in the question.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether the position of several assistants of long service in Irish national schools is threatened owing to the reduced averages resulting from the severe weather of the last quarter of 1909 and the first three months of 1910; and, as the withdrawal of salary due to the weather conditions would inflict a hardship on these teachers and injure education by depriving the schools of their services, will the Treasury permit the Commissioners, for the purpose of safeguarding these assistants, to substitute for the averages of the above two quarters the averages for the corresponding quarters in the previous financial year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for the Connemara Division on 17th March last. As I then stated the Commissioners do not consider that the present circumstances are such as to call for the action in connection with the matter suggested in the question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask your ruling on a point of Order—whether, when a Member asks a question appertaining to a particular Department of the State, he is entitled to an answer from the Member of the Government who is responsible for that Department; whether, when a Member asks a question concerning expenditure of the revenue, he is entitled to an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury who has prepared, signed, and submitted to the House the Estimates dealing with the particular expenditure on which information is sought; whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is justified in refusing to me information on the expenditure of revenue on public education in England, Ireland, and Scotland for which his Department is responsible, and in directing me to the several Ministers responsible for the government of the three countries respectively for such information; and whether I am not entitled to get the information I require from the Minister who can give it in the most expeditious, concrete, and useful form; and what is my remedy in case I am denied such information?
Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member, all I can say is that Ministers give their replies upon their own authority, and they use their discretion as to what replies they give and how they give them, and if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with any reply that he gets from any particular Minister he has an opportunity, when that Minister's salary comes up for confirmation, to make such criticism or such attack as he thinks necessary and suitable. That is the only remedy which he has. I have no appliances with which to extract for the hon. Member answers from Ministers.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may point out—I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman—that in regard to the series of questions which he addressed to me, if I were able to give him the information which he desires in the form that he wishes, I should be very glad to do so, and I would do that on my own initiative; but I should have in each case to apply to the Department concerned, and to which I referred him, and I should act merely as a post office in the matter. I should have no guarantee that the information which he sought and which he would
1894
obtain through me from the other Departments would be compiled upon a basis which would give him a satisfactory reply in regard to the information which he seeks. That is my reason, and my only reason, for requesting him to ask his questions of the three other Ministers concerned.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory statement now made by the Secretary to the Treasury—and I have gone into the question very carefully, Mr. Speaker— I shall take the earliest opportunity, provided I am not closured, of moving the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary when it comes under the discussion of the House, for his discourtesy in this connection, and I shall bring before the House the ignorance of the Department over which he presides.
Mr. PAGE CROFT: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order ! "]
Mr. SPEAKER: The answer was given by myself, and the hon. Gentleman must not cross-examine me.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
BILLS PRESENTED.
  LABOUR BOARD BILL.
  " To provide for the establishment of a Labour Board for the United Kingdom," presented by Mr. BEACE; supported by Mr. Bichards, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. James Haslam, and Mr. Hodge. (To be read a second time upon Monday next.)
  VIVISECTION (ABOLITION) BILL.,
  "To provide for the total Abolition of Vivisection," presented by Mr. HODGE; supported by Mr. Brace, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Collins, Mr. Parker, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Gill, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Albert Stanley. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd June.)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (AMEDMENT) BILL.,
  "To empower a court of summary jurisdiction to dispose of dogs which have been ill-treated," presented by Mr. ELLTB GRIFFITH; supported by Mr. Swift Mac-Neill and Mr. Weir. (To be read a second time upon Monday next.)
  HOURS OF LABOUR (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
  " To restrict the hours in Bakehouses to eight hours per day and not more than forty-eight hours per week, and to regulate the same," presented by Mr. WILKIE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Gill, Mr. Barnes, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. William Thorne. (To be read a second time upon Thursday, 2nd June.)

EMPIRE DAY BILL.
Captain CRAIG: I beg leave to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the official recognition of the 24th day of May as Empire Day.
I make no apology for reintroducing this very important measure. It is quite true that on 20th May, 1908, in the last Parliament, I was refused permission to have the Bill read a first time. A great number of those who voted against the introduction of my Empire Day Bill on that occasion have fortunately not returned to this Parliament. I take it, therefore, that if successful in obtaining the leave of the House to introduce this Bill that we may confidently ask the Prime Minister and his colleagues to allow official recognition of Empire Day in future, and that the flagpoles on the great offices in London may be adorned with the national flag on that day in order that the will of the people may be carried out. I think I am particularly fortunate in having this day, which is an anniversary which some of us are celebrating—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is your primrose?"]—on which to introduce this Bill. The Bill is very short and simple. The various Departments of State have the flagpoles and they have the flags, and they have the good feeling of the great majority of the people throughout the Empire behind them. All that we ask is that they should give official recognition to the day, and set a tone throughout the country for making the 24th of May Empire Day, thus show to those Colonials who happen to visit our shores at the time, that we are not neglectful here, in the centre of the Empire, and in order to show those foreigners who happen to visit our shores that we have the greatest Empire in the world. The second part of the Bill is to permit the flying of the flag on our national schools, under certain conditions, where a majority of the parents,
1896
and the managers, are all united that such should be done. I think no one in the House can find objection to flying the flag on Empire Day on our schools, so that the youths may be taught the true meaning of the flag, and so that from their youth upwards they may recognise and know what Empire means, and so that they will be all the better citizens when they grow up.
I place greater importance on the second part of the Bill, namely, the recognition by the proper authorities of the necessity of teaching the youth of the country the full meaning of the national flag rather than on the first part. At the same time, I think that when it is a well-known fact that the ratepayers of the country pay for the erection of these great buildings in London and other large cities, that they should have their feelings consulted in this matter; and that we should be permitted to see that the flags are hoisted on the day that is now increasingly honoured throughout the Empire. The Prime Minister was the only Member of the Cabinet from whom I got any courtesy in the matter. In 1908 he made one of his most courteous and, at the same time, most amazing replies. He said that if I would from time to time give him such information as was at my disposal as to the growth of a general desire for this particular form of manifestation on the part of the people of the Empire it would receive his most respectful consideration. I think there can be no question whatever that if I am refused permission to introduce this Bill by even one less than in 1908 that will be an indication to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a growing desire on the subject; and if on the other hand the House is unanimous in its desire to celebrate the day and does not divide against the Bill, then I say that we will be within a very short distance of having the occupants of the Front Bench brought to a sense of proper proportion, and that they will accede to the wishes of the great majority of the people of the Empire. I beg to move
Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: If the only question before the House was that of flying the Hag upon the public buildings I should leave the hon. Member alone as far as I am concerned. The hon. Member has attacked one of the Front Benches, but I think he is not justified in only making it on one, as the other has adopted a similar attitude.
Captain CRAIG: I was not in the Parliament prior to 1906, and in 1908 our Front Bench told for this Bill.
Sir C. W. DILKE: The flag was refused to be flown on the public buildings at the time the Conservative party was in power. It is considered an administrative matter as far as the Government is concerned. I do not profess to understand the principles which regulate the matter, but they are very strange. Why Scotland flies the flag of Scotland at the Scottish Office and why Ireland flies the National flag at the Irish Office—these are mysteries of that kind which I never could understand. Personally I agree with the hon. Member in his desire that the flag should be popularised, and I strongly supported the late Mr. Arnold Forster when he proposed that it should be flown on the Palace of St. Stephen's—just as it is in every other Parliament in the world. That was a matter on which the House of Commons unanimously agreed with Mr. Arnold Forster, and it was done, and continues to be done. But this Bill deals with a more delicate matter—the opinion of the great self-governing Dominions and the opinion of India are very far from being as unanimous on this subject as the hon. Member would lead us to suppose.
4.0 P.M.
The King's Birthday is the public occasion of celebrating the unity of that most powerful and delicate fabric that we call the British Empire. It is the most ancient and the most widely accepted. The King's Birthday celebration is as popular among the French-Canadians at Quebec and the Dutch at Bloemfontein and Pretoria as it is in any part of the Empire. It is universally accepted and recognised, and anything that can be done to popularise that ceremonial on that day it would be wise to do. But Members have only to read the reports of the last Colonial Conference to see how delicate is the use, in certain portions of the Empire, of the term "Imperial." It means different things. A day set apart for an Imperial celebration in some parts of the Empire is a source
of division and peril among people equally patriotic. The fact that a difference arose between New Zealand and Australia, who are equally patriotic, upon the use of the term "Imperial" in connection with Army matters, that Mr. Deakin, himself an Imperialist, found difficulty in the use of the term, shows how delicate a matter this is, and how unwise it is that it should be left to any single Member of this House. It is a matter which ought to be brought only with the approbation of both Front Benches before the self-governing Dominions and India. In India there is an Empire Day, which is set aside to celebrate I the assumption of the title of "Emperor I of India," but that is an entirely different idea from that contained in this Bill.
Mr. REES: Did the right hon. Baronet say that that day is celebrated as a public holiday?
Sir C. W. DILKE: My only point is that this means a different thing. In this country I agree with the hon. Member (Captain Craig) that Empire Day, which is the birthday of the late Queen, has obtained a popularity even among those Radicals whom he condemns. In my own Constituency schools managed by my leading supporters make use of those symbols, and have those holidays which the hon. Member desires. But this Bill goes far wide of that. It will be taken in the Dominions and in India as being the institution by the Imperial Parliament, without consulting them, of a day on which very delicate matters are to be brought before the people in an ill-considered fashion. I submit that the hon. Member ought not to force the House, by the proceeding he adopts, when he could present his Bill and have it printed and considered, to take sides on a question which involves matters so delicate as those dealt with by this Bill.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the official recognition of the 24th day of May as Empire day."
The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 242.

Division No. 42.]

AYES.

[4.6 p.m.

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

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

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

Adam, Major William A.

Banbury, sir Frederick George

Beresford, Lord Charles

Allen, Charles Peter

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bird, Alfred

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Barnston, Harry

Bottomley, Horatio

Atherley-Jones, Liewellyn A.

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

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Bagot, Colonel Josceline

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Boyton, James

Baird, John Lawrence

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, H.)

Balcarres, Lord

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Heaton, John Henniker

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Carllie, Edward Hildred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Peto, Basil Edward

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hooper, Arthur George

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Clive, Percy Archer

Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Rankin, Sir James

Clyde, James Avon

Horner, Andrew Long

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

Rees, J. D.

Courthope, George Loyd

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryaa

Cowan, William Henry

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Royds, Edmund

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Kerry, Earl of

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Welts)

Croft, Henry Page

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Stanier, Beville

Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

Knott, James

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Duncannon, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Steel-Maitland A.D.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Fell, Arthur

Lewisham, Viscount

Strauss, Arthur

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Llewelyn, Venables

Sykes, Alan John

Fletcher, John Samuel

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wairond, Hon. Lionel

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Macmaster, Donald

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Gilmour, Captain John

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Waring, Walter

Goldsmith, Frank

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

White, Major G. D. (Lane. Southport)

Gordon, John

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Grant, James Augustus

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

Millar, James Duncan

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Moore, William

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Morpeth, Viscount

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Newman, John R. P.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Craig and Mr. G. O. Faber.

Harwood. George

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

NOES.

Abraham, William

Cullinan, John

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Armitage, Robert

Delany, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Devlin, Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Dillon, John

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Doris, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duffy, William J.

Henry, Charles Solomon

Barnes, George N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Higham, John Sharp

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Edwards, Enoch

Hindie, Frederick George

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Elverston, Harold

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Barton, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hodge, John

Beale, William Phipson

Falconer, James

Hogan, Michael

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

Farrell, James Patrick

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bentham, George Jackson

Fenwick, Charles

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Black, Arthur W.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Hudson, Walter

Boland, John Pius

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Bowles, Thomas Gibson

Ffrench, Peter

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brace, William

Field, William

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Johnson, William

Brigg, Sir John

Gibson, James Puckering

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Brunner, John F. L.

Gilhooly, James

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Burke, E. Haviland.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas

Glanville, Harold James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Glover. Thomas

Jowett, Frederick William

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Joyce, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Granville George

Keating, Matthew

Cameron, Robert

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Kelly, Edward

Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

Guiney, Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Chancellor, Henry George

Gulland, John William

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Kilbride, Denis

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hackett, John

Lardner, James Carrige Rustle

Clancy, John Joseph

Hancock, John George

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Ronendale)

Leach, Charles

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Lewis, John Herbert

Crossley, Sir William J.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Lundon, Thomas

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

pirle, Duncan V.

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Pointer, Joseph

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Martin, Joseph

Pollard, Sir George H.

Toulmin, George

Meagher, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Twist, Henry

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Verney, Frederick William

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Wadsworth, John

Molloy, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Walsh, Stephen

Molteno, Percy Alport

Radford, George Heynes

Walton, Joseph

Mooney, John J.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Wardie, George J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rea, Walter Russell

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Muldoon, John

Reddy, Michael

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Muspratt, Max

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Waterlow, David Sydney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rendall, Athelstan

Watt, Henry A.

Neilson, Francis

Richards, Thomas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Nuttall, Harry

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

O'Donnell, John (Maya, S.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

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

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

O'Dowd, John

Seddon, James A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Grady, James

Shackleton, David James

Winfrey, Richard

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Shortt, Edward

Wing, Thomas

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

O'Malley, William

Snowden, Philip

O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Summers, James Woolley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Clough.

O'Shee, James John

Sutherland, John E.

O'Sullivan, Eugene

Sutton, John E.

OLD AGE PENSIONS (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Mr. WORTH1NGTON-EVANS: I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. This is a very short Bill. It contains but one clause. It deals with what I venture to think the House will agree is an important subject, namely, the amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act. The Bill proposes to prevent those members of friendly societies who are in receipt of sick or superannuation allowance, being deprived of their pension by reason of the income made up in that way exceeding the present statutory limit. The law at present stands in a most curious position. For parochial purposes those benefits are not treated so, although for national purposes the member receiving these benefits is deprived of his old age pension. The principle of the exemption of members of friendly societies has already been admitted in the Outdoor Relief Friendly Society Acts of 1894 and 1904. Under the Act of 1894, the House will remember, permissive power was given to guardians to disregard in the consideration of cases of out-relief the income derived by a mem-
1902
ber of a friendly society from sick or superannuation allowance. That permissive Act was still further extended by the Act of 1904. By that Act it became compulsory for guardians to disregard the income of applicants for outdoor relief so far as that income was derived from sick or superannuation allowance obtained as a member of a friendly society.
Mr. SPEAKER: As I understand the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, it involves an additional charge upon the public revenue. That being so, it must be introduced in Committee of the Whole House; it cannot be introduced by a private Member.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can I put the matter in order in this way. I believe that in another place, when the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Bill was under consideration, that objection was taken similarly, and the matter was put in order by some mysterious words being added at the end of the Clause to the effect "That nothing herein shall cause the expenditure of public funds." If I am not out of order I would like to propose to add such words to the Clause which is now in the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not possible in this House. The device to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one constantly adopted when impositions and charges suggested by the other House are brought before this House for consideration. But if this House takes the initiative the matter must be brought in in the ordinary way in Committee.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Shall I be out of order if I appeal to the Government to take this measure up?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can appeal to the Government, but not on this occasion.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Resolved, "That the Business of the House (Supreme Court of Judicature [Salaries, etc.], Report, and Supreme Court of Judicature Bill [Lords',]),—That the Proceedings on the Report of Supreme Court of Judicature [Salaries, etc.] and upon the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill [Lords] be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed." —[The Prime Minister.]
WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET (1909–10) RESOLUTIONS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTI in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)moved the following Resolutions in connection with the Budget, 1909–10:—

GROUP (1) LAND TAXES.

  (1) LAND VALUE DUTIES.
  That as from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the following duties be charged in respect of land:—

  (i.) A duty on any increment value accruing after the said date at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, the duty to be taken on the occasion of the transfer, or the grant of a lease of the land, and on the occasion of the death of any person where the property passing on his death comprises any such land, and in the case of land belonging to a body
  1904
  corporate or unincorporate on such periodical occasions as Parliament may determine;

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

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

  (2) MINERAL RIGHTS DUTY.
  That there shall be charged for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, and every subsequent financial year, on the rental value of all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty at the rate in each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental value.
  The rental value to be taken to be—

  (a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of that right; and

  (b) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof, the amount which is determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be the sum which would have been received as the rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the right to work the minerals had been let and the minerals had been worked to the same extent and in the same manner as they have been worked by the proprietor in that year; and

  (c) In the case of a mineral wayleave, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of the wayleave.

  (3) INCREMENT VALUE DUTY ON MINERALS.
  That any duty charged on the increment value of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be charged annually, and the increment value shall be taken to be the sum by which in each year the rental value of the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order, Sir. It perhaps will be a convenience to the Committee if you will tell us whether the Guillotine Resolution passed yesterday does in fact apply to this Resolution. The terms of that Guillotine Resolution were: "If the Resolutions to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means correspond with those on which the Finance Bill, 1909, was brought in and amended, so far as effect was given to those Resolutions by that Bill, as passed by this House"—that in such a case the Resolutions shall be put in a series of blocks and not separately. May I ask you what is the technical meaning of the word "correspond"?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: With reference to the course of business, may I inquire first as to how the discussion will be carried on? Will it follow the usual lines of Debate after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, and therefore be in the nature of a Debate on the whole Resolution; will it be confined to the first block of Resolutions which have to be put as one question; will it be confined to the first Resolution, or will discussion be allowed on each Resolution separately?
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has asked me a question. I do not know that I can on the spur of the moment give a scientific definition of the meaning of the word "correspond." Perhaps I can indicate in a general way what I think is meant. In many cases the Resolutions are identically the same Resolutions as last year, with the exception that the words "on and after" are altered to "as from," in view of the alteration of the date of the Budget, and as we are to impose taxes from the date which it was intended to do. These are cases in which I think the new Resolutions correspond with the old. Again, in respect to alterations which we made in Committee of the Bill, the new Resolutions I think allow for certain changes which were made in the Schedules, and represent these changes in the Schedule instead of the original form of the Resolution as passed in Committee of Ways and Means last year. I think in that respect also they correspond. I have carefully examined them, and I think they do correspond. Therefore I propose to put them in groups as ordered by the Resolution of yesterday. In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford, who wants to know, I understand, whether there will be
  1906
  a general Debate allowed on the first group of the Resolutions (because I have to put the group and not the first Resolution), I think a general Debate will be a convenient plan and meet the wishes of the Committee. That is to say, we shall not be confined to the first group of Resolutions, but we shall have a discussion on the whole as usual in Committee of Ways and Means. After the first group, of course, discussion will be confined to the group under consideration.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not introducing in any sense of the term a new Budget, and therefore I do not intend to make what is known as a Budget speech. That, no doubt, will be a source of great comfort to hon. Gentlemen who were present last year. Still, I think it would be desirable if I were just to make a few observations about the present financial position. I shall first of all deal with the taxes, explaining the extent to which our anticipations have been realised and where they have fallen short, and the reason why. I shall deal first with Customs and Excise. We have done badly with one tax, and only one. As for the rest of the taxes imposed by the Budget of last year several of them have come quite up to our anticipations. Three or four have exceeded our expectations. But in regard to whisky —spirits—we have done very badly. It is a matter of some comfort that in the other taxes we have exceeded the Estimate by an amount corresponding almost within a few thousand pounds to the loss which we have realised on the spirits. In Customs, and Excise it will be observed by those who have followed the figures that we are apparently down by something like £5,500,000. That is not due to the fact that the revenue has disappointed us altogether. For instance, we have not received some Licence Duties at all; we have not received the licences in respect of motor-cars, we have not received a penny in respect of the additional liquor-licences.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Customs or Excise?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Both. Customs and Excise, I am dealing with them as a whole. They are grouped together. We are down in these by something like £5,500,000. A very great part of that is attributable to the fact that we have not been able to collect our additional Licence Duty in respect to motor-car licences and liquor licences. Still that does not account

  1907
  altogether for the discrepancy. There is a loss—over £3,100,000 on the cash receipts, but this will be reduced to about £2,800,000 when outstanding deposits come in—upon spirits as compared with the Estimates. There have been increases in chicory, cocoa, dried fruits, and sugar, and slight increases in wine and one or two other articles. There have been slight decreases in tea and in beer, and in patent medicines and playing cards.
  The deficit in tea is attributable in the main, if not entirely, to forestalments. There were very considerable forestalments in anticipation of the Budget. A good many people thought that tea would have to bear a share of the increased taxation, and the forestalments were heavier than we quite realised, and therefore we are down in tea to the extent of £131,000. But in the main the deficit in Customs and Excise is due to spirits. In regard to the Spirit Duty it is desirable to assign the cause, or at any rate to allocate the proportion which is attributable to the various causes. We find that there is a considerable diminution due to the fact that there were heavy forestalments. For instance I can give figures to show how heavy they were. In March of this year 1,600,000 gallons were withdrawn from bond and cleared. Last year the number of gallons withdrawn from bond and cleared was 4,255,000.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Was that in March last?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, in March last. That was not due to a diminution in the drinking of spirits altogether, or to anything like it. It is due particularly, or very largely, to the fact that there were considerable clearances in March in anticipation of the Budget. If we come to April this year we find that the Budget was introduced on 29th April, and that the clearances in April were 5,130,000 gallons, as compared with 3,175,000 gallons the previous year. There were 3,500,000 gallons of forestalments. That does not entirely account, I think, for the diminution. In fact I am certain it does not. There is another cause. Undoubtedly the traders engaged in this business have been trading on the lowest possible reserve of stock. They got their stock down to the last keg, if I may say so. As one of them said to me: "We hardly kept a bottle in stock. We just lived from hand to mouth."
  1908
  [Laughter.] I can assure hon. Members I did not intend that as a joke. There is no doubt at all that they have reduced their stocks. The revenue from spirits suffered very largely also from the political uncertainty. No one knew quite what was going to happen; no one knew whether the Budget would be thrown out or not, and I have no doubt about it there were very sanguine anticipations, especially in the spirit trade, that if it was thrown out the country might not ratify the action of the late Parliament. I only put that now, not by way of controversy but as an explanation of why they thought it good business to keep their stocks down to the lowest possible degree.
  I tried to discover, before I made my last estimate, what stocks were generally kept by traders, and I found it almost impossible to do so accurately. There were some who told me that their stocks were represented by about a fortnight's supply only. Others kept a reserve of six weeks, and others far beyond that. It is impossible to strike an average. That upset our estimates to a very considerable extent because we had no means of ascertaining what reserve of spirits the traders had in stock. One thing we did know, and that is that these reserves were drawn upon to the utmost. There is a third cause which accounts for the diminution, and that is the very striking decrease in the consumption of whisky which has been the result to a large extent, I have no doubt at all, of the imposition of the additional duty. I think the additional charge put upon the consumer by the retail traders was in some cases a ½d. and in other cases a 1d.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: In other cases they did not charge anything additional at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The cases in which they did not charge at all were the first-class hotels where the ordinary charge leaves a good margin of profit. I made some inquiries about it, and as a rule that only refers to cases where there is a very considerable charge in respect of whisky and where they could afford to pay the extra 3s. 9d. and at the same time have a very ample margin of profit. Some traders charged a ½d. and some a 1d., and that seemed to have a very extraordinary effect upon the drinking habits of the population. Some people resented and were angry at the additional charge, and some people refused to drink because they were angry

  1909
  with the Government for forcing up the charge. But between one thing and the other, undoubtedly there has been a startling diminution in the quantity of whisky drunk in this country since the Budget of 1909 was introduced. I have been trying from the best sources to find out some data which I could give the Committee and which would afford information as to the general average diminution, but I am not sure that I have got it. My officials have done their best by inquiry in every part of the Kingdom. I made inquiries, and I received very considerable assistance from the trade, and I may say the trade has been very helpful to me. But my information varies. For instance, to-day I got information from a reliable quarter that, taking a certain set of houses—some in England, some in Ireland, and some in Scotland— there is a diminution of something like 35 per cent. of the quantity. In other cases the diminution is about 30 per cent. That is the only case I can make, and no one can go beyond that at the present moment. It will take a couple of years at least before we arrive at the exact average of the depression in the whisky trade attributable to the increased duty. But, on the whole, I am disposed to believe at the moment that, taking a cautious estimate, the total average decrease is about 22 per cent., of which a considerable proportion, no doubt, is attributable to the tax of 3s. 9d. imposed last year.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is not the decrease understated?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think not. I should be surprised if it is up to that. My own experience is it is somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent., but I could not give an actually exact figure at the present moment. But, all the same, I think we should have realised a bigger revenue out of spirits this year had it not been for the uncertainty of the last three months. What happened? I should like the Committee to follow the figures in the clearances of spirits from bond during the year. In April, the month preceding the Budget, there were 5,130,000 gallons cleared out of bond. In May there were only 666,000 gallons. In the next month there were only 956,000 gallons. Then it goes up gradually until November, when it reached 2,246,000 gallons. That proves that up to that period the trade had been living upon its forestalments, and even upon short stocks and upon their reserves. Then we come to Christmas. Christmas always
  1910
  makes a difference in the withdrawal of spirits from bond. It is undoubtedly the best time for the Excise and Customs. At Christmas the figure rose to 4,293,000. That is the month when the Budget was thrown out.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: That is in December.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, in December. The figure was almost double in the course of a single month. Why was that? There were two reasons. First of all, the Christmas trade is much heavier in spirits in the month of December than in any other month of the year. But that does not account for it altogether. I think the main reason was that the trade knew fairly well that whatever party came in they would not take the 3s. 9d. off up to the end of the financial year. They assumed that if it was taken off it would be taken off probably at the end of the financial year. So that they said, "We have got three months in front of us during which we shall have to pay the 14s. 9d.," so they cleared out of bond a sufficient quantity of spirits to enable them to trade in an easy and comfortable way for the next three or four months. And that accounts, in my judgment, for the reason why they cleared 4,000,000 gallons in December. But, then, the revenue suffered in the next three months of January, February, and March, during which the figure went down again steadily from 4,000,000 gallons to 1,900,000 gallons; then from 1,900,000 to 1,600,000; and in March another 1,600,000 gallons. So that the last three months compared with the corresponding three months of the preceding year only 5,000,000 was drawn out of bond, whereas in the corresponding period last year 10,000,000 gallons were drawn out.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: March included the forestalments.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Only to the extent of 1,250,000, and if you deduct that there is still 9,000,000 without forestalments, as compared with 5,000,000 this year. I do not believe anyone would say that there has been a diminution to the extent of 4,000,000 a quarter in the quantity of spirits consumed in this country. Therefore, the real explanation of that is that during the last three months they have been trading again on short stocks. The revenue suffered, and that is why I say here to-day that we are £2,800,000 down in respect of whisky; "whereas I think if there was any doubt in the minds

  1911
  of the trade as to what was going to happen to the 3s. 9d., I believe we should have another 1,750,000 gallons drawn out, and I should probably be better to the extent of £1,250,000 on spirits.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Do you intend to carry on the extra duty for another year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member must wait until I come to the next Budget statement.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of being £2,800,000 below his estimate. Is he referring to the original estimate or to the revised estimate?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am referring to the original estimate. I think I should make it quite clear I am talking about what is known as the Budget Estimate of last April, and for the moment I hope the Committee will put out of their minds the second estimate. I am dealing purely now with my forecast in April and what I have realised at the end of the year.
  Now I come to the Death Duties. The Budget estimate was £21,450,000, and the actual receipts were £21,766,000. But that is not all. In addition to that there are arrears in respect of the new taxes refused until the Finance Bill passed, because the parties retained the whole amount in their own hands until the Budget controversy was settled, and that represents a sum of £1,380,000; so that the Budget estimate has not only been realised in respect of the Estate Duties, but it has been surpassed to the extent of £1,700,000, or, to be perfectly accurate, £1,696,000 more than the estimate. In regard to stamps, the Budget estimate was £8,250,000, and the actual receipts have been £8,079,000. I want the Committee to bear in mind that owing to the fact that the Budget was thrown out we lose the whole of the new taxation on stamps, because the new tax would have given us £600,000. My estimate was £650,000, but the yield would have been £50,000 less owing to the concessions in Committee. As a matter of fact, I should have had more owing to the booming times they have had on the Stock Exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Undoubtedly I should have had more. I have done very much better under the old Stamp Duties than I had expected,
  1912
  otherwise my deficit, instead of being £171,000, would have been £600,000. It the Budget had passed in due course, instead of having a deficit of £171,000 in respect of stamps, I should have had a surplus of £429,000. I think that is worth bearing in mind.
  Now I come to the Land Tax and the Inhabited House Duty. Here the receipts have been £710,000. We have not been able to collect the Land Tax and House Duty for reasons which I have explained before. In the first place, it would be a very expensive matter to collect these taxes except at the same time you collect the Income Tax, and for the convenience of the officers it was thought much better to put that off, seeing that there is no danger of losing the money by the delay. On the Land Tax we have made the assessment very carefully, and we have concluded that the estimate will be realised to the penny. There are arrears on the Land Tax and Inhabited House Duty amounting to-£1,940,000, but we hope soon to realise them fully.
  As to the Income Tax, after having examined the estimates, I have come to the conclusion, on the advice of the Inland Revenue, that had the Budget not been thrown out, we should have realised to the penny the whole of our Income Tax. We shall, I think, be short by £350,000 for reasons I would rather not for the moment explain, as I hope to recover a good deal of it. At any rate, most of this £350,000 loss occurred before Parliament met this year, and it occurred very largely in the month of January. We received £13,295,000, and we hope to be able to collect another £23,455,000. That means the whole of the Budget estimate in respect of the Income Tax with the exception of the £350,000 to which I have just referred, and the £300,000, the cost of the concessions under Schedule A.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the Income Tax, I wish to ask him whether any assessments have been made with regard to the Supertax?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No assessments could be made to the Super-tax until the Budget is through, but the officials are in a better position now than they were in a year ago to make an accurate estimate as to the amount that would be realised in respect of last year's income, and they think the estimate will be realised to the full in respect of the Super-tax. As to

  1913
  the Land Value Duties, I need say hardly anything here, because they were not to come into force until the Finance Bill was passed into law, and consequently have not been in operation. We hope, however, to realise £490,000 in respect of these taxes for last year.
  Now I come to the Post Office, which has done very well, in fact, in regard to all taxes which are an indication of the prosperity or otherwise of the country, we have done exceedingly well. The Income Tax has come quite up to our expectation, and the Post Office has exceeded it. Stamps have exceeded our expectation by £400,000 or £500,000. The Death Duties are, to a very large extent, a test of the value of securities, and, therefore, they are not a bad test of the prosperity of the country. All those taxes have done well. The Budget estimate for the Post Office was £22,400,000, and the actual receipts were £23,030,000. I owe my right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton) a considerable debt of gratitude, for not merely have the receipts of the Post Office gone up by £630,000 under his administration, but he has also saved, I think, about £300,000, and therefore he is responsible for something like £1,000,000 of the improvement on the estimate.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Is that due to the circumstance of the General Election?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think not, and I will say why. I estimated for an increase, but I think this large increase is undoubtedly due to an improvement in trade. There is no better test of an improvement in trade than the Post Office. When there is a depression the Post Office is very sensitive, and, on the other hand, when things are beginning to improve there is no Department in the country so responsive to the touch of improving trade as the Post Office. Therefore it is very gratifying that I am able to announce that the Post Office receipts have exceeded the Estimates by over £600,000. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton) tells me the election is very disappointing, because it only brought in about £40,000.
  The next item is Crown lands. The estimate under this head was £530,000, and the actual receipts £480,000. As to the Suez Canal shares, which are not a bad test of the prosperity of the country, my estimate was £1,166,000, whereas the actual receipts amounted to £1,269,000, an improvement of £103,000 upon the estimated revenue from the Suez Canal
  1914
  Shares. In regard to the Miscellaneous Receipts, the Budget estimate was £1,394,000, and the actual receipts £1,687,000, showing an improvement of something like £300,000, most of which has been realised by the profits on silver coinage.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Home or export?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Both, I think. Now I come to the figures which will show the actual position. If hon. Members will just look at the figures they will find that the increases we have realised in respect of Death Duties, the Post Office, Stamps, the Suez Canal Shares, and miscellaneous items between them are just equal to the loss we have sustained under the 3s. 9d. extra Spirit Duties.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted the item of tobacco.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under tobacco there is a diminution, or rather an apparent diminution of £159,000. But then I understand that £106,000 has been deposited, or rather security in respect of it has been deposited, in respect to the revenue of last year, so that the real loss is only £53,000. So that tobacco has substantially come up to the estimate, and I consider that is a very good estimate. Now I come to the whole financial position. The total expenditure for the year was £157,945,000. The total revenue—that is, the money actually received — is £131,697,000. The realised deficit is, therefore, £26,248,000. How is that to be made up? It will be more than made up out of the arrears of revenue which would have been received in 1909 if the course of the Budget had run smoothly, and will, I confidently hope, be collected before the borrowings become due. I will now give the sums which we hope to collect in respect of the taxation of last year: Spirits, £304,000—I believe in regard to spirits security has been given to this amount in respect of the 3s. 9d. per gallon additional charge.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Mostly in Ireland.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Wherever it is I hope it will be in the Exchequer by-and-by. The next item is tea. In respect of tea the amount is £1,000, tobacco £106,000, liquor licences £2,100,000, motor-car licences £260,000. Estate Duties, etc., £1,380,000, Land Tax and Inhabited House Duty £1,940,000, Income Tax (including

  1915
  the Super-tax) £23,455,000, Land Value Duties £490,000. Those I expect to receive every penny of, and the total amount is £30,036,000. From that total you have to deduct the payment to the Road Board of the whole of the motor licences, £260.000; the Petrol Duty already received amounting to £320,000. The estimate for this duty was £340,000, and we have actually received £320,000. You have also to deduct the payment to local authorities of half the proceeds of the land value duties £245,000, making the total deductions £825,000, and leaving a balance of £29,211,000.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any allowance in respect of Income Tax under Schedule A?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, £300,000 has been allowed under Schedule A. If the Committee will deduct from that £29,211,000, the £26,248,000, the realised deficit, they will find that there will be a balance on the right side in respect of the revenue of last year of £2,963,000. As we have been subjected to very considerable criticism, and I think on the whole rather unfair criticism, I think it is right we should just examine this a little further. I have seen wild suggestions that we are responsible for the deficit of £26,000,000, that Free Trade finance has failed, and that the whole fiscal system of this country has broken down. The proof, it is said, is that we are short by £26,000,000 of the revenue of the year. As a matter of fact we shall have £2,900,000 to the good. That is not all. Had the Finance Bill actually passed in the ordinary course we should have had £350,000 more in respect of Income Tax, we should have had £600,000 in respect of stamps, and we should have saved interest to the extent of £350,000. If you add those figures together, that is £1,300,000, so we should have, had, not £2,900,000, but £4,200,000, after making provision for the Services of the year.
  I think I can carry it further than that. We might fairly assume, I think, that the Spirit Duty would have been more productive, not that there would have been more drinking, but once it was thoroughly realised that the 3s. 9d. duty was an established fact and that there was no going back upon it, there would have been no inducement to the trade to keep down the reserves at their present very low figure,

  1916
  and therefore, I think, we should have had —that is the estimate—something like 1,750,000 gallons cleared out of bond, and have had an addition of £1,250,000 to the revenue in that respect.
  Let the Committee realise what that means. Here you have got £2,900,000. It is true the Sinking Fund has been suspended, but the total amount withdrawn from the Sinking Fund owing to the Budget having been thrown out is £2,700,000, so, even if we paid back the whole £2,700,000, we should have a surplus of £200,000.
  I do not believe a financial estimate has ever been put to so severe a strain as the present one. Let the Committee quite realise what happened. I do not wish to become controversial. I am merely relating the facts. For four months the finances of the country have been thrown into confusion. Let us put on one side now who is to blame. I am looking at it purely from the point of view of testing the Estimates. There is £1,300,000 directly lost owing to the delay—a loss of £600,000 owing to the delay in the putting on of the Stamp Duties, a loss of £350,000 in the Income Tax, and a sum of £350,000 added for interest on loans. We have had a period of very severe trade depression, and still we paid over £3,500,000 towards reducing the debt of the country out of the revenue of the year. In spite of all that, we have a balance of £2,900,000, which can either be applied to that purpose or to any other purpose the House of Commons chooses to direct. All I can say is that I do not believe there is any other country that could have done it. I am perfectly certain of this, that, looking at what has happened in other countries, there is no other fiscal system which could have emerged as triumphantly out of so severe a strain as we have put upon ourselves.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was indeed high time that we should once again approach the consideration of the Budget for the year which has already closed, but I confess I do so personally with the greatest reluctance, and I shall not be sorry when I bid it a final farewell. The right hon. Gentleman, in the concluding observations of the interesting statement that he has made, congratulated himself on the accuracy of the estimates which he had made, and on the success with which he has withstood the very severe strain on our financial arrangements. He observed that he did not think there was any other country in the world where so

  1917
  much disturbance could have been gone through at so little loss or real inconvenience to the revenue. I think that is certainly a most remarkable position. It is not wholly consideration for the revenue which has produced this result, but it is due partly to a natural and legitimate desire on the part of traders themselves to protect the course of trade and prevent those damaging fluctuations and reckless speculations which would not inure to the benefit of the ordinary traders, and might disorganise the whole market in which they were dealing. That legitimate wish expressed by them to preserve continuity and to have some measure of security even in the midst of all this turmoil, was, of course, fortified as far as possible by the assurance of the Government on their side, and by the assurance on our side, which the Leader of the Opposition and I myself thought it right under the circumstances to give, that if the recent election had resulted otherwise than as it did, and the two parties had changed places, the Unionist party would have confirmed the collection of these duties as far as the past is concerned. I do not know of any other country in which you would have found that measure of co-operation, not merely between the Opposition and the Government, but between the Government, the Opposition, and the trading interests concerned where a real public interest was involved. I do not pretend we did it in the interest of the Government. I think it is a very remarkable thing that, as a result of this combination as far as Customs and Excise are concerned, there has been the least possible measure of disturbance to trade and an infinitesimal loss to the Treasury.
  I think the willingness of taxpayers to bear their burden is shown in a wider field than Customs and Excise, and, had the Government been willing, as we repeatedly pressed them to do, to pass their Income Tax Resolution in anticipation of the moment when they felt able to devote time to the Budget as a whole, they could on that Resolution have got in the great bulk of the Income Tax this year, and have largely reduced the expenditure for interest which they themselves have incurred, and they would have been met by the same desire to co-operate with them on the part of the direct taxpayer as they have encountered on the part of the indirect taxpayer. They did not, however, choose to do that, and all I desire to say is, that it speaks well for the public spirit
  1918
  of all concerned that what might have been a great and difficult crisis in our finances has passed over with so little permanent injury in its effects upon the Treasury. I go further, and concur with, the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the success of his Estimates, taken as a whole, is remarkable—that is to say, not the immediate success, but assuming the sums are realised which he expects to be realised. We are not talking of accomplished facts, but we are still in a certain sense in the region of estimates. On the whole, the results will apparently be very remarkable. It reflects great credit on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and still greater credit, as I know he would be the first to say, on his advisers. The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. If his estimate turns out bad he is discredited, but if the estimate turns out well then we pay a tribute to his advisers. That is the course taken by all Chancellors of the Exchequer, and I am sure the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will himself take the same line of action. But this precision in the whole is compatible with extraordinary divergence in detail, and I think it is worth while to spend a couple of minutes in calling attention to two of these divergences. The Income Tax estimate is a remarkable one, but the right hon. Gentleman has two bad estimates—the Death Duties and the Whisky Tax. The Death Duties estimate was a bad one, because the yield was prodigiously under-estimated. Anybody who has had anything to do with Death Duties knows that they are a most unsatisfactory revenue, and no great blame can attach to a Chancellor of, the Exchequer because he fails to foresee that, in a particular year, the number of large estates becoming amenable to Death Duty will be far in excess of the average of preceding years. That is exactly what has happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extraordinarily fortunate in the number of very big estates which have to pay duty, and he has been doubly fortunate, because not only have they come in at a time when he needs the revenue badly to make up his deficit on other items, but they have come in so soon after his Budget that the ill-effects which may be anticipated from his raising of the Death Duty has had no time to tell upon them; he, therefore, gets the full yield estimated. But he or his successors will not be so fortunate in future years.
  More than once we have, from this side of the House, warned right hon. Gentle-

  1919
  men opposite that, though the Death Duties are a very reasonable and useful form of taxation if they are kept to moderate figures, they lose their special merits when they are raised to immoderate amounts. Why? In the first place, because when you raise them to immoderate amounts the Treasury is not living on revenue, it is living on capital. When the Death Duties stood at moderate figures prudent men made provision for them in their lifetime by a system of insurance. That is what Sir William Harcourt hoped would be done, and he urged those who were subject to them to do it. As long as they did that they, in effect, accumulated year by year out of savings the sum which would be payable on their death, and when they died the corpus of the property was not diminished. The tax was a kind of deferred Income Tax. It was paid out of income and not out of capital, and the country did not have its capital reduced because the capital of individuals in the country was not reduced. When you raised the duties to the immoderate sums at which they now stand, that kind of provision on the part of individuals became impassible, and they had to cut off slices of their property on every fresh death. The result is that the State is no longer living on the income of the country, it is living on the capital of the country. That is the first disadvantage of raising the duty to the immoderate figures at which they are now fixed.
  The second is a disadvantage which in its effects will, I think, be even more quickly felt by the Treasury. It is that as you make these duties such a source of hardship to the individual, so you set him contriving means to avoid their payment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeatedly laughed at our suggestion that this raising of the duties encouraged and extended evasion or avoidance. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite repeatedly laughed, and the Prime Minister, when he made his increase in the duties, said there was not the slightest evidence of that. He told us that we were prophets of evil and that our prophecies could safely be disregarded. So the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the early part of last year, but then, when we came to a clause in the Budget which required a different line of argument, and which disclosed the real facts of the case, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a right about face of a
  1920
  most sudden character, and entirely changed the tune they sang. They repeated from those benches the very statements they had denied when we had put them forward. The clause to which I allude is the clause extending the time during which donations inter vivos are still to be treated as property passing at death. The term was fixed by Sir William Harcourt at one year, in order to prevent actual death-bed gifts for the patent purpose of avoiding the duty, and one year it remained from that time till the present Budget. Sir William Harcourt was told that his Budget might result in sums being handed over by fathers to their children in order to avoid payment of the duty. He welcomed the idea. He ranged himself on the side of the sons, and not on the side of the fathers. He said it would be a very good thing if fathers handed over more of their property in their lifetime to their sons, and did not keep them so much on allowances as had been the practice in the past. But now the Government came down to the House saying so much property is passing in this way that nothing else will do than being allowed to examine all gifts that a man has made for five years before he died, and taking not merely an examination, but assuming that each one of these gifts for five years back was made in the anticipation of death and is to be treated as if it were property passing at death. They said nothing short of that would meet the case. It is quite true that under protest, either in Committee or on the Report stage, they satisfied themselves with three years in place of five, because, I am glad to think, there was some revolt even on those benches against the more extreme proposal. Three years, they said, they must have, and nothing less, to protect the revenue. What does that mean? It means that the result which we foretold from these high Death Duties has been produced, and, in order to prevent the avoidance which we foretold, and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite ridiculed, the Government are now obliged to make the law more stringent. The Government may set their wits against the taxpayer, but after all, as we are told every day, everybody is wiser than anybody, and the wits of the taxpayers when they are clearly set against the Government by a sense of injustice and wrong will always, sooner or later, find a way of getting through Acts of Parliament. The Government will find, I am quite certain, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer may boast that in this year he gets

  1921
  every penny that he anticipated out of the Death Duties, as years go on that process which they now admit to have been taking place, and against which they seek to guard in their present Budget, will be increased, aggravated, and accelerated, and that what they grasp or seek to grasp in one way they will lose in another. That is the objection which I feel to the high Death Duties which the Government are now proposing. The fact that the tax this year has brought in more than they expected does not in the least mitigate my objections to it.
  I said it was very fortunate for the Government that their Estimates had been very much exceeded in respect of the Death Duties. That is so, for they have been wofully disappointed in the matter of the Whisky Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had to admit last autumn that he had been over-sanguine, and that the new Whisky Duty was not going to produce more than one-half of what he anticipated, took comfort in the fact that other people had been as little far-seeing, and had made worse Estimates than himself. I think he suggested that we on this side were not in a position to cast a stone at him in that respect.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not now indulging in tu quoque at all. It is not merely that the right hon. Gentleman had himself overestimated; the extraordinary thing is that the trade itself thought so too, and I was attacked by the organs of the trade, and by their leaders, because they said I had so grossly underestimated the revenue I expected to get.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is so. I think, so far as I remember, my own line was that, although the Government had overestimated the amount of profit which they stated was derived by the trade over and above the tax from the extra charge of one halfpenny per glass which the trade put on, they grossly underestimated the revenue that they would get, because the profits of the trade and the revenue of the Government depended on the same thing, namely, the extent to which sales continued unaltered or were diminished by the new taxes. The Government wanted to prove that they only got a very moderate return, and that the trade was going to get an enormous share. But they could not prove both under any circumstances. As a matter of fact they have not got what they expected, and the trade has suffered
  1922
  tremendous loss and injury, not confined to those directly engaged in distilling, but ruinous in its character to those dependent on distilling, whether in subsidiary manufacturing industries or in agriculture. Gould you have a greater condemnation of a tax than that it should have been ruinous to the trade and produced effects on the trade of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no conception when he proposed it? It threw vast numbers of people out of work. It destroyed agricultural prosperity in certain districts—in districts which had not too much prosperity. All this was done by the right hon. Gentleman for the sake of revenue which he has not got. He estimated that he was going to get £1,600,000 in May; in November his estimate had fallen to £800,000. As a matter of fact he has got nothing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less than nothing."] He has got less than nothing into the Treasury. I was making some allowance for forestalments, but I am reminded that that allowance was made by the right hon. Gentleman in his original Estimate, and therefore we need not make it over again. Anyhow, whether my recollection is right or not, the fact remains that he has not got any of the revenue he expected. The whole question as to forestalments resolves itself into this: How much had the stocks been depleted, and how much will they ever be filled up again? The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that this depletion of stocks is merely temporary, but although I think a portion of it is temporary, I think also he has taught the trade a lesson which they will be slow to unlearn, and he will find in future that they will trade on lower stocks than they have ever done before; but in any circumstances, that would merely be a single increase in a single order, and it would not be a permanent increase in the consumption. It would be an accidental increase in one year corresponding really to such an increase as takes place when a reduction of the tax is expected in the Budget statement, and therefore the withdrawals before the Budget, instead of being larger, as was the case in the forestalments last year, would be much less than usual, and then, in the course of the next three months they would become larger. What I am dealing with, however, is the permanent effect on this source of revenue of what the Chancellor has done, and I say that the experience which we have before us shows that the Chancellor

  1923
  of the Exchequer would have been wise to have stuck to the old tax and never to have had anything to do with the additional duty.
  The right hon. Gentleman can go on temperance platforms and pose as a great promoter of temperance by means of his 3s. 9d. tax, but that was not his intention. That is an accidental accretion of virtue, although the fact that it is accidental has not prevented, and will not prevent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer from taking all the credit he can get over it when in those friendly surroundings. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was not his business to stop but to get revenue, and his object was in this instance to get revenue, and he has failed, and his failure, I believe, will not be limited to this year, but will be a permanent failure, and I think the revenue from this source would have been better, more satisfactory, and more stable if he had abandoned this proposal altogether. I am also quite certain that his revenue in the present year would have been very much better than it is. I therefore do not congratulate him on that part of his Budget. I do not think any better of it now than when it was first proposed and when I first criticised it in this House. I have very little to say about the rest of the Estimates. Stamps I see have done well, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indirectly, has had a little flutter in rubber and oil. He has had his share after all of some of the money which he would have collected for Income Tax, and which has gone in speculations, but although he did not collect it as Income Tax he has got it in the form of stamps. Land Tax and House Duty he has not collected. He may have been wise. I do not say whether he was or not. I really do not profess to have formed an opinion on the subject, but I take note of the fact that he has exercised the dispensing power without the authority of Parliament. That is democratic finance, and is just like the statement he made to me the other day that he was spending money without the authority of Parliament in the case of a sum which was not voted. There was one observation in regard to the Income Tax, and only one, upon which I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us later some information. He said that the Income Tax officials were now in a much better position to estimate the Super-tax for the past year than they were at the
  1924
  time of the Budget. I cannot follow that explanation. The Super-tax must be estimated not by the income of the past year, but on the income of the previous year. Therefore what is the extra knowledge which the Income Tax officials have obtained which makes their estimate now more reliable than it was at that time? It is a small matter, but is of some interest to us if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell us how that comes about.
  On the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures, if his present expectations are realised, would come out much better than he had any hope of seeing, and he himself will now feel that his violent denunciations of the confusion occasioned by the House of Lords were singularly out of place when he was able to get in practically the whole of the revenue so far as it was collectable. Of course he cannot get the Whisky Tax because he has destroyed the consumption, but as far as taxation can be collected he will get the money. I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have gone on to say, in amplification of the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday, what are the changes the Government are going to make in the Budget. I, of course, have only had a few minutes to give the most hasty glance at the new Budget which has been placed in the Vote Office this afternoon. But I confess that, looking at it, I cannot trace the first concession which was announced by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that a General Election had been successful in producing in the mind of the Government a conversion which all our arguments in the six months and more we spent over the Budget last Session were unable to effect, and they were now satisfied that there must be further protection for agricultural land introduced in the Bill. I have looked for that, and I presume it is there. I think that what the Prime Minister referred to were words to be added to Clause 7. I do not know whether other Members of the Committee have got the Budget, but let me call their attention to what these words are. The original Clause 7 ran:—
  " Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only."
  And the Government—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I rise to a point of Order. This Bill has been circulated as a matter of courtesy, and of course the right hon. Gentleman has got a copy

  1925
  of it. I do not wish to deprive the Opposition of an opportunity for discussion, but I submit as a point of order you cannot discuss Amendments on the Bill at this stage. The kind of discussion which can be conducted now is similar to that which is always conducted on the first Resolution in Committee, and is a general discussion of the financial statement and of the taxes as a whole, but I confess I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can discuss an Amendment to the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I might say on the point of Order, Sir, that I do not propose to deal with it as with a Committee point. This House was told in general terms in a statement made by the Prime Minister that certain alterations would be made in the Bill, the effect of which he stated. I want to make some comments upon that statement and see whether the alterations which are proposed do carry out what is suggested. I understood from the Chairman of Ways and Means that we were to have a general discussion on this first Resolution of such a character as would be ordinarily in order on a Budget statement.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: On the point of Order. I submit that the discussion adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not possibly extend to the exact effect of inserting words in the Bill.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask if it would not be in order supposing this was a new Resolution introduced for the first time in the Budget to discuss the effect of a tax and of all these taxes in the Budget as affecting the land?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): It is quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister as to the differences or alterations in the Bill when it comes before the House; but, of course, it would be inconvenient here to anticipate the Committee stage of the discussion and to prevent the representative of the Government saying that he would prefer to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman at a later stage. As far as this stage is concerned, he would be quite in order in referring to the statement made by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to you, Sir, and I put it that we shall not have a very large opportunity of discussing this matter, and I should have
  1926
  thought that, as this is a very severe guillotine which the Government have administered to us, they might have been content to let us discuss the question how we pleased in the few hours in which we have to do it. I find that the protection for agriculture, of which the Prime Minister told us, is the addition to those words which I have already read of the words: "If sold at the time in the open market." We have no conception of any meaning that can be attached to those words. They are absolutely no protection to agriculture, and the Bill as it is proposed to be reintroduced by the Prime Minister no more protects agricultural land than the old Bill did, and is as unlike the Bill described to the constituencies by the Prime Minister and by hon. Members opposite who have spoken, as was the Bill of last Session. Repeatedly they have stated on platforms that agricultural land is exempt. It is not, and the addition of those words will not exempt it. On the Report stage of the last Bill Liberal Members sitting for agricultural constituencies for the first time began to find out what the Bill was, and they got up one after another to implore the Government one afternoon to change it, and they expressed a passionate and earnest hope that what the Attorney-General said the Bill would do it would not do, and that it was not the intention of the Government to do it. The Attorney-General, in words that many of us will remember, said that if a piece of agricultural land valued at £30 has its price increased in value by agricultural revival or agricultural improvements by the tenant up to £50, and if, then, it further increased, say £10, in value for building purposes that then agricultural values were by the Bill superseded and ignored and the tax was to be levied, not merely on the additional building value which the land had attained and on the difference between the agricultural value which the man had given to it, by his exertions and his expenditure, and that new building value, but on the difference between the original base price and the new value. That is your Bill. It is still your Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, even to-day, does not know his Bill; it is high time we had more discussion about it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Attorney-General said that taxation would be levied in respect of values created by the man's own exertions?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Let me make my case perfectly clear. An original agricultural value of £30, an increase of agricultural value in a future period to £50, due it may be to the man's exertions, aided by agricultural recovery. The then agricultural value is £50. If the land is worth £51 for building, you charge increment value, not on £l, but on £21, not on the £1 of building value over its agricultural value, but on the £20 of agricultural value that the man has put into the land. In the words of the Attorney-General, you supersede and ignore the agricultural value. You supersede and ignore the exertions of the man, and you charge him on them as unearned increment, as if they were in no sense due to his exertions or to his expenditure. That is the Bill. That was admitted to be the Bill by the Attorney-General on the Report stage, and it was against that that protests came in quick succession from hon. Members opposite. That is still the Bill, and the new concession you have made is a fraud and a sham. The words mean nothing, and I do not believe they were ever meant to mean anything. I will not go into the other Amendments, though I hope we shall have, before we have done, some further explanation than the Prime Minister gave us the other day. He said in curious language that these changes were simple and technical. My experience is that when changes are technical they are not simple, and I think this case bears it out. I only say that the greatest and the most important concession announced by the Prime Minister, and the only one which was supposed to have any universal application, although it was Irish anxiety which the Prime Minister specially dwelt upon as leading him to make an Amendment in the Bill, is a sham and a fraud and is not worth the paper on which it is written.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman is inconsistent, I think, about these words. He said they meant nothing, and he then said they meant the same as they mean in the Bill as it stands now. I myself think I understand the Bill, but I should not explain what I understand it to mean until we arrive at the words themselves in the Bill. It is extremely inconvenient when we are debating, as we are now, solely the general principle of Land Taxes and the Resolution applying to them generally, to go into the exact words of the Bill, which may, perhaps, be susceptible of alteration. Of course, we are in a most peculiar position in regard to this Budget.
  1928
  Our estimates, on which the right hon. Gentleman relied, and which are so encouraging, are not estimates for a future year, but estimates for the past year, in which they differ from all estimates ever put before a Committee of this House before. But the right hon. Gentleman has this great advantage, that he has necessarily more knowledge of what his estimates for the last year will produce than he could have had were they estimates for the forthcoming year. The rosy account he has given us is extremely encouraging. Yet the situation at present is deplorable as it looks on paper. I am afraid that in point of debt alone we are about £30,000,000 worse off than we expected to be. I understand that will all be cleared off, except that part represented by the stoppage of the new Sinking Fund, when we get the revenue. I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was very mild and very amiable in his criticism of the Budget, except with regard to that part of his speech, which I think entirely out of order, which dealt with the Amendments to the words of the Bill. That should be appreciated all the more because he hates and abominates the Budget, for the reason he has given, that it switches off Tariff Reform and switches on another policy, which is the policy of Free Trade, and also that it is the death warrant of Tariff Reform, for which reason I support it. These two reasons have been avowed twice in public speeches on considered occasions by Lord Lansdowne, who is more or less an authority on this matter. Therefore, it is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends opposite, I am afraid, consider that this Budget is anathema maranatha, for unless you pronounce Tariff Reform, although you speak with the voice of men and angels and give all your goods to the poor, and have your body burnt for the faith, you are still as a tinkling cymbal and sounding brass. Of course, we who are in that unfortunate position must tinkle as best we can for the faith that is in us.
  I will pass very rapidly over the elements of this Budget, and especially the Resolution now before us. As a student of finance who has studied in the old school, I have my doubts about the land values system of taxation. It is not that I think land should not be taxed. My belief is that land is crying out for extra taxation, but I think I should have acted more directly. I should have been inclined to restore and revive and increase the old, brutal, direct Land Tax which formerly played so large a part in the revenues of this country. It

  1929
  was because of one shilling in the Land Tax that we lost the. North American Colonies, but at that time the Land Tax was a tremendous part of the Revenue. It was at least one-eighth or one-ninth of the whole Revenue. Suppose it was one-eighth or one-ninth of the whole Revenue now; a direct land tax of that kind would be worth having. There are difficulties about re-imposing it, but when land is to be taxed, as taxed it certainly will have to be in some shape or another, I would rather see the direct, brutal, old Land Tax re-imposed and greatly enlarged than this indirect method which is embodied in Land Valuation.
  Now I come to the Death Duties and the Income Tax. It is extremely remarkable that in the last twenty years, while the total amount of income on which Income Tax is levied has been increasing in the most remarkable manner, the total amount of capital on which Death Duties are paid has not increased in at all the same proportion as I should have expected it to do, and during the last three years, while Income Tax has been going up, the capital on which the Death Duties have been paid has absolutely diminished. I am very curious to know whether that is the case with the total capital of the last year. My belief is that that is due to the unfortunate exaggeration of the graduation of the Death Duties. In fiscal matters, although people are very absolute and very positive, nothing is quite absolute in itself, and although graduation in my belief is a mistaken fiscal policy for the revenue, still, if it is mild and moderate, it does not have much effect on the revenue. But if you exaggerate, if you make your graduation too violent and your steps too long and your increases too great, you may have a very considerable effect on the revenue. There is the celebrated Duke of Richmond case. He got rid of the whole of the duties by a most ingenious device which made a great hole in the Death Duties. The Attorney-General has drafted a clause, which is what I call the collision-mat clause, to stop the hole. I do not think it stops the hole, and if that be so the whole of your Death Duties in regard it settled property are at this moment in the greatest peril. That, I think, is largely on account of graduation, and what I say of Death Duties is equally true, of the Income Tax. A small amount of graduation such as has existed for some time does no harm, and does not interfere with the tax, but if you graduate steeply and very severely and
  1930
  with very long steps you will induce people to secrete their income and withdraw it from the purview of the taxpayer. It must always be remembered, as Mr. Gladstone said, that in this country taxation is by consent. If you do not get the consent of the taxpayer you will not get your taxes, and if you give a very great inducement by severe graduation in Death Duties or in Income Tax, to lawful avoidance of the tax or an unlawful evasion, both avoidance and evasion will certainly take place. I only wish to make these general remarks. I am afraid I am belated in making them, but if you continue to exaggerate graduation, you will end by most seriously impairing, if not by largely destroying the two best taxes you have—the Death Duties and the Income Tax.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement does credit to everybody. It does credit to his estimates and it does vast credit to the taxpayers of this country, who have paid their taxes without compulsion and with readiness in order to come to the assistance of a distressed set of officials and a depleted Treasury. With regard to these officials, they have done what they held to be their duty, and at great risk. I am not sure that the indemnity really covers all their acts. I do not know that their conduct during the last year, in levying taxes which they had no lawful authority to collect, and in requiring payments which they had no ground to require, was not so serious an infraction of their duty that it required a specific clause, not merely "ifs" and "ans" and "as ifs" as this is, but a specific clause actually indemnifying them for what undoubtedly was their unlawful conduct. I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not require a similar clause, because whatever has been done by the Inland Revenue or the Customs was undoubtedly done by virtue of a Treasury Order, issued, of course, without lawful authority.
  6.0 P.M.
  It would not become me, nor do I think it is ever right, to enter into a Budget statement at the moment it is delivered, as the matter requires consideration and the figures require a certain amount of study. They are always new, though this year perhaps less new than usual. I rose to make these few general remarks, and I will end, as I began, by saying that this new Budget has so far had varied fortunes, but in its figures and rendition in taxation it has had, I think, most encouraging results. I believe that the re-

  1931
  sources of the old system of finance are by no means exhausted. I believe you could raise, not merely these £160,000,000, and not merely £170,000,000, as you will probably require to do next year, but I believe you could with the greatest ease raise from this country without going into the vagaries of Tariff Reform or in any way abandoning the canons of sound finance as much as £200,000,000 a year. I think that could be done without violating any of the canons of sound taxation. It may be that before long we shall have to do it. We have had a trying period this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to pay much interest which, had his Budget gone through last year, he would have escaped, and next year, I fear, that will be made apparent. So far as we have gone, I think he may be congratulated upon the promise of the estimates of last year being realised if the taxes are all collected.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I wish to limit the remarks I have to make to the Land Value Duties, and let me say first of all, in answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that he does not seem to appreciate the distinction which now exists between the present land burdens and those of former times, say, 150 years ago. This question of land taxation was very carefully considered some years ago. It was gone into in great detail by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, on which I had the honour of sitting. The result of its investigation showed that land, as compared with other sources of income in this country was much more heavily taxed now than in previous years. That was shown by not merely taking the Imperial Tax, which is a very small proportion of the burden that really falls on the land of this country, for you have to take both Imperial and local taxes to see that the burden has increased very enormously in recent years as regards the real charge upon the land. The rate charge has grown from year to year owing to the large increase in local demands for what I shall call local service purposes. I am not objecting for a moment to rates being raised where necessary for those purposes, but I think anyone who has studied the question at all must agree with what I am saying, that the combined charge upon land in respect of Imperial and local taxation was never heavier than at the present time, and not only was it never heavier, but never heavier if you
  1932
  compare the charges on land with those on personal property and on foreign investments held by people in this country.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I understand the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that in the comparison I made I stated that land bore a greater burden in 1785 than now. What I said was that it then bore a very much larger proportion of the whole revenue, and that now it bears a very much smaller proportion.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my point. Since 1785 the burden of rates upon land in this country has increased 200 or 300 per cent., and that increase, as compared with the burden on other property, is altogether and enormously out of proportion to what it was in 1785. What I say is this—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find it in statistics—if you take the burden of local rating and add it to the burden of taxation for Imperial purposes so far as land is concerned, you will find land is much more heavily burdened now than it ever was in the past. I may quote Mr. Gladstone's view on this point. He said several times that as you have no longer Protection in this country, there ought to be some change to diminish the charge upon land in rating for local purposes. From time to time no doubt certain Grants have been made in the direction of diminishing that charge, but meanwhile the total charge has grown so enormously that the charge upon land at the present moment is really greater than it ever was before.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESindicated dissent.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I am not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman, except to say that, according to my view, statistics show that the value of other sources of income has gone up so enormously in recent years, and that the income derived from foreign investments and personal property is so enormously in excess of what it was in the old days; that if you take the ratio between land and other property, there is a very unfair burden upon land if you take into consideration both Imperial and local burdens. As regards the Land Duty as proposed in the Budget, let me say that if you want prosperity in a country you ought to encourage, so far as possible, expenditure in relation to the land of that country. It is the source from which you get the best classes of employment. It

  1933
  is the means by which you keep the people in the country as distinguished from crowding into large towns, and I think it is an advantage in connection with the employment of the people not to discourage employment upon the land by putting upon it undue burdens. You ought rather to encourage this by treating landowners as favourably as people who enjoy income from other forms of investment, and especially from money which is sent abroad.
  I wish to say a word in regard to the three heads of the Land Value Duty in the Resolutions which are now before the Committee. The first Resolution deals with increment values of land. Now, why should land be separated in order to be charged Increment Value Duty? Why should it be differentiated from other classes of property where you have either increment or decrement? I think one of the great objections to Land Value Duties is that you separate land and suggest that it is a particular class of property in reference to which you may impose a particular class of duties which would not be fairly applicable in other classes of property in this country. I think the answer to that is twofold. I have had some experience myself as regards land values, not only in agricultural districts, but also in the neighbourhood of large towns, and I think I can make this statement without fear of contradiction. It is not only in agricultural land that there has been decrement, as against increment, but even in the largest towns you find large areas where, so far from there being increment values, there is decrement in value, with the result that if you were to treat land quite fairly, you ought, both as regards agricultural land and as regards land in large towns, to consider the question of decrements as well as the question of increments.
  There is another reason why these Land Values, and particularly this Increment Tax, should be further considered. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation did suggest in one of its Reports that you might tax these increment values in the neighbourhood of large towns for local purposes. That is quite different from taxing them for Imperial purposes, and if this source of income is to be taxed at all, it ought to be exclusively taxed for local purposes, and not as a source from which you are to get Imperial revenue. The reason for that is twofold. First of all the local increment is almost entirely due to
  1934
  local energy and development, so that the local town where increment takes place is really the locality entitled to benefit. Consequently, under this proposal, you are putting an additional burden on the ratepayers of a particular locality without giving them the advantage of the duty. It is pointed out by the Commission to which I have referred that as regards local taxation you would have redistribution of taxation between properties in a particular area, and as regards that redistribution it is fair enough, according to the views expressed in the Minority Report, that something in the nature of an Increment Tax should be imposed. I entirely agree with that. If it is a mere question of the redistribution of the burden in a particular area, I think an Increment Duty may be imposed; but really on the basis that existing land is already very highly taxed, I say that what is proposed here is not to do that in the sense of allowing each local area to have advantage of its own taxes, but to levy this first as an Imperial tax, and only to regrant a proportion of it for local purposes; and how that is to be done no one knows.
  There is one other point in regard to increment value to which I want to call attention, namely, the question of agricultural land. It is grossly unfair, it seems to me, that you should put any burden under this Increment Land Duty on the agricultural industry of this country. I am not going at the moment to discuss the particular words in the amended Bill. I think these words really mean that you are to take the market value as the test. That is not what I am arguing. There are hundreds and thousands of acres used for agriculture in the country where the land has little more than agricultural value. The extent of such land is extremely indefinite. One of the hardships of a proposal of this kind is that officials who have probably little knowledge in the matter will have to determine one of the most difficult questions, namely, whether land has a building value attached to it in addition to its agricultural value. Those who have dealt with matters of this kind and with questions of local taxation know from practical experience that there is nothing more difficult to determine than the point at which agricultural land has an additional value for building purposes. My point goes beyond that. I say that land which is used for agriculture ought not to have any additional tax thrown upon it, and that directly you leave that practical test, which is the only test

  1935
  of real value, you get into a quagmire of complicated questions which will result in costly inquiries to the agriculturists and to the owners. In my opinion the result will afford very little revenue to the Imperial Exchequer, because the cost of assessment and collection will be so large. What I want to put to the Committee is this. It ought not to be possible to raise any of these questions in connection with our agricultural industry. It ought not to be a question of difficulty or inquiry at all. We want to encourage agriculture, of course fairly, to the maximum extent in this country. We want to develop it either by small holdings or small ownership, or in any way we can. We are all agreed on that point, but it is fatal when we desire to increase the prosperity of our agricultural industries, and increase employment for workmen in agricultural districts, to impose a tax of this kind, which not only puts a direct burden on agriculture, but, what is worse in my view, raises a series of questions which must put a very heavy burden of taxation on anyone who is interested in our agricultural industries.
  I hope the Committee will realise that there are enormous tracts of land—it is no exaggeration to say hundreds of thousands of acres—used for agriculture in this country, to which, under the proposed provisions, the Increment Tax would apply. There are large tracts of land to my knowledge where it could be said that although the land was used for agriculture there is an element of building value, and, as a result, an increment tax would be imposed. As regards what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, in the account he gave of the operation of the increment value section of the Finance Bill, he was absolutely correct. And immediately one realises that the result which we pointed out inevitably follows. You may have agricultural land substantially increased in value by the energy and industry of those who give their work and capital to its development. If, as the result the increment value so given, together with an element of building value, raises the price above a certain figure—say £50, say to £51 or £52—then the Increment Tax is imposed upon the whole value of the land— not only the original site value, but the site value as improved and increased by the industry of agriculture, and by the capital invested for agricultural purposes. And it would be a unique case if land
  1936
  values are passed in this case of a tax on industry in this country in an exceptional manner, especially at a time when there is no industry which ought to be more carefully safeguarded against exceptional taxation of the kind than the great industry of agriculture, which in recent years unfortunately has not been too prosperous. In the same way the Reversion Duty will affect all agricultural land in which there is something more than an agricultural interest; and more than that it affects agricultural land where the relationship between landlord and tenant is best, and where the greatest expenditure has been given. For instance, if you have land let at a rack rent practically there will be no tax to be imposed on the principle of Reversion Duty, but when the reversion comes in it will be worth more than the rack rent. But if, on the other hand, you grant an improvement lease at a low rent, the very object of the low rent being that you may encourage capital and industry to the greatest extent as regards agricultural land, which is the proper way of dealing with agriculture in this country, then just in that case where the principle was favourable to the development of agriculture the Reversion Tax would hit all agriculturists in the hardest way. In other words, you tax those who are dealing with land in the best possible manner —you tax those who are attempting to improve its agricultural value by a proper expenditure of capital and industry. Is that right? Ought we not, as regards, at any rate these Reversion Duties, to have absolute exemption of all land used for agriculture under all conditions whatsoever? If you do not, you bring about what I think the Government would not desire, namely, taxation of those who are doing their best to put agriculture in a prosperous position, and you are letting off those who, under a system of rack rent, are trying to take all they can out of the land, and putting on one side all questions of improvement.
  The Development Tax, of course, is on the capital charge, and is altogether on a new principle, because you tax a man in reference to his use of land, to which in fact he is not putting the land which he owns. Here, again, let me urge the point that I have repeatedly raised before the Committee that there ought to be entire exemption as regards agriculture. Do the Committee realise that if land is said to be ripe for development, although it is not at present being built on, it is always

  1937
  being used either for agricultural purposes or for market-garden purposes? If that is so, is it not monstrous that under the name of the Development Tax you should put on a tax which will only fall on land either used for agricultural or market-garden purposes? I admit, as I have said, at the outset that I am against the principle of all taxes of this sort, but I do urge that if taxes of this kind are to be sanctioned at all we ought to make certain that agriculture is really and wholly exempt. No words are of the slightest value unless you go the whole length and exempt from the taxes land used for the purposes of agriculture. What I want to know is, are we to have exemption in that form or not? If we do not have exemption in that form it is of no value; and if we are to have exemption in that form it will only place agriculture in the same position as other industries, and save it from having a special and particular burden thrown upon it. And I think that no Member of the Committee ought to desire to do this. I do not wish to travel over the other matters, but merely to deal with the Land Value Duties, and as regards these I say that they are wholly bad in principle, and that the agricultural industry ought to be wholly exempt.
  Mr. KETTLE: I think we are all agreed that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire is one of a very serious character. I do not think this is the proper time for a discussion of the technical meaning and effect of the words which have been inserted in Clause 7; but I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is a little hasty perhaps in staking his Parliamentary reputation, as he practically did, upon his assertion that these words are a sham and a fraud, that they do not carry out the promise given by the Prime Minister only yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman may, be right; he may be wrong. The only point I wish to make is, I think he was extremely hasty, and I do not think that the occasion of this general discussion was the correct occasion on which to discuss whether these words do or do not carry out the Prime Minister's pledge. For the moment I think it is more appropriate perhaps to remind the Committee of the perfectly clear and definite terms in which the Prime Minister gave that pledge yesterday. He said:—
  "Certainly there were doubts and anxieties expressed upon the point in Ireland."
  1938
  And let me hope in advance that when we who sit for Irish constituencies have succeeded in saving the agricultural land of England from the imposition of Land Duty we shall have a little more gratitude than is usually given to Irish Members.
  " Therefore,"
  he said,
  " we are inserting declaratory words in the seventh clause, to deal with that matter. These will make it perfectly clear that as regards the Increment Duty, that increase in value in purely agricultural land will not be subject to it."
  That is a perfectly clear and definite promise. I suppose if I say that our influence in this House will be used to see that it is carried into statutory effect it will be another peg on which to hang the old story as to the present unhappy Government being under the dictation of the Irish party. I will only say at the moment regarding the point that an undertaking has been given that agricultural land shall be exempt from this Increment Duty, and it will be our duty, I say quite frankly, to see that the promise is carried into statutory effect. In passing, I may say, as there has been so much discussion in regard to the attitude of Irish public opinion towards this Budget, that in my own Constituency, while strong exception was taken to the whole Budget on grounds of principle, the chief matter of detail on which attention was concentrated was this particular matter of extending the Increment Duty to agricultural land. When we go to the special clause in the Bill dealing with this matter we shall naturally have to discuss in some greater detail the exact meaning and precise effect of these words.
  On the Budget generally the attitude of our party upon all Budgets is moderately well known. We have invariably taken our stand, not upon haggling over this or that special duty; we have said that every Budget, whether Liberal or Tory, introduced since the Act of Union, especially since 1817 and still more since 1853, has been a Budget unjust to Ireland, on the general ground that it drew from her revenue out of proportion to her capacity to contribute revenue. But when I am asked, as we have been asked, to seek salvation for Ireland from over-taxation, by throwing out the party that now holds office and to put in the party that sits on these benches, that seems to me a suggestion better suited to comic opera than to practical politics. Are we in Ireland to find salvation from our over-taxation in the Tory party? The last time that the Tory party was in power for ten years

  1939
  they increased our annual taxation in Ireland by more than £2,000,000 a year. They increased it year after year, in face of the Report of the Financial Relations Commission which was first presented in this House while they were in office; and I now challenge the Leader of the Opposition, who was to save us in Ireland from all these evils, to say what is the official attitude of his party with regard to the over-taxation of Ireland? Does he believe that Ireland is over-taxed? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I trust that he has authority to speak for the Leader of the Opposition. Is the present position of the Leader of the Opposition what it was when this matter of finance was first formally raised in this House, namely, that Ireland is not over-taxed, but is under-taxed? In determining our attitude on this Budget we must naturally contrast it with our anticipation of the future Budget that Tariff Reform is going to give us. I notice that in a letter published the other day, the Leader of the Opposition has thrown over completely the agricultural interests of Ireland. The duty on corn is gone from the future Tariff Reform Budget. Is there going to be a revolt against the Leader of the Opposition? [An HON. MEMBER: "Colonial corn."] Colonial corn is to be introduced duty free. The right hon. Gentleman should have been up in my constituency during the election and listened to the promises that Colonial corn was to pay the full duty. And when his friends come they will give not this miserable Land Tax Budget, but a project to provide import duties on corn and agricultural produce from the Colonies or elsewhere, and this is to make the green wilderness of Ireland blossom like the rose. That is the prospect held out to us by a future Tariff Reform Budget, and it seems to me to be a relevant consideration in regard to our attitude on Free Trade. On that ground our votes have been given for this Budget. For my part, I am voting for this Finance Bill, not in the interests of this particular measure, but in the interests of Home Rule. I can well understand how hon. Gentlemen from Irish constituencies, who seem to have abandoned their Home Rule principles, should be found in a different Lobby. It is perfectly intelligible that the hon. Gentlemen returned for an Irish constituency with the aid of Tory votes, should have to pay his price when he comes to express his
  1940
  opinion, or rather their opinion, to this House. I think one fact clearly emerges from the mass of detail which was put before us in such an interesting form by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it has become apparent even to him that this 3s. 9d. duty on whisky has to go. He has not got any revenue from it. As regards this particular duty of 3s. 9d. on whisky, one is placed in a somewhat ambiguous position. My own view on the subject is very simple, though perhaps not easily realised. I should like to see a great deal more whisky manufactured in Ireland and a great deal less drunk. When you consider whisky as a form of industry upon which the corn-growing districts largely depend you naturally wish to see it thrive and prosper. But when you consider whisky in regard to its consumption you have very naturally a somewhat contrary view. On this point I cannot help recalling the curiously self-contradictory criticism that was made in the discussion of this duty in Ireland. One knows that Ireland has such a good case against over-taxation that it makes one extremely angry to see it badly stated. We were told that the extra duty of 3s. 9d. would not only reduce the consumption of whisky in Ireland, but practically prevent it from being consumed at all. Then we were told, on the other hand, in making this famous £2,000,000 calculation, which has now been officially abandoned, that exactly the same quantity of whisky would continue to be drunk, and that we would arrive at the figure of £2,000,000 by taking 3s. 9d. extra on every gallon of whisky. I do not think that was an accurate or good way to state the case. I do not think it very much helps Ireland in the controversy. I think it does clearly emerge on the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has given, that this 3s. 9d. tax has to go, not in the interests of morality, but in the interests of the revenue. I will tell him something else. There has got to be a radical change in the Budget which will shortly be presented. I observe that he is going to have surplus, an unexpectedly large surplus. I was pleased to see the former Chancellor of the Exchequer joining with him in rejoicing in the fact that Great Britain is the most prosperous country in the world, with the most magnificent people, under the best fiscal and financial system. I quite accept that.
  Since Great Britain is so prosperous and so thriving that it leaves the right hon. Gentleman with a surplus of £2,900,000 to

  1941
  deal with, he can now well afford some remission of the taxation in Ireland. That seems to me to be the logical conclusion from his optimistic statement. I think the sooner his next Budget is produced, holding out an immediate prospect of a remission of taxation, which, for special and unique reasons do not appear in his present proposals, the better it will be.
  Captain BRYAN COOPER: What reasons?
  Mr. KETTLE: I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has interrupted me is one of the Tory candidates who in Ireland during the course of the election said this talk about the over-taxation of Ireland was an absolute myth.
  Captain COOPER: No, I did not.
  Mr. KETTLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is good enough to correct me.
  Captain COOPER: I said nothing of the sort. I think the hon. and learned Member must be referring to someone else.
  Mr. KETTLE: I accept the statement, but it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten his speeches, which are well worth remembering, and I hope on some future occasion to produce the quotation on which I rely. I have no desire to misrepresent anything which he said, and I am very glad to see that he now does think Ireland is over-taxed; so I trust that he and his party will immediately make representations to the Leader of the Opposition, requesting him to alter the official Tory attitude on the question of Irish taxation. I look forward to seeing that accomplished at an early date. I was about to express my regret with regard to one particular point. We have had, as I said, fantastic estimates with regard to increase of revenue that this Budget would draw from Ireland. It seems to me we have had a very sincere protest against the drawing of any additional revenue from Ireland at all. I think it would have been to the advantage of everybody—I think it was required by the Act of Union and by the pretence to administer Irish affairs from Westminster —that separate accounts should have been given us of the yield of taxes, new and old, in Ireland, as distinguished from Great Britain. We have always got a separate financial statement of that kind in a White Paper, made annually available for Members of this House. The date of the issue of the White Paper, in the ordinary course,
  1942
  would have been, I think, some time next month or the month after that; but in the exceptional circumstances of this year, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well have produced separate figures for Ireland, and certainly some of my hon. Friends will, by questions in this House, give him an opportunity of doing that at a very early date. To summarise my whole statement with regard to this Budget, I am going to vote for it because I prefer it to Tariff Reform, bad as it is, and I am going to vote for it frankly and openly, as it helps forward the cause of Home Rule.
  Mr. FRANCIS NEILSON: I have paid very great attention to the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps), but it is something new to me to learn that there are great burdens of rates upon land, at least in this country. I know that there is a great difference of opinion as to whether land is rated or not in Scotland, but it seems to me that the whole burden of the rates falls not upon the land, but upon the use to which that land is put. Land in this country is not rated at all. It is peculiar, at a time like this, when we agree with the principle of the Budget, in trying to differentiate between the value of unimproved land and the value given to land by the industry and skill of the individual, that we should have so many conflicting opinions. The Budget has for its principle the differentiation of the unimproved value from the improved value. Once this value is obtained, it seems to me that there is going to be a movement, so far as agriculture is concerned, that will give to it one of the greatest impetuses it has ever had. To-day the agriculturist, no matter how much he improves his land, is faced by the increase of rates. To-day, with the idea of having small holdings, we want to take a 300-acre farm and split it up into ten different holdings, with the additional buildings, the additional fences and the additional drainage, and all the improvements that would be made on these small holdings would increase the rate-able value and place enormous additional burdens upon the industry of agriculture. But if we have the unimproved value of land distinguished from the improved value, then it seems to me that if the small holdings scheme develops in this country, there will be great encouragement to men to continue in and sink capital in their holding, because they will know that whatever improvements they

  1943
  may make will be free from this enormous burden that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so much troubled about. So far as taxation is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that one one-hundred-and-sixtieth part of the revenue comes from land as land. The other revenue chiefly comes from the use to which the land is put. Again, the whole system of taxation, with the exception of the one one-hundred-and-sixtieth part, is a burden upon industry. No matter how you look at it, our scheme of taxation, whether it be Income Tax, Death Duties, or indirect taxation—these taxes all fall with great severity upon the efforts of the people in the production of wealth. Such a system is a bad system. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks said he wished to see agriculture prosper. I do not see how you are going to make agriculture prosper unless you do something to bring more land into cultivation. We want more land under cultivation in this country, and it seems to me that once you get the unimproved value of the land as a basis of taxing, or of rating, if you like, it will be a very simple thing through economic pressure on the land that is not properly cultivated to force more land into the market for use. Hon. Gentlemen sometimes refer to land as if really to farmers and small holders the high price of land in itself is a boon and blessing to agriculture, but it seems to me that the great trouble in this country is that if you want to produce more wealth and to stimulate agriculture or building, or any industry, the way to do so is to get land as cheap as you possibly can. The cheaper land is the easier it is to produce wealth, and the cheaper land is the more people you will attract to the production of wealth. That follows as the night the day. There is only one just way in which you can bring about land at a value at which it will attract more people for the cultivation of it, and that is through economic pressure of rates and taxes falling, instead of on the industry itself, on the unimproved value of the land, whether it is used or not. We had an argument a little while ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I am sorry I did not hear the whole of his argument. I came into the House when he was speaking about the rise in the value of agricultural land from £30 per acre to £50 per acre. He spoke of that increase as an increase that had come about by the rise in the value of agricultural
  1944
  products, and owing to the industry of the individual who cultivated the land. Surely this Budget, if it does anything at all in differentiating between unimproved values and improved values shows that it wants to have that differentiation based so as to exempt improvements from further burdens. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] The right hon. Gentleman states that there is some of the rise in value that has been given by the skill of the individual, but in drawing his conclusion the right hon. Gentleman did not deduct that value which the Budget in all those Clauses referring to land states will be deducted.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No it does not. The hon. Member is mistaken.
  Mr. NEILSON: I have been under that impression, and I have read the Finance Bill over and over again, and I have been through the Finance Bill within the past two or three days, and I cannot understand one Clause as saying that any improvement on the part of the cultivator would be liable to taxation. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman will point out to me the Clause in the Budget that states that any tax, whether it be Increment Duty, Reversion Duty, or Undeveloped Land Duty where any improvement on the part of the user of the land is liable to taxation. That is the vital principle that we have fought for any way, irrespective entirely of the different taxes that are imposed in the Budget. The principle that we have fought for for years and years in this country is that we shall get a new basis of taxation, which shall be on the unimproved value—the value that is created by the community, the value that is not added to by the individual at all, so that we shall be able to exempt the efforts of the individual in the future, and so encourage him. If that Clause is in the Budget, which the right hon. Gentleman says is there, I shall be very glád to know where it is, and I shall be just as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to vote that Clause out of the Budget, or as anybody else on the other side of the House.
  Let us look at the larger question for a moment. I can remember the first day I sat in this House listening to the Leader of the Opposition, and I remember the sympathetic plea that he put forward that something should be done by this Government in the way of stimulating industry, and helping to find more employment for the people, for raising wages, for doing

  1945
  something to deal with all those problems of poverty that face Englishmen to-day. As I listened, I thought there was rather real sympathy in his voice. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for a moment, but I do say that it is a little tiresome for a new Member of the House, after studying the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for years and years, indeed, after listening to a great many of them, whether they are speaking on Tariff Reform, or any subject that is kindred to the ambitions of their party, to hear about their desire to be democratic, and to deal with these economic problems; and when you find this opposition to the Budget that we are bringing forward at this time, and especially when in Australia, New Zealand, many places in the United States, and the North West of Canada the party of the advanced progressive nations, of our Colonies and other places, are to-day concentrating upon this very point. They are taking up this question for the solving of these particular problems the right hon. Gentleman spoke about. Another hon. and learned Member also said that what we ought to do is to encourage industry, to encourage agriculture. This is the way that we wish to carry out those aims and those ideals. This is the only way that we can see that we can bring about the stimulation of industry in this country, that we can help towards more employment, that we can begin to solve such problems as the sweating and slum problems, and the thousand and one things that are agitating the minds of statesmen to-day. Why do we rant so much on this Budget? It is because we say that land is the basis of existence. Man cannot live or work without land, it does not matter what you work at. Even in the case of the hon. Gentleman, the Baronet who sits for the City (Sir F. Banbury), it does not matter how busy they are in the City in parchment, land is the basis of existence there, as well as it is the basis of existence in agriculture. This idea that land is something that appertains to agriculture only is something that really has not to do with the twentieth century. We have got to face these problems, which are economic, with economic solutions. That is the only way you can do so. You cannot do so by tinkering at them by Tariff Reform, which, for instance, has not helped the United States. If a six-hundred dollar per year family cannot live there without charity Tariff Reform is not doing much for them.
  1946
  I say that the only way you can deal with these economic problems is by trying to solve them in an economic manner. Land being the basis of existence, we say that we have got to solve them through the land question, and that our way is through the economic pressure of rates and taxes. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are very busy putting a land programme before the agricultural population in which salvation is through peasant proprietorship. That is to do away with the small body of large landowners and raising a large body of small landowners. That is, according to them, going to lead us out of the troubles—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling outside the subject, which is the taxation of land on a certain basis proposed in these Resolutions.
  Mr. NEILSON: I bow to your ruling. I hope I shall be in order when I say that land as land is not rated to-day. The Budget wants to find a new basis, I hope, for rating this unimproved value, so that instead of in the future hearing so much about the enormous burdens, national and local, that fall upon land—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Would the hon. Member say to whom the advantage of the Agricultural Rating Act goes—to the landowner or the ratepayers?
  Mr. NEILSON: To the landowner, generally speaking. I can quote a right hon. Gentleman, who in 1897, when the Act was passing, said that ultimately it would go to the landowner.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The landowner does pay the rating.
  Mr. NEILSON: The landowner gets the benefit of 50 per cent, exemption. So far as the payment of it is concerned, it seems to me that is only a question of making one section of the community find the rates for another section of the community, while the landlord benefits' from the proceeding. If, as I have said, there is any clause in the Budget that the right hon. Gentleman can show me putting a burden upon improved value, then I say I shall associate myself with him in doing all I possibly can to get the Government to take that clause out. The Budget may have many faults—indeed, I believe it has a good many faults—but we say this for the Budget, that in it there is an entirely

  1947
  new principle that we are starting forward—that is to say, that we get unimproved value of land, so that in future we can do less in taxing a man's efforts.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I only propose to address myself to one point before the Committee, and that is the question of the Land Duties, which have been dealt with by the hon. Member (Mr. Neilson). There is, however, one point previously to which I would wish to make some allusion, and that is the statement made both by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also, I think, by the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Kettle), to the effect that this Budget proves the triumph of Free Trade finance.
  Mr. KETTLE: I did not say that.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, I accept the hon. Member's assurance. I think it must have been by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that this Budget was the triumph of Free Trade finance. It can hardly be disputed that in any country, if you wish, it may be possible to extract revenue considerably greater than the proportion of revenue at present extracted in this country, but there is only one barometer of the finance system set up by this Budget, and that is the state of the public credit of the country at the time.
  7.0 P.M.
  If any hon. Member compares the course of British credit from 1905 to the present day, during which time Liberal and Free Trade Finance has had full play, he will find that there is not a single leading country the course of whose credit does not compare favourably with that of the United Kingdom. I have figures beside me showing that from December, 1905, to the present day the fall in British credit has been far greater than that of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, or any other of the leading countries whose securities can be compared for that period, while the absolute credit of one foreign country, France, stands at present in a better position than that of the United Kingdom—a phenomenon that had not occurred during the thirty years preceding the advent of the Liberal Government to office. The comparison is even more significant when the course of public credit of the national Government is compared with that of some.of the chief municipal authorities in the
  1948
  United Kingdom. Though their credit has declined, the fall in regard to the municipal authorities of nearly all the great cities has been considerably less than with regard to the national Government. The course is still more worthy of attention with regard to London County Council finance. The fall in London County Council finance under Progressive administration was even greater than that of British credit under the national Government; but since then there has been an appreciation in the credit of London County Council finance, and it has passed in degree that of the national Government. As a barometer showing whether Free Trade and Liberal finance emerges successfully out of the present trial, nothing can be compared except the state of credit, and judged by the state of credit, our course has been unfavourable compared with that of our great commercial rivals.
  With regard to the Land Duties, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Neilson) followed the course, which is not unusual with some people, of arrogating to himself and his friends all the virtues of the calendar, and denying them to others who do not happen to agree with their particular views in regard to the Budget. The hon. Member set out to state, but I do not think he set set out to prove that the Land Duties would improve the slums and afford an economic solution of industrial and housing problems. The reason why many of us on this side take strong exception to some of the Land Duties, and particularly to the Undeveloped Land Duty, is that we believe that, analysed properly and judged on their merits, they will not do anything to relieve the slums, but will cause greater congestion; and that, instead of doing anything to afford an economic solution, they will only make worse many of the evils which we on this side just as much as hon Members opposite wish to see remedied. In that connection may I refer to two points —first, the probable increase in the cost of houses and house rent which the Undeveloped Land Duty in particular is likely to cause, and, secondly, the greater congestion to which it is likely to lead in the matter of housing. The whole essence of the question with regard to the cost of houses or house rent lies in the relative proportions of the cost of a house attributable to the land on which it stands, and to the bricks, mortar, and other works of construction. So much has been said in many parts of the country as to the extravagant cost of land that I think many

  1949
  people are unaware of the proportion which on the average the value of the land bears to the cost of the house upon it. It was my duty to analyse carefully for the Poor Law Commission the cost of a large number of buildings put up as artisans dwellings in many of our great cities. In the cost of the whole of those dwellings, on an average, the cost of the bricks and mortar and works of construction remained at from twelve to sixteen times as great as the cost of the land on which the houses were built—even high-priced building land. My own experience has been precisely the same. I was instrumental in getting started on a small scale a Garden City in Scotland, where exactly the same phenomenon occurred. In this case we gave the land gratis, but the cost of the houses was from twelve to sixteen times as great as the full building value of the land. The result becomes perfectly clear. If the building trade is made unpopular to the investor who wishes to lend money, or if it is made harder for the ordinary builder, who builds artisans' dwellings, almost invariably by the aid of borrowed capital, to borrow money, there will be an added cost to the houses quite out of proportion to any advantage which either the community at large or the locality will derive from the whole of the Undeveloped Land Duty. That there has been that additional cost and that there is likely to be greater additional cost for this reason, is clear from the facts. Many builders have been somewhat inclined after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches about being generous to the poor and just to all, to look upon him as a sort of Robin Hood, who is going to redress inequalities in this way. I do not agree with them, except perhaps as to the facility which Robin Hood had for drawing an extremely long bow. At the same time there is no question that, more perhaps for the way in which he introduced his duties and the manner in which he talked about them than for the duties themselves, there has been an increasing apprehension on the part of builders and those who lend money to them. An industry always finds it harder to borrow money if there is any uncertainty or any speculative tax hanging over it. The result has been quite accountable in the cost of houses. In the case of the Garden City cottages in Scotland, an addition of 1 per cent, to the rate which the builder has to pay for his borrowed capital is equivalent, not only to the amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty
  1950
  that might be got from such land, but to three times the whole of the building value of the land put together. That was not very high-priced land, and in order to take a typical instance of a comparatively high-priced house, I may refer to some artisans' dwellings in a large provincial town. The cost of a house was about £175. In this case the builder was hardly able to borrow at all after the Budget was brought in. But an increase of 1 per cent, would be equivalent to an additional charge—which ultimately comes upon the man who lives in the house—of at least 35s. per annum. With rates added, the additional charge comes to 49s. The annual value of the cost of the site was 23s., and the amount of the duty would be only a few shillings. In that case the cost, in the addition to house rent, is more than twice as much as the whole of the land value put together.
  The only other point to which I would call attention is again one which, through the duties I had to perform, came under my own personal observation. Members on both sides are doubtless equally anxious in the abstract to prevent overcrowding in large towns. I should like to deal with that point, not from the point of view of property, but rather from the point of view of public health and housing. If anyone were to pass from this House to St. Margaret's Place, in Bethnal Green, or to Tabard Street, in Southwark, or to some other of the less-favoured localities of the Metropolis, they would find as they passed from the less to the more overcrowded districts a constant increase in the rates of mortality and in the rates of attack from all those diseases which cause most suffering to the bulk of the community. This is not a matter of sentimentality. I have the figures with me showing that as one passes from the less to the more overcrowded districts in London the rate of consumption goes up. One-seventh of the whole of the cases under the Poor Law are probably due to consumption alone. The attack rate and the death rate from consumption goes up twofold passing from the less to the more overcrowded parts of London. If the actually overcrowded districts are taken out it increases fourfold. If Glasgow be taken, the figures for four-room, three-room, two-room, and one-room tenements will show that the death rate from consumption goes up nearly fourfold. The same is true of bronchitis and of most of the other diseases which inflict the greatest hardship on the bulk of the population.

  1951
  The result of these duties, and of the Undeveloped Land Duty in particular, can hardly fail to increase overcrowding with all the results which that entails. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"] How is perfectly obvious. I am talking now not of agricultural land, or of market gardens, or of land reserved subject to exemption for open spaces, but of land being used as building land. The whole object of the Undeveloped Land Duty is to cause land to be put to its most developed use.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No; it is to increase the supply of such land.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quoting from the official statements of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the hon. Member were Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps a different duty would be brought in. The general object of this duty is to cause land to be put to its most developed use, and the definition of its most developed use given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was that use which gives the best commercial advantage. And there is no other best commercial advantage except that which brings in the most money. The whole assumption that underlies the Land Duty, and the whole argument by which it is supported, is that the use which puts land to the best commercial advantage is the use which is best for the community. I submit that when the matter is analysed precisely the reverse of that is the case. Come down, if I may, for a moment to concrete facts. Only a year ago I myself was engaged in coming to terms with a builder for putting up houses in a developing suburb. The builder is now putting up the houses at the rate of fifteen houses per acre. He was willing to give a larger annual payment if he were allowed to put up twenty houses per acre. In other words, there would have been, had I. chosen to take it, a better commercial advantage if I had allowed the builder to put up twenty houses to the acre instead of fifteen. That same builder or other of his neighbours would have been willing to give still higher value if they had been able to put thirty houses to the acre instead of twenty. The reason is perfectly obvious. The builder sells the houses generally for a lump sum down. He is quite willing to give a larger amount for the land if he can put more houses upon it to sell. At the same time it stands to reason that though there is a higher commercial advantage if
  1952
  thirty houses are put upon the land than if fifteen are, it is not better value for the community, for it leads to congestion. I notice in the Debates in the last Parliament that the Lord Advocate said that "no doubt in the matter of valuation it would be decided what was the proper number of houses to be put on to any piece of land, and as to whether they should be terraced houses or semi-detached villas, or houses of other kind. You therefore assess your Undeveloped Land Duty accordingly."
  I would only submit, if I could take the Lord Advocate away from a rather imaginative disposition down to actual streets, that he would find it impossible for himself or any landlord to work out a principle of that kind. Moreover, a more absolutely incompatible statement than his is with the principle of the tax I cannot conceive. He is proposing to set up, not an Undeveloped Land Duty based on the highest value, but an arbitrary value, which is to be settled by himself, so that his own proposal would knock the bottom out of the tax entirely without putting anything else in its stead. I am asked for proof as to the advantage to the builder if a larger value is given by him if he is allowed to put up thirty houses than if he is restricted to twenty. I know instances where a larger value would be given by the builder if he were allowed to put forty houses on to the acre, instead of being restricted to thirty, and a higher value still would be given by a man if he were allowed to erect big block-dwellings—and I think anyone conversant with the effect of 'block-dwellings will not be in favour of them. A higher value still is given if a man is allowed to put up either a common lodging-house or a public-house. There, again, the facts are beyond dispute. I was personally offered a higher value if I would allow a certain space of land to be used to put a public-house upon. This value was far in excess of the building value of the land for ordinary houses. It was a question of £50 against £25. Now I do not profess for one moment to be a Puritan. At the same time a public-house was not wanted in the locality, although I was told the plans had been passed, and the licence might have been got. There was a refusal in that instance to take the higher value.
  I would submit to the judgment of hon. Gentlemen opposite that if you are to give play to the logical effects of the tax you have got to tax that piece of ground

  1953
  as though it could bring in money at the rate of the £50 which was offered. You have got to do it, and there is no way out of it. Will anyone stand out of the additional value that they might get if they are going to be penalised for so doing by having to pay a tax on a higher value than they are content in the interests of the community to take? I hope I may be pardoned for dealing with this matter. I only submit it for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, though he no doubt has heard all these arguments ad nauseam in the last Parliament, yet there is just this special reason for dealing with this Undeveloped Land Duty—the reason that by a certain question the conditions have changed. The conditions have changed by reason of the passing of the Housing and Town Planning Act of last Session. That Act purported to get in large measure the same object by a different and, I believe, much more satisfactory method. Therefore that Act having been passed, surely there is some reason for postponing a duty intended to have largely the same object, the effects of which, I believe, are a matter of serious and considerable doubt even to those hon. Gentlemen who support it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in last year an Undeveloped Minerals Duty, and because that was found to be unworkable he substituted for it a Mineral Rights Duty, which, whether equitable or not, was at least practicable. Just in the same way, when the Housing and Town Planning Act has been passed, achieving largely the same objects, is it not only reasonable and fair to ask that that Act may be given something of a chance before this new measure is passed largely aiming at the same thing, but the results of which, I believe, in the minds of many hon. Members opposite, are doubtful and possibly very dangerous?
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: It is very difficult to tell what the exact effect of a tax will be. But to ordinary people like myself it is difficult to understand how a tax of this kind applied to a piece of vacant building land will increase overcrowding and slum property. I believe that anyone who has any practical knowledge of building land is inclined to believe—I admit we cannot be certain—that the effect of a Development Tax or an Increment Tax, or any other tax, upon building land will tend to bring that land more readily into the market, and will tend to diminish overcrowding. That is
  1954
  not merely my own impressions, but it is the impression of nearly everybody who lives in the great centres of population, apart from certain interests. This is no new subject which we are discussing tonight. It was fairly well discussed last Session. It has been before the House m many forms for a great many years past. When I remember it first the fashionable form was "Leasehold Enfranchisement," which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End. Several of us —I think eight or ten of us upon this side of the House—I do not see any of them present at this moment—opposed leasehold enfranchisement in favour of the principle that values created by the community should belong to the community. That is more or less the principle in a more moderate form which underlies the Land Taxes in the Budget. The hon. Member for South Bucks was exercised as to the burden borne by land, and especially so as to the effect of the Land Taxes upon agricultural land. With respect to the burdens upon land, it is undoubtedly true that upon the whole they are heavy. But we must discriminate. If the taxes upon agricultural land are heavy, certainly the taxes upon unoccupied building land have hitherto been light. They have been light upon that form of property belonging to the individual, the value of which has been given in 999 cases out of a 1,000, not by the individual, but by the community. Therefore the values given to the individual by the community have been lightly taxed, whereas the values given by the individual to his property in the form of agricultural land have been heavily taxed. Now as to the effect of these Clauses upon agriculture. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should have remembered that if the burden upon agriculture would have been increased by the Budget, as it was originally introduced, those burdens were considerably reduced by the Budget when it was in Committee. The deductions were doubled for Income Tax. Woodlands were practically excluded from Death Duties. They, indeed, escaped to a great extent from taxation altogether. The Stamp Duties for small transfers under £500 were left as they were, and small transfers on land and houses have now become a considerable factor in the land. Under the Development Act much may be done to promote the interests of agriculture, and I believe it will be done, and something will be done to lighten the burdens upon the

  1955
  agricultural interest. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be inexpedient that the Increment Tax, even if it might be more fully applied than at present under the Budget to building land, should be applied to agricultural land because of its inapplicability It was opposed very strongly by hon. Gentleman from Ireland, and eventually that tax was dropped. It is fair, when we are considering the burdens upon agriculture in view of these Resolutions, to remember what was done for the agricultural community in the Budget last year. I think that those interested in agriculture upon the other side of the House have hardly done justice to the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. To what has been done already the Chancellor of the Exchequer was favourably inclined to give another 5 per cent, reduction on the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman expressed himself favourably in that direction, and he has frankly admitted the need for a readjustment of the incidence of local taxation There is an admirable Report upon the question of local taxation by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which was printed during the late Government. The late Government, I suppose on the principle that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" passed the Agricultural Relief Act, which has been a very doubtful advantage to agriculture as compared with what the readjustment of local taxation would be. There is no doubt that the consideration of the whole question of the incidence of local taxation upon agriculture was vitally prejudiced by the policy under which what we on this side of the House commonly called "doles to agriculture" were given.
  I attach great importance to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given such prominence to his recognition of the need of the readjustment of local taxation, and however great the new burdens may be in some respects upon capital—I think necessary burdens—this at any rate may be said, that the true interests of agriculture have never received greater attention than they did during the discussion of the I Budget in this House. I say that frankly. There were some points on which I opposed the Budget, but on all these points where I opposed it I do not know one where my contentions were not fairly considered and practically met in the Budget. I think my brother agriculturists might make a little more frank recognition of that.
  1956
  With respect to the Increment Taxes, abjection has been taken to the fact that the product of these taxes does not all go to the local authority. There would be great difficulty in devising any scheme under which the local authorities could raise this money for themselves. I think the money could be much better raised under State machinery. Only half of these taxes is to go back to the local authorities, I think this distribution may be better than if the money was raised and spent locally. Half of the proceeds of the yield of the Mineral Taxes to which my hon. Friend opposite has referred is to go to the local authority, and that will make good some of what is lost by the transfer of the yield of the increment to the National Exchequer. I think that is an extremely moderate and satisfactory proposal. I should like to know which of the new Members or the old Members who contested seats in any of the towns, or seats in the North, would refuse to acknowledge that the feeling is practically unanimous in favour of the taxation of land values?
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: In favour of the rating of them?
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: lam talking of the taxation of values. I have just given an explanation that the system of raising taxation by a central authority is superior to anything that can be devised by the local authorities. I talked this matter over with the principal burgh Chamberlain and others in Scotland, who have intimate knowledge of the case, and who generally belong to the same politics as my hon. Friend opposite, and there are great differences of opinion. I found it myself, assisting in drafting Bills which I brought into this House upon the subject. There is immense practical difficulty in raising the money locally. I think it is much better done by this system, and to meet the objection that part of the tax was for the Imperial Exchequer, the produce of half the Mineral Tax will go to the local authority to make good any Exchequer deficit. At any rate, I am perfectly certain that in Scotland and the North of England neither hon. Gentlemen opposite nor their Friends will deny the feeling is practically unanimous in favour of the taxation of land values. I have found—and I have been upon many inquiries and connected with many Bills— that under the Budget the best and most workmanlike scheme is produced that was yet devised to carry out what is the general opinion of the country.

  1957
  This proposal has often been called Socialistic. I am certainly against Socialism, but I doubt if there is any line of action in which you can better combat Socialism than by recognising the rights of the community in matters of this kind and meeting the just claims that the community has a right to make upon individual property which is now recognised in the Budget. Those who, recognising what public opinion is, and knowing what the circumstances are, opposed this measure of common justice to the community, are doing far more than Socialists themselves to promote the cause of Socialism in this country.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I very frankly agree that in Scotland there is undoubtedly a very strong desire for some better taxation of land values. I prefer to say the desire is for the rating of land values for local purposes. I have certainly myself advocated something of that kind for many long years, but while I have done that, I cannot say that I at all agree with the taxes imposed by the Budget or with the conditions under which these taxes are levied. I entirely agree that it is a very important subject, and I wholly agree that there are circumstances in which it is very fair indeed to rate such values for local purposes. But I do say, and I am in the recollection of those who were in the last House of Commons when the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget speech, that the root foundation of the increment taxation imposed by the right hon. Gentleman was a proposal to tax increment value which had accrued to individuals who themselves had done nothing whatever to create it. That was the root principle underlying that taxation, and while I am not going to weary the House with a re-echo of the interminable speeches I made last year upon this question, I wish to refer to it now and to that root principle for the purpose of protesting, as I did last year, against the Scotch feuars being roped in for increment taxes under this Budget. I say it is totally contrary to the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced them. Instead of taxing increment in that particular case in the possession of someone who did not create it, he is taxing the increment which has practically been created in all the urban land in Scotland by the feuars in Scotland. There is a great deal of contention about this. I found it so during my election. I
  1958
  made a pretty strong point about the extremely harsh manner in which I thought the Scotch feuars were being treated. I believe I owe my return to the fact that I was able to do so. I believe the feuars of Ayr saved my skin, as the saying goes. Yet, notwithstanding that, I found a very great deal of ignorance upon the subject on the part of those who one would have thought should have understood it. I was assailed on every occasion by the chief local organ of Liberalism in my Constituency—a very important, a very influential, and a very powerful paper—which stated that I was throwing dust in the eyes of the feuars by this statement.
  They stated that a Scotch feuar was not touched or affected by this tax, and that under the circumstances he was not likely to be a sufferer. Everybody in this House who went through the Debates of last year knows perfectly well that the Scotch feuar is roped in in the first clause of the Bill. If anyone wants to satisfy himself on that point he has only to read Clause 8, where he will find certain exemptions provided for certain of those people from this tax. Of course, it must be pretty clear there would be no need to take them out unless they were brought in in an earlier part of the Bill. And if anyone looks at the Definition Clause 42, he will find the Scotch feuar for all practical purposes of the Budget the owner of the land. I cannot get rid of this charge against my political honour. I am still charged with having misrepresented the position. I think those who make that charge do it mistakenly, not from knowledge, but from the depths of their ignorance. I only hope, when the right hon. Gentleman's official papers come to the. feuars of Scotland demanding all sorts of information from them about the. size and condition of their feus, they will take a very different view with regard to the Budget and with regard to this tax from what some of them do at present. When we get to the next election, which I hope will be sufficiently far off to enable those papers to reach the feuars, I am hopeful that as a result I may get back quite comfortably to this House again. I make that statement here publicly an the House of Commons, where I can be contradicted if I am wrong, and I say now, fortunately, in the presence of the Chancellor, that I was perfectly justified in stating that the Scotch feuars are affected, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would contradict me if I were wrong.
  I listened with very great interest to-day to the figures which the Chancellor of the

  1959
  Exchequer submitted to the Committee. I am very glad, indeed, that he was able to present so hopeful a case to the Committee as to the balancing of the revenue and expenditure of last year. He takes credit for a good many sums outstanding, which he hopes to collect. Amongst these, of course, are the Liquor Licence Duties. I do not intend to deal with them, or to discuss them now but I observe the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated he expected to receive £2,100,000 from that source. If my memory serves me correctly, when he introduced his Budget last year, he said the sum he anticipated to raise from that source of income was £2,600,000, and that the concessions he made—some of which were not concessions at all—reduced that sum to £2,100,000. I mention that in order to put this point. I think he will get that, and I think he will get more. The burden of my complaint last year was that the officials at the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never taken the trouble to mike a careful and specific estimate of the field of these duties. The present Licence Duties yield something like £2,200,000. Under the new conditions, provided the licence holders are not strangled, the money to be yielded out of these taxes ought certainly to be a great deal more. We advanced that argument over and over again. It was impossible to give definite data, because, of course, these taxes were not being raised on specific sums, but on sums varying between £20 and £30, or £30 and £40, and so on, and without knowing the rentals of houses between the different points it was impossible to make an accurate estimate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked for the information; he was in a position to get it. His officials had been during the last few months having a well-deserved holiday, but he might have had a return prepared, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have come down and told the House to a shilling what he could get out of these duties with this exception, that it would have been impossible, of course, to say what the new valuation of houses over £500 would amount to and how far they would or would not have affected it. We have shown over and over again that that is an illusory concession, and that this valuation would be higher than the existing one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: How am I to arrive at any accurate estimate of the number of licence holders? I cannot possibly do it, and I have not had the time.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: The important point is the on-licences and the beerhouses. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made some attempt to come down here with a much more correct estimate than he has presented. I do not think this would have mattered very much in ordinary circumstances, but we are now dealing with extraordinary circumstances, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going this year to collect two sets of licences on the existing scale. How on earth they are going to be paid, or how the London brewers are going to pay this double taxation in a single year, I am sure I do not know, but I should not like to be in their position. This makes it all the more necessary that a very correct estimate should have been made in order that not more than the £2,000.000 required should be taken out of the pockets of these people. You are now dealing with a two-year period, and you will crush these people more than ever. I think that is a matter which we have a right to complain of, and some effort should have been made to arrive at a much more correct estimate. With regard to the dismal failure which has attended the additional 3s. 9d. duty on spirits, I was inclined to gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks that he could not tell exactly how it was going to work until after a two years' trial, and apparently he has an idea of continuing it for another year. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway will be able to stop him doing that. I hope, in the interests of my Constituents, who are extremely hard hit by tins tax, he will see his way to revert to more moderate and reasonable finance in this matter. My own impression is that the right hon. Gentleman would get more out of an 11s. tax than he is likely to get out of a tax at 14s. 9d. The facts show a great reduction in the consumption of spirits, and even if the duty is restored to its old figure, it will take some little time before those habits of the people return which he has taken so much credit for having to a certain extent diminished. If you change the habits of the people only for seven, eight, or nine months, they do not return to their old love immediately. It does not, however, rest with me to discuss that point. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this has been a very

  1961
  serious matter, not only in Ireland, but also in Scotland. I am sure he realises that if any reduction in the Spirit Duty is to be made for Ireland that cannot be done without applying it to Scotland also. I had hoped that to-day the 14s. 9d. duty would have been fixed up to a certain date, after which it would have been automatically reduced. That has not been done, and consequently the trade will remain in the same disturbed and uncomfortable position it has been in ever since this taxation was brought forward. I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in what he says about the extraordinary depletion in the stocks at present held by various traders. That is a very natural state of things, because they know that no other Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever put the duty above 14s. 9d., and there is always the off-chance that some sensible Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the duty down. The trade has hopes that the right hon. Gentleman is showing some glimmerings of sense in that direction, and they hope there may be a reduction in this respect in the next Budget. I believe I am right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman expects to get very nearly the whole of his estimate from the Income Tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Within £350,000.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Have the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers! considered the effect of the Budget upon the returns which have already been made under the Income Tax assessments? Has he considered the effect of Clause 134 of the Act of 1842 on the three-years' average of assessments that have been sent in to his surveyors of taxes upon which he has based the estimate he has given to the House to-day? In view of the disturbance created by the passing of the Budget in a great many trades, together with the enormous loss to the distilling trade, the licensed trade, and many other trades, have the right hon. Gentleman's advisers considered that all these people are entitled to plead that specific causes have arisen owing to the passing of this Budget which will enable them to have a reduction of their assessments over the last three years? I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered that point, because he does not take any notice. This is a very important point, and I always know from the expression of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance whether he has taken into account particular points or not. This is a
  1962
  matter to which he ought to give his special attention. If by any chance it is held that the passing of this Budget is a specific cause of that character, and that these reassessments can be demanded, do not let him forget that he will have to assess them on the profits of this year, and not on the average of the previous three years; he will have to begin from that point to set up his new average of three years. It is a serious matter which may involve a very large sum of money, and which may to a great extent vitiate his estimate.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. Member mean brewers and distillers?
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Yes, I mean brewers, distillers, and all traders who can show that the Budget has specifically affected their trade. This point is worth the Chancellor of the Exchequer's notice because it has been brought to my attention by those who understand what they are talking about. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say that it is a question for the local Commissioners and not the Treasury. It is a point of enormous importance whether they come within the purview of the particular clause I have quoted, and it is a point which should be decided upon by headquarters here, who ought to give us a definite pronouncement. I think it is a mistake that this Budget taxes people not on what they have got, but on the kind of property they have, and in that respect it is unfair. As for the liquor licence duty, it is very hard upon the traders, and it is bound to ruin a great many people. I agree that there are many anomalies in the existing scale which ought to be redressed, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone much too far, and has been very harsh to the trade. I am sorry in the new Budget he has not made any concessions whatever to the appeals made to him during our long Debates last year.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise mainly for the purpose of dealing with one or two observations which have been made by hon. Members opposite. I would like to offer my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the remarkably satisfactory statement which he put before the Committee at the earlier part of this Debate. I have all the more pleasure in doing that because there have been one or two occasions upon which I had to make remarks perhaps not quite so complimentary to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope

  1963
  before very long he will be the happy possessor of an estimated surplus of something like £3,000,000. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his statement that if the stocks of the licensed trade had not been reduced to their present point he would have had an additional revenue of something over £1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have taken into consideration the fact that the higher the duty the less will be the consumption and the amount of duty paid, and this involves the locking-up of a large amount of stock.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I took that fact into consideration, and I allowed for it £1,500,000.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, anticipated that a very large increase in the Spirit Duty would be followed by a considerable reduction in consumption. Personally I do not deplore that. I am one of those who have taken up the position that you cannot altogether dissociate taxation and the form of taxation from its effect upon social questions. I think in previous experiments the increase of the Spirit Duty proved that the limit had been reached, and that any further increase in the tax was certain to bring about diminished returns. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he calculated that the reduction in the consumption of spirits was something between 20 and 25 per cent. I do not gather from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reduction in the consumption of spirits has been followed by any increase at all in the consumption of other forms of alcoholic liquor.

  8.0 P.M.
  If that be the case I think the right hon. Gentleman may congratulate himself upon having achieved a larger measure of temperance reform than has ever been achieved before by any attempt of the Legislature, and from that point of view I do not at all deplore the experiment the right hon. Gentleman has gained. There is just one other point arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement which I may perhaps be allowed to mention. There is a very considerable loss in the revenue from spirits, one form of indirect taxation, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was also a falling off in the receipts from the Tea Duty, though not a very large one, I admit. The right
  1964
  hon. Gentleman attempted to account for it by forestalments. Then the Tobacco-Duty has only just realised expectations.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not quite.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: My point is that in all the items of indirect taxation there has been a falling off, and the surplus is accounted for wholly by the returns from direct taxation—the Income Tax, the Death Duties, and the other forms of direct taxation proposed in the Budget. What is the moral of that? The lesson of that, to my mind at any rate, is that we have reached the limits of indirect taxation, and that the people upon whom indirect taxation falls cannot possibly afford to pay a larger amount of taxation, to the national revenue. It also proves something else; it proves that we have not by any means reached the limits of direct taxation. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, if he requires, as he certainly will require, increased taxation, he ought to raise that increase in, such a way and in such a form as will probably realise his anticipations and his needs.
  I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Buckinghamshire (Sir A. Cripps). He objected altogether to any part of the increment value of the land going for Imperial purposes. He made the extraordinary assumption that the whole of the increment value of land is due to local effort or arises from local causes. It is some satisfaction to those who sit upon these benches to have a recognition from the opposite side of the House that there is such a thing as unearned increment in the value of land, and that there is a value of land hitherto appropriated by landlords that has not been earned by the landlords and that should be applied for social purposes. If we once have that concession made, then I think the justification for taxation, either local or national, is established. The hon. Member put forward the extraordinary contention that the social value of land is due entirely to local causes. Really, I cannot think that he himself can believe such a statement as that. Take the enormous land values in any large centre of population; take Glasgow or Liverpool. The enormous increase in the value of the land which has been required for the purpose of making docks in Liverpool is known to everyone. Was that due to Liverpool? The very existence of Liverpool is due to the other parts of the

  1965
  country. Take away Lancashire and what becomes of Liverpool? What becomes of the good of docks in Liverpool? It is not possible to assign the relative value of land in any locality due to national or local causes, but we know there does enter into the social value of land national and local causes. I therefore think the proposal in this Budget to halve it as between national and local revenue is the easiest, the best, and most practical way of getting out of the difficulty.
  The same hon. Gentleman protested against any taxation of land which was used for agricultural purposes. My position and the position I took up on the Debates on the Finance Bill last year is this: I would tax the social value of land and the increment value of land, if it were due to social causes, or if it were not the result of the expenditure of the individual's capital. I would tax it, whether it was agricultural land or any other form of land. If it has a social value, then that value belongs to the community, and no individual has a right to appropriate it. The hon. Member would go infinitely further than is proposed in the Finance Bill. He would not only have all agricultural land exempted from the Increment Tax, but he would have all land, whatever its market value might be, exempted if it were used for agricultural purposes. The very purpose of the Undeveloped Land Tax is to get at land which is used for agricultural purposes, but which has a higher market value. If I were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman I might make a bargain with the hon. Member opposite. If the owner of that land were willing to sell it for public purposes at agricultural value, then I might close with him. The hon. Member knows quite well that, although it may be at any given time used for agricultural purposes only, still if it be required through the necessities of the community for some other purpose, it suddenly takes a highly inflated value. Every Member of the Committee is perfectly familiar with hundreds of cases to which that would apply.
  The other point I want to refer to is that put forward by an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland). He contended that the Undeveloped Land Tax will not do anything for social reform, that it will not help unemployment, that it will not touch the slums, and that it will tend to overcrowding. He was asked from these benches how it is going to have that effect, but, although the hon. Member made a long
  1966
  speech, he never answered the question. He went on to talk about builders putting thirty houses on the acre where, under other conditions, they might be inclined to put only fifteen. Is not that what is done at present? A builder gets as big a return from his land as he possibly can, and the question of overcrowding is not going to be dealt with altogether by the Undeveloped Land Tax; it will have to be dealt with by Public Health Legislation. An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and we have established facts to prove what is going to be the effect of the Undeveloped Land Tax upon the building trade. Hon. Members are no doubt familiar with a Blue Book published in the early days of the last Parliament, giving reports from our Colonies in regard to to the effect of such a tax in Australia and in New Zealand. There were differences of opinion expressed by those who made those reports, but they were all agreed upon one point. They were all agreed that the Undeveloped Land Tax had had a remarkable effect upon the building trade. It had stimulated the building trade, and had increased employment in the building trade. If we can improve the building trade, we improve every other trade in the country. The building trade cannot be flourishing without setting every occupation in the country into activity.
  The party with which I am associated did not support the Budget last year in its entirety. We supported the Land Proposals of the Budget, the Increment Tax Proposals, and the Death Duties, but we objected to the increase in indirect taxation. The circumstances to-day are quite different. We must take the Budget as a whole. I am opposed, of course, as strongly as ever to the Tea Duty which is proposed in the Budget. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament know that every year I moved a reduction in the Tea Duty. I am opposed to it still; but I should vote even for the Tea Duty upon this occasion, because I recognise that I must vote for the Budget as a whole. The Budget has been submitted to the consideration of the country, and the country has approved of the Budget, and I am sufficiently a democrat to obey the will of the people.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I only wish to ask a few questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to draw his attention to a few facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulated himself, and the hon. Member who has just sat

  1967
  down congratulated the right hon. Gentleman, upon the successful issue of the Budget controversy. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the result of all this was that he had a surplus of £2,800,000 or £2,900,000. Is it not a fact that he has arrived at that surplus entirely by the appropriation of the Sinking Fund? If he had left the amount devoted to the service of the debt at £28,000,000, instead of having a surplus of £2,900,000, he would have had a deficit of very nearly £4,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the annual expenditure was £157,000,000. Has he not, in making that statement, taken the service of the debt at £22,000,000 and not £28,000,000? If he has done that, my statement is accurate that he will have a deficit of somewhere about £4,000,000. We never could get at the exact amount taken from the Sinking Fund, but I believe I am correct in saying that at first it was £3,000,000, then there was another £500,000, and finally there was £2,500,000, making in all £6,000,000. Therefore, as a matter of fact, instead of there being a surplus of £2,900,000, there is a deficit of £4,000,000. What does he propose to do to give effect to his statement that this surplus could be used either for the payment of debt or for any other purpose. I do not think it can be used for any other purpose. It is a surplus which has arisen in the financial year which is passed, and, according to the laws under which we are living, any surplus which arises in the financial year becomes, at the conclusion of that financial year, part of the old Sinking Fund, and is obliged to be devoted to the extinction of debt. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to revive in some way his proposal for the abolition of a Sinking Fund, I do not see how he can use this surplus for any purpose except the reduction of debt.
  The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham said the best test of the prosperity of the country was the standard of its credit. He pointed out that since 1906, while English credit had decreased in value the credit of every foreign country had increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House at the time, but I believe he will agree that that statement is absolutely correct. The fact is very extraordinary that since April, 1908, Consols have decreased by something like 6 per cent.—1908 was the year in which the right hon. Gentleman came into office—
  1968
  whereas Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and, as far as I know, every other great country, while increasing its National Debt, has increased the value of its stocks.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: How much did Consols fail when the hon. Baronet's Leaders were in office?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the point. According to the right hon. Gentleman opposite my Leaders were always wrong in their policy, and he and his Friends were going to rectify their wrong-doing when they came into power. They have not done so, at any rate so far as finances are concerned. The fall in Consuls is as great now as it has been at any time during the last seven or eight years.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think they were at 80.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. Baronet mean to say that the fall during the last two years has been greater than at any other time? Does he say it has been greater during the last two years than it was between 1899 and 1904?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said during the last ten years. In 1899 Consols were, I think, at 111. They were then Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Stock, whereas they are now Two and a Half per Cent., and that is a fact which must be taken into consideration. They did not become Two and a Half per Cent. Stock until 1902, and the fall between those dates had been greater than at any other time. It must also be remembered there is no war. Here we have times of peace, and I repeat that the value has decreased in an extraordinary way, while at the same time the credit of all other countries has increased. I only rose to put these two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should have liked to deal with other points that have been raised, but it is now twenty minutes past eight, and as I have not had my dinner I will defer any further remarks to a later stage.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I wish to join in the chorus of congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from this side of the House. I do not imagine any one of us thought that, after having to face so many disturbing elements, such good results would have been finally arrived at as the right hon. Gentleman has been able to show to-day. I only wish to deal with one or two points in the statement

  1969
  which he submitted to us. This Debate, it seems to me, is a somewhat dim and distant echo of the half-remembered battles of last year. There are some points of reality about it, however. I am sure we all listened with great interest to the facts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in reference to his fiscal experiences in connection with the Spirit Duties. It is on that subject I wish to say a word or two. I desire to say something on what the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs described as "the dismal failure of the Spirit Duties." I protest against the attitude which was taken up by the Front Opposition Bench, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that it is the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to his taxation to pay attention only to fiscal considerations, and not to have regard to the indirect social effects of his taxes. I am sure that the doctrine that you must not go into the secondary effects of such taxes has not been held by Chancellors of the Exchequer on the Conservative side. I remember a well-known statement by Sir Stafford North-cote when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when he was faced by a decline in the revenue from spirits. He boldly stated—
  '' If the reduction of the revenue should he due to a material and considerable change in the habits of the people and to increasing habits of temperance and abstinence from the use of ardent spirits, I venture to say that the amount of wealth such a change would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade the amount of revenue now derived from the Spirit Duty, and we should not only see with satisfaction a diminution of the revenue from such a cause, but would find in various ways that the Exchequer would not suffer from the loss it might sustain in that direction."
  When he found that the revenue from the Spirit Duty was drying up he did not complain, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire did today, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was drying up this single source of revenue, without thinking also of the social effects which might follow on that. I notice, too, that the liquor trade itself quite recognises that Chancellors of the Exchequer should have regard to these secondary considerations, for I have here an extract from the case which was really written against the system of high licences then being foreshadowed by Mr. Frederick Thompson, a director of brewing companies in England and the United States. That gentleman said:—
  " It is the aim of all civilised Governments in taxing alcoholic liquors not only to raise revenue but also to guide the public taste towards the consumption of less alcoholic beverages."
  1970
  In that effort the Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded, if he has not succeeded in getting the revenue he expected. I think the fall in the revenue from the Spirit Duty cannot be ascribed entirely to the effect of the increased taxes. It was due partly to bad trade, from which a natural fall might have been expected, and the reduction of licences going on in the country also tended to make one believe that a lesser revenue would result. Besides that—and this is a point, I think, which has not really been dealt with—the reduction has been very largely due to the action of the trade itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supposed the trade would recoup itself by putting an extra halfpenny on the threepenny glass of spirits—a rise of about 16 per cent. But that is not what the trade did. It put on an extra penny, and thereby increased the price by 32 per cent. Shortly after the duty was imposed I bought a good deal of spirits for scientific investigation and had the drink analysed. Care in calculation is needed, because the real price depends upon the strength of the spirits and the amount of water and other innocuous beverages which may be included in the liquor sold over the counter; but I found, certainly in the working-class public-houses in London, that the price charged was the extra penny and not the extra half-penny which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected the trade would charge.
  Apparently, the trade thought if it had to raise the price at all it would raise it substantially, and I think that has accounted largely for the reduction of the consumption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates at about 22 per cent. I notice the tendency to always speak of this tax as a Whisky Tax, but I think hon. Members from Ireland must forgive English Members for saying that the Spirit Duty concerns them least of all. Ninety per cent. of it is actually paid by the consumer in Great Britain, and 55 per cent. by the English consumer, and therefore it does not fall as a special grievance on Ireland. I do not wish to take up an unsympathetic attitude towards the Irish claim for a reduction of taxation. I have an uneasy suspicion myself that we are taxing Ireland heavily, and that we are getting a revenue from Ireland as a poor population which is really out of proportion to the wealth of that country; but I cannot forget that all the money that we received from Ireland this year goes back to Ireland with two and a quarter million pounds extra in addition, so that the

  1971
  Budget, taken in connection with the grant of old age pensions, means that there is really a deficit in regard to Ireland for the first time for many years. I do not know how far that figure is absolutely accurate, it may be affected by later calculations, but that was the figure which was given, and the real grievance of Ireland seems to me to be far more that the expenditure of Ireland is on an extravagant scale, and I am quite ready to believe that if they had the management of their own affairs they would be able to reduce that expenditure. I do not think, therefore, that we are bleeding Ireland for the benefit of the Empire; on the contrary, Ireland is bleeding the Empire, perhaps in the interests of extravagant administration, but it is getting out of the United Kingdom as a whole more proportionately than other parts. I can quite understand, however, that wherever the Irish feel a tax to which they contribute they would wish to get rid of it. If there are any taxes which are going to be taken off in the future I hope it will be some other form of indirect taxation rather than the Spirit Duty. I hope it will be the duty on tea and sugar rather than that on spirits, and I believe there is much more chance of Ireland getting a reduction of its taxation in that way than in any other.
  I have said that I think we are entitled to pay real attention to secondary effects of taxation. Certainly that was Mr. Gladstone's view, because he introduced grocers' licences, not merely for the benefit of the revenue, but also because he thought—mistakenly as it turned out— that it would be of great advantage to the social well-being of the people. Mr. Gladstone's precedent certainly gave effect to the doctrine that a great financier should regard the great and indirect social effects of the taxation which he imposed, and, after all, there has been an indirect effect of this social character in the case of the Spirit Duty. If you go from one end of the United Kingdom to another you find not only a diminution in the consumption, but a very large and striking diminution in the convictions for drunkenness. Taking Scotland, in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, in 1909, the figures for drunkenness from April to December fell from 24,616 to 18,152. The diminution has not been uniform, but it has been conspicuous in different parts of the country; and in Scotland, whether because they are a
  1972
  thrifty people, and because the additional penny on the glass has been the last straw which breaks the camel's back, I do not know, but for some reason there the results have been more striking than anyone would have imagined probable. In Ireland—parts of Ireland—the reduction of drunkenness has been very great, and in our own country also. I have not obtained complete figures, but I have made it my business to get returns from a great number of Brewster Sessions as to the decrease of intemperance in the past year, I am making all allowances for the tact that there has been bad trade in certain parts of the country, and that that tends to bring down the figures; but having gone through some 200 reports, I find the reduction in drunkenness is very heavy. In Sunderland it is 26 per cent., in Berwick 28 per cent., in Bristol 27 per cent., Grimsby 21 per cent., South Shields 24 per cent., and Birkenhead 31 per cent., and in some cases it rises even to 50 per cent. That is the result of this taxation, and then there is the reduction in consumption also. This is not the time at which—and it would not be in order—to discuss what tax must stay or must go. One hon. Member has already spoken from the other side of the House, saying what "must go," and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. George Younger), who always conducts his business with great geniality, pressed his case upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have only to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are many Members in this House, and a great body of public opinion outside it in the country, which would regard the withdrawal of these Spirit Duties as deplorable. There is a great body of opinion which attaches great and profound importance to the retention of these taxes.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In addressing this House in a speech for the first time, I feel I can claim, and I am sure that I shall receive its indulgence. The hon. Member for Lincoln find the hon. Member for Blackburn have both referred to the social effects of this taxation. May I remind the House that the effects of such taxation in the case of many items in this Budget are not always what are expected. For instance, the imposition of these high Spirit Duties has had the effect of seriously injuring the cause of higher education in this country, and I venture to-hope when the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies to many of the speeches which have been made to-day, he will re-

  1973
  assure some of us who are interested in higher or secondary education in this country that the gap which has been created largely, if not mainly, by the imposition of these duties will be filled from some other source. Personally I consider it most unfortunate that education should in any way depend upon the consumption of drink, and now that it has been found utterly impossible for most of the counties in England to adequately maintain any proper system of higher education on such a basis, I earnestly hope the Government will take the earliest opportunity of showing that they intend to make good that deficiency from other than local sources. As regards the Licensing Duties I am not quite satisfied that the social effects are going to be quite what the hon. Member (Mr. Charles.Roberts) anticipates. It is perfectly clear to me that the duties are going to have the effect of putting a premium on the tied house, and certainly doing a deal of damage, possibly crushing out altogether the free or non-tied house, which, comparing the two kinds of houses, is certainly the house which, in the interests of temperance, I should prefer to see perpetuated. I act upon the licensing committee for the county of Gloucester, and since the Licensing Act of 1904 came into operation, at any rate until these proposals were brought before Parliament, there was a steady decrease in the number of superfluous houses, and we anticipated that, if only the administration of the law were allowed to take its normal course without interference, the whole of the superfluous houses in that county would have been abolished in the course of five years without any injustice being done to a class which may carry on a traffic which is unpopular in the minds of the present Government, but which includes a large number of honest men, who are perfectly entitled to receive some sort of compensation in the event of their business being destroyed.
  I want to refer to a little rebuke which was administered just now to Members on this side of the House by the hon. Member (Mr. Munro Ferguson). He said, and possibly with some justice, that we had not recognised the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the agricultural interests in the course of last year's discussions on the Budget. I am prepared to recognise to the full certain concessions which the right hon. Gentleman made. I collected certain facts and figures for him,
  1974
  as being then the secretary of the Central Land Association, in order to bring to his notice the fact that agricultural landowners were, in the matter of Income Tax under Schedule A, being most seriously, and as I think he ultimately admitted, most unfairly, overtaxed in comparison with the owners of other forms of property and persons interested in trade and industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was prepared to make a concession to the extent of half a million of money in order to remedy this admitted injustice. From what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day I gather that the sum is not quite half a million. It appears to be reduced to£300,000.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want there to be any mistake as to that. Only £300,000 will be paid in the course of the financial year. It will be quite impossible to examine the claims. But the Government have not withdrawn at all from their position. It is proposed to allocate £500,000, but it is only £300,000 for the financial year.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I am glad to receive that assurance, but I think on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission this concesion of £500,000 in no way represents what is really due to agricultural landowners in this country, if they are going to be treated on the same footing as persons interested in other kinds of property and in trade and industry. I cannot believe myself that even the present Government will consider that agricultural landowners are being properly treated until something nearer that three millions of money, the amount to which admittedly agricultural landowners are entitled, if justice is done in this matter, has been, allowed to them in respect of Income Tax under Schedule A. The hon. Member (Mr. Munro Ferguson) congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having expressed some sympathy with the idea of readjusting Imperial and local burdens. I think he said the right hon. Gentleman had frankly admitted the need of such readjustment. Those who are interested in the agricultural industry would like to see something more than a frank admission-on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. We should like to see that readjustment carried into effect as soon as possible, so as in some measure to reduce these local burdens which so largely are imposed for national services.

  1975
  No reference whatever has been made to that one item in the financial proposals upon which, in my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to more commendation than for any part of these proposals—the institution of the Development Fund. It is true it is not part of the Finance Bill, but it is part of the original financial proposals which I, for one, welcome most heartily, and which I have every reason to believe will be the means in the future of developing agricultural land to a greater extent than it has ever been developed in its recent history, and something more on a par with the developments which are going on in other countries in Europe. When I hear hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House state, and keep on repeating, that it is right to levy these Land Taxes, because increased value has been given to the land by the community—and the hon. Member (Mr. Munro Ferguson) went further and said he thought it was desirable that such taxation should be levied by a central authority—I would remind the Committee that if the increased value is given by the community it is mainly, if not wholly, by the local community, and therefore the proceeds of these taxes should go to the local authority in reduction of the rates, and further that it is not intended, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, even if a certain proportion of the funds so derived does go in alleviation of rates, to apply such sum in the locality, the community of which has added value to that land. In fact so far as I can understand the system it is quite possible that the duties derived from land, say, in the neighbourhood of Manchester, which has derived additional value from the local community of Manchester, may be applied not to reduce the rates in Manchester, but to reduce the rates in some distant district in Ireland. That to my mind is not a proper use to make of that portion of the fund which is going to be allocated to the reduction of local rates.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Gibson Bowles), whom I am proud to include amongst my Constituents—I always recognise and appreciate that spirit of moderation and compromise upon which he very justly prides himself—referred us as a parallel to the old Land Tax of 1785. In those days land was not only a source of considerable wealth, but it was practically the only considerable source of wealth in
  1976
  the country, and, therefore, any reference to a tax of that sort has no bearing upon existing conditions under which we find that agricultural land, at any rate, produces for its capital value a smaller return than any kind of property or any industry in the country. What are the reasons given for the imposition of these Land Taxes? What is the underlying principle? We are told in the first place that land is held up out of the building market, and in the second place that added value is given by the local community, which derives no return in the matter of rates levied upon such land, because, as a matter of fact, that land, although it has a high capital value, is either returning no income at all to its owner or a very small income indeed. Surely the remedy lies in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, if they choose to apply it. I think I am right in saying that when the Royal Commission came to consider this question of rating of land values they recommended one of two courses. Both of them, I suggest, are open for adoption to-day. One of them is to give the local authority compulsory power to purchase at a value which can be estimated by independent valuation, and the other is to rate that land upon the basis of a hypothetical income derived from its equivalent value if invested in Government securities. Well, either of these methods of taking toll upon that land or bringing it into the building market would have effected the purpose of the Government without taxing the capital value of this land, mainly for Imperial purposes, without any regard whatever to the amount such land produces to its owner.
  May I return to the much referred to Increment Duty as affecting agricultural land? It seems to me that the addition to the original clause which the Government have made can in no way affect agricultural land of a particular kind and the payment of Increment Value Duty. That particular agricultural land is the very sort of which, speaking as an agriculturist, I for one would desire to see the cultivation encouraged in every possible way, namely, land which is to be found outside most of our larger towns and cities and which is given up to the cultivation of market gardens and allotments. May I say that so far as any increment may result to that land, the tenant is already, under the Market Gardeners Compensation Act and the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, entitled to be repaid by the landlord the full value

  1977
  of any improvements he may effect on such land. Now we are told that somehow or other this land is not to be subjected to this Increment Duty. I should have liked to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not the fact that land which, we will say on 30th April last year, had a value of £30 per acre— which may, by intensive cultivation, just the sort of cultivation we ought to encourage, have gone up in value to £60 per acre, and which, when subsequently built upon, or at any rate, apart from being actually built upon, has a value for building purposes owing to its being in the neighbourhood of a town—whether it is not the fact that the whole of that additional value is to be taken into account in estimating Increment Land Duty? As regards Undeveloped Land Duty, it seems to me that a serious discount is going to be placed by that duty upon just such land as I have referred to. Under this proposal of the Government, what is undeveloped land? It is not land which is not being developed; it is not land which is not being developed possibly in the best possible way and with the greatest amount of industry on the part of the person developing it. No, it is land which does not happen to have been developed for building purposes, and it seems to me that if you are going by this artificial means to try to force into the building market an enormous amount of land which is at the present time used in the best possible way, you are going to do an immense amount of injury to a most deserving body of men who are engaged in the intensive cultivation which is being carried on with increasing success on the outskirts of the larger towns and cities.
  Now there comes the question, How much of this land is really required for building development 1 In my humble opinion it is most unfair to put this Undeveloped Land Duty upon any land which would not be capable of immediate development for building purposes. But when you come to consider that on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own admission this duty is going to apply to between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 acres of land in this country, you will realise, if you make a simple calculation, and keep in view the area taken up by the average house, that the amount of land which is going to be subjected to this Undeveloped Land Duty is an area five times as great as that upon which the whole of the present population of this country is now living. What excuse can there be for subjecting to this Undeveloped Land Tax this large area
  1978
  on the footing presumably that it is not being put to the purposes it ought to be put to, namely, building purposes, when it is absolutely impossible in the course of the next twenty years, even if the population increased at the rate it is doing at present, to bring any substantial portion of that land into development for building purposes? There is one question which I should have liked to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had been present, but I see before me an empty Government Bench, and I do not know to whom I should make my appeal. I was going to-ask, how is it possible to arrive at the real market value of any property? As I understand, in estimating the real value of any property you have to consider its capacity for going up in value in the future, and also its capacity for going down in value—its capacity for depreciation as well as its capacity for appreciation. This certainly would apply if you were purchasing a picture, or old silver, or lace, or any other form of property you like to choose. But these proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer appear to be based on the assumption that land alone of all kinds of property must in the future appreciate and not depreciate, and that the State is to take its levy from the individual in the event of appreciation, but give no sort of compensation to the individual in the event of depreciation. Does not that amount to this? You are proposing to deprive existing owners of land of part of the actuarial capital value of that land. Let me put it in this way. Supposing that two years ago certain property came into the market, and that a certain sum would have been given for that property on the footing that it had no such burden upon it as that which is now proposed to be put upon it, and supposing that same property were to come into the market now an actuary would very properly say that that land has a present capital value based upon the fact that a levy is going to be made by the Government in the future upon any appreciation which it may receive, but that no compensation will be paid on the footing that it sometimes depreciates.
  In other words, the agricultural capital value of that property has been decreased in the hands of the present owner; or, to put it another way, the Government are in effect robbing the present owner of a portion of the capital value of his property. I say the present owner advisedly, because every future owner will buy with a full

  1979
  knowledge that this tax is going to be imposed on the property in his hands. What defence can there be in justice or equity for such a proposal which will have the effect of transferring a slice of the property of the present owner to the State when no such slice is going to be taken out of any other kind of property in this country, and no such slice is going to be taken away, as I suggest, from the future owner of such property? I understand that there are ninety-one Members of this House who are members of the Land Nationalisation Society. They are that the whole of the Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side are members of that society. I notice that they had their annual meeting only yesterday, and no doubt they threw up their hats at the prospect of this Socialistic Budget being carried through Parliament. I have some little sympathy, not very much, but a little, with the theories and the principles which underlie the policy of the Land Nationalisation Society. They said that the whole of the land in this country ought to be acquired by the State, but that the State ought to pay its fair value. All I can say is that if that is so I have some little sympathy with the theories which underlie that proposal. But it is not the proposal of the present Government. Their proposal is, as far as I can see, ultimately to transfer the ownership of land in this country to the State, but not to pay for it its fair and full commercial value.
  9.0 P.M.
  Let me remind the Committee of this, now that agricultural land and agricultural landowners seem to be at such a discount, and are submitted to obloquy upon almost every Radical political platform, that as regards agricultural property, which is not a source of great wealth as compared with other kinds of property, during the last twenty-seven years there has been a loss in its annual value of £17,000,000, the difference between £59,500,000 in 1880 and £42,500,000 in 1907. That is a difference, representing on the basis of twenty years' purchase, a loss of £340,000,000 capital value of agricultural land in the course of twenty-seven years. Is this the time, when many of us are talking about the desirability of further developing agricultural land and reducing these great areas of so-called permanent pasture in the country, and to a greater extent cultivating land in order to produce more of the supplies which our large popu-
  1980
  lation requires—is this the time to put a further tax on agricultural property and to penalise it in comparison with other forms of property in this country? If you are going to penalise owners of agricultural land in this special way, why should other kinds of property be free from such penalties, and what security is there that other forms of property will not be subjected to the same treatment in future? If land is to be so treated, why cannot you, in common fairness, treat in a similar way the shares, we will say, in shipping companies, in cocoa companies, in chemical companies, or in soap companies? I would suggest to those Gentlemen who are interested in these large and prosperous concerns, who sit on the other side of the House, and, as I understand, largely finance the somewhat depleted exchequer of the Radical party, that this is the thin end of the wedge so far as they are concerned.
  If you once deal a blow at the security of landed property, you are indirectly dealing a blow at all other kinds of property, and through property you are dealing a blow at every trade and industry in the country, because property, and particularly landed property, is the basis of all trade and industry. I would venture to remind those hon. Gentlemen who will no doubt troop into the Lobby in favour of this Budget, that the time has not yet come, but that it shortly will come, when, having once impaired the security of the basis of all property, the insecurity of all trade and industry in this country will follow. May I remind the House of the dictum of that most famous of all jurists, one of the greatest Liberals who ever lived, Jeremy Bentham, when he said that the objects of legislation were in effect four in number: First, to produce for a population subsistence, and when you obtain subsistence to produce if possible abundance; then to produce so far, as you could equality of person and equality of property; but, above all, to consider the absolute necessity of maintaining security. In fact he made the greatest aim of the Legislature the maintenance of security, and said that if you could not by your legislation maintain security you would not in effect be able to produce the other desiderata which it should be the business of every Legislature to have before it as its goal.
  In conclusion, as regards agricultural property, I think that everyone must recognise that the burdens on such pro-

  1981
  perty are very much heavier than most landowners of moderate means are able at the present time to bear without the danger of throwing people out of employment, just where we want most to retain them in employment, without the risk of emptying to some extent the country villages, the interests of which every right-minded landowner Has at heart. If you are going not merely by these new Land Taxes, but by your increased Death Duties, your increased Income Tax, and the Super-tax, to add to the burden of that particular class of men, and are going by this cumulative method of taxation to make the lot of that class of men harder, you are going, so far from developing your country districts, to deplete your country districts, and you are going to do an enormous amount of harm to a body of men who, in spite of all the abuse from Radical platforms, are, as I think was admitted by many Liberals in the course of the last Parliament, the best agricultural landowners to be found in the whole Continent of Europe.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The speech to which we have just listened recalls some of the controversies of last Session. I was interested in the reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave as the reasons which were supposed to have influenced the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taking the course which he did. The principal question which was asked again and again last Session was as to why it was the Government had put the land on a special basis, and why it was that it had been chosen as being different from other forms of property. The answer to that, to put it very shortly, took this form. In the first place, the land was there naturally; in the second place, its supply was only limited and could not be increased; and in the third place, it was a necessary of life. If the hon. Gentleman will mention any other form of property to which the same observations apply, then I can say that we on this side of the House will be ready to consider them too. I myself give these Budget proposals my most hearty support, particularly the land proposals, which seem to me to be of the most far-reaching and of the most beneficial character. I value very highly the proposal for the valuation of all land on the basis of its market value; it seems to me to be the first step towards reform, because it seems to me that those who hold the natural resources of the country
  1982
  are under a special obligation to contribute to the needs of the community. As regards the concession to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, I would point out that it will amount, I think, to about £300,000. It is really a concession, not to the landowners at all, but to those who make improvements in order to enable them to reap the benefits of those improvements—which is a very different thing. The concession is, in fact, an allowance on improvements.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Nothing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said indicated what the hon. Gentleman is now stating. As a fact, it has nothing whatever to do with the value of improvements under the existing Agricultural Holdings Act.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: If the hon. Member will look at the Section of the Budget he will see that it comes under the Income Tax Act, and that it is an allowance in respect of Income Tax. The allowance is only in respect of actual expenditure in improvements.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I happen to have had more to do with this subject than any other Member of this House or the previous House of Commons, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the sole question which was brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as to whether agricultural owners.should be taxed for Income Tax on their net income, as other people are taxed, or whether they should be taxed on the gross income, less such allowance as is always made, namely, one-eighth in the case of land and one-sixth in the case of buildings for the purpose of maintenance and repair.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 69 of the Budget he will see that this allowance is only made in respect of maintenance and improvement of landed property.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I should like to make it perfectly clear to the House if I might [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I believe I drafted that particular Clause to which the hon. Member has referred.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: We have, in the first place, as I said, the valuation on the basis of market value; we have, in the second place, the selection of land, with all its peculiar characteristics, as a proper basis of taxation; and in the third place, we have the allowance in respect of main-

  1983
  tenance and repairs. These constitute the most valuable steps in the history of the economic development of the country and the improvement of our land. I listened with very great interest to several speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think it was the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) who urged that land which was used for agriculture should be altogether exempt from these Budget Resolutions and from the Finance Bill. But he, like a good many other people, did not tell us what he meant by agricultural land. Supposing land was used for pasture, or for grazing, or for some limited form of agriculture, or supposing that it was hardly used at all, what would be done? Or what would be done in respect of vacant land waiting, perhaps, for a market, at a reserve price, in a neighbourhood where there are large towns. The hon. Member for South Bucks laid down the proposition that the basis of valuation should be the value of user to which the land is being actually put. I understand that to be the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite — namely, that the actual user should be the basis of valuation. Again, suppose we have, as in many of our large towns, undeveloped land which is kept back at a reserve price until the needs of the community will force people to pay that price. There you have no user at all, and no value for user. At what do they propose to value that land? I believe there is only one true system of valuation, and that is to value the land on the basis of its market value—that is, on the value which it would have if put in the open market, and sold with freedom of user. That is the basis on which this valuation is to proceed, and so far as the argument is concerned, I do not think it is at all against parks, gardens, or open spaces, with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt in the most complete way in the Finance Bill which was passed last Session, and which we hope will become law before many days have passed. Those cases are adequately provided for. The great part of the argument we have heard from the other side was devoted to this—that if you have this tax you send up the price of land, and, by increasing the amount which is to be paid for the land for building purposes, you will discourage building. But we maintain that if you take land on the basis of market value, and treat that as the basis of taxation, instead of sending up the price of
  1984
  land, you will rather tend to reduce the price for this reason, that the value of land, like anything else, depends on the ratio of supply and demand. The demand, we may take it, is pretty constant. But at present a great deal of land is held back, is not put to its best use, is, in fact, free-from valuation, but, when you come to buy it, the figure is very different indeed. I myself adduced an instance from Scotland recently in which some land which was valued for rating at £11 2s. per year was wanted by the Admiralty for the purposes of national defence, and they had to pay more than £22,000 for it, or more than 2,400 years' purchase. I think where such a state of things as that is possible there is something very wrong. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if they say that the value of the user is the true basis for valuation for taxation, then is the value of the user also to be taken as the true basis for the purpose of compulsory purchase? I know it is said that compulsory purchase is the way out of the difficulty. Yes, but it must be compulsory purchase at a proper value. As a matter of fact, the provisions for valuing land for compulsory purchase are absolutely inadequate and absurd. So much is that so that in some of the cases where the highest prices, or the price highest in proportion to the rating value, have been paid they have been paid as the lesser of two evils. The purchasers have paid voluntarily rather than go to the costs of compulsory purchase. They preferred, if I may put it in a word, being fleeced to being skinned. When you have the land properly valued, a great deal more land will come into the market, and you will increase the available supply. In that way, instead of discouraging building we will encourage building. We have also been told about the desire under present conditions to build a great many houses on one acre of land. I quite agree under present conditions, but that is not because people want to live in congested areas, but because land cannot be got in many places at anything like a fair price. Once land is made more available, I am convinced we will have fewer congested areas, and that when we have a good land system congested areas may be left to take care of themselves, and that there will soon be no congestion at all.
  As one who has taken a great interest in this movement not only of facilitating the obtaining of land, but, as far as we possibly can, of untaxing buildings and

  1985
  improvements in order that building improvement and industrial development may have their course under present conditions, I believe, as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said shortly before his death, the existing system of rating and taxation is a hostile tariff to our industries. That is one of the evils which we hope will be solved by the getting of the land for the people, which this Budget will lead to. It is, in my opinion, the most important and the true remedy for the prevailing distress we see all round us. It is said that agriculturists suffered under Free Trade, but it was not Free Trade, but our thoroughly bad land system. That was recognised even by our opponents. In a memorable speech by Lord Rosebery he took the particular case of a man who invested £5,000, which I think he was supposed to get from a maiden aunt, in land near a growing community, not with a view to developing it, but to its appreciation, and to the man getting back more than his interest in the shape of an increased price later on. That instance given by Lord Rosebery as an instance against the Budget is one of the very instances with which we wish to deal, because we recognise what that means to the communities. We recognise here is a growing community, here is land rated at practically nothing which you cannot get at anything under a reserve price; which price makes the purchase of land not commercially payable. What happens? The community need that land to develop in order that there may be more room for houses and industries, in order that industries may be started and that existing industries! may be developed, but production is checked at its very source, because that land is not made available. There may be builders who want it, or quarrymen who want work, there may be a thousand and one things that are required in the building of houses; but so long as that land is held back, so long is the employment and the means of livelihood of those people restricted. Therefore we say that the market value of the land is the true basis on which we ought to go. With this Budget I believe we are making a change which will have far-reaching effects.
  I most cordially welcome this valuation, and I would like to mention one point which has not yet been mentioned as regards agricultural land. Not only is agricultural land, which no one would want for any other purpose, wholly exempt from these duties, but, in addition to that.
  1986
  if the land has an agricultural value and a building value, the amount of the agricultural value is deducted before the valuation for certain duties is arrived at. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Bathurst) referred to the effects of intensive cultivation as sending up the value of the land. I quite agree it sends up the value of the land in the ordinary sense, but it does not send up the land value as-defined in this measure, because such value as that which is given to it by improvements and intensive agriculture would not be included in the value that is-proposed as the basis of taxation. I venture to think that so far from hindering: agriculture, in the long run this will prove a boon to agriculture, not only because of the concessions, but still more because it puts matters on a sound basis, and makes the land from which the agriculturist must get his living more available, and also because it opens the way for that relief from rating and taxation of improvements, which is the first thing we ought to do if we want to encourage agriculture.
  Mr. KENNETH FOSTER: In rising to address the House for the first time I may claim that indulgence which is always so freely granted to young speakers. I propose to say a few words about the Death Duties. Unfortunately for myself I am in the very middle of negotiations on the subject, and therefore I am sure it will be recognised that what I say is sincere. I think that on both sides it is fully acknowledged that the Death Duties have come to stay. I think we all admit the principle, and we say that the principle is a right and just one, up to a point. Although it is some years ago since I was at Oxford, I seem to remember that in Ricardo, and even in ancient Adam Smith, it was hammered into our heads, above all things, that taxation ought to be fair, and just, and equitable. To show the injustice of the-system I will take three instances. Take, first, a man who leaves a million of money to one son. We all agree that it is right and proper that that son should pay a considerable amount to the State; he can afford to do it, because you do not take from him his recuperative power. Then take the case of a man who leaves a million of money between ten sons, each of whom inherits £100,000. In each of those cases the amount of Death Duties wall be the same. The one man will pay £150,000, and the ten sons will pay £150,000 between them. But the recuperative power of the

  1987
  ten sons is vastly different from that of the one son. Take, as a third instance, a man who dies leaving £100,000 to one son. How much does that son pay? Under the Schedule the duty is 8 per cent. Is it right or just that those ten sons should pay more in proportion than this one man? I should have liked to have put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his presence. Perhaps it has been considered, perhaps not. In any case, I hope that in the next Budget it will be taken into consideration, so that this inequality, and, as I consider it, injustice may be corrected.
  Another point in connection with the Death Duties is the tendency of high taxation to send money abroad. The question was debated to a considerable extent in the last House of Commons, and I believe the Prime Minister himself said that he did not object to or view with apprehension this flight of capital abroad. If he said that I think it was a very rash and unjustifiable statement. Personally I view the flight of money abroad with the greatest apprehension. We have been asked time after time to say where this money goes. Many hon. Members present know that it is flying to the United States of America, where there is no Income Tax. The faster it goes the greater the harm it does to this country and to the Metropolis in which we dwell. If you export money abroad in this fashion you lessen the profits to be made in the City by bankers, brokers and jobbers, and you tend to lessen employment in the country. By their own act the Government are deliberately increasing unemployment—the subject which, above all others, is troubling both sides of the House. I am afraid that this taxation of capital is not going to be confined to our own country. It has perhaps escaped the attention of hon. Members that the Transvaal has already got a 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. Death Duty. If you invest in companies connected with the Transvaal you have to pay Death Duties, not only in this country, but also in the Transvaal. If our Colonies are going to adopt this system of taxation, and if we have to pay double Death Duties on our Colonial investments, the export of capital to foreign countries and America will increase at an even greater rate than before, and there will be an absolute premium placed upon foreign investments. By the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the Budget, which has been acclaimed with so
  1988
  much joy by the party opposite, our railway companies have been brought practically to the point that it is extremely difficult for them to get any capital if they want it. Is that a proper or a happy state of things? I say emphatically that it is one of the worst things that could happen. There are great railway companies who, if only the money market were favourable to their investments, would at once undertake work which would doubtless be of a profitable character to the public at large. But how can they possibly get the capital with railway investments in the state in which they now are? Fifteen or twenty years ago a block of £20,000 or £30,000 of best English railway securities could be sold without the slightest trouble, but if you went on the Stock Exchange now you would have the greatest difficulty in negotiating such a transaction; whereas, on the other hand, people who have invested their money in foreign securities can always find a free, open, and ample market.
  The action of the Government in depreciating our own securities will do incalculable harm to the working classes. I have made that statement on the platform, and I repeat it in the House of Commons. There is no doubt that if hon. Members live a little longer they will see what harm this course of action will do. These taxes cannot possibly become really effective, nor will it be seen what murder they are going to do until the tax gatherer has been round three or four times. At present he has only rapped at the door once. Wait until the tax gatherer has rapped at some poor man's door something like three times, and you will see what I may call, in sporting parlance, that the man will be "broke to the world," and to his successors, too. There is one other point which I should just like to bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all know that these Death Duties have to be met as well as we can meet them, and the usual and perhaps the most economical and best way to meet them is for a man to insure his life. Even here I think there is a great injustice being done to men who have the precaution, wisdom and forethought for the benefit of their children to do that. If a man insures his own life in order to avoid his children having to pay these duties, the amount of his insurance is aggregated when he dies with his fortune. I maintain that it is a very unjust and unfair thing that the insurance on a man's life should be aggregated with the rest of his fortune.

  1989
  There have been a great many remarks made to-night about land values and land taxation. I strongly disapprove of land taxation as proposed in this Budget. I think it is going to work detrimentally to the consumer, and also against the British working man. There again, I think that in a few years we will see that it is not going to be the boon and the blessing which the right hon. Gentleman imagined it would be. I strongly disapprove of the, I think, very unjust increase of the Licensing Duties. I maintain, when you see the revenue from the breweries diminishing to the extent which it has been doing, that it is a wrong time to bring forth fresh taxes in order to make the position of the unfortunate people who own brewery shares worse than it was before. I strongly disagree with the Death Duties—not to the principle as I have said before—but to the way they are acting at the present moment.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Kettle) is horribly shocked that any Irish Member should become so degenerate as to get up in this House and protest against his country being robbed. The horrible misrepresentations to which the matter has been subjected in Ireland has driven the iron into his soul. Well, persons like myself may not be able to be as efficient as the hon. Gentleman to appreciate the effect of this measure upon our country. The hon. Member ought to mercifully bear in mind that we are not like him, holding positions as professors of national economics. Accordingly, he should bear with our little weaknesses, and not be too hard upon us if we do not come up to the high ideal which he, no doubt, sets us. I think it very unfortunate that in this Debate, in which such large Irish interests are involved, that some Member of the great majority of Irish Nationalist representatives should not rise and deal seriously with the question as to how this Budget affects Ireland. I think we are entitled to something of the kind. This is the occasion corresponding to the occasion in every year that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget statement. To-night he made what corresponds to the Budget statement dealing with the measure which is now before us. It is usual when a statement of that kind is made that it should be dealt with from the Irish point of view by an Irish Leader, and not by any of his lieutenants or underlings. I take leave to say the hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1990
  Waterford was particularly unfortunate in the selection that he made to represent him to-night. Whatever else may be said on this subject, nobody can deny that it is a grave and serious matter for Ireland, that it raises large issues, and that it has been much discussed and much debated throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. When we come, to deal with it on the floor of {his House I think it would be more respectful to the House and to the country not to treat it with the feeble flippancies which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone thought good enough for the Debate. We should have directed to it the serious attention of grave Parliamentarians.
  In the matter of this Budget I profess myself an unconverted sinner. I was one of the Nationalist Members who on the Third Reading voted against the Budget. I thought it then a bad measure. I think it so still. I, at any rate, can make this feeble boast that my attitude towards it preserves its consistency. I did not vote against it in April last, refrained from April to last December, and now only come to April again to occupy a third position and declare to the House that I shall vote for it. Accordingly I claim the right of an Irish Nationalist Member to express the view which I believe is entertained with respect to this Budget by the great majority of Irish people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tories."] Some hon. Gentleman at the back shouts "Tories." The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Tyrone did not sit down without telling the House that those who were going to vote against it on these benches were returned by Tory votes. I was returned unopposed by a Constituency which for twenty-five years has returned a Nationalist Member, and in which no Tory candidate dares to show his face. So that in whomsoever "the galled jade may wince, my withers are not unwrung." I am not in that position so far as Tory votes are concerned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me will have the sense to refrain from further comment until at any rate his interruptions have more relevance to the particular speaker who happens to be addressing the House. I said I was opposed to this Budget. When I say that I mean I am seriously opposed to it, and not that I am pretending to be opposed to it. We have heard in literature of "Damning with faint praise." There is the converse proposition "Of helping through with faint condemnation."

  1991
  That is the attitude of some gentlemen on these benches, who profess to regard the Budget as an injustice to Ireland and yet are greatly concerned lest any of its provisions should be misrepresented. I said I think it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Irish was not present in order that he might speak the mind of the majority of the Irish representatives upon it. That is particularly to be regretted, because the Members of the party which contains the majority of the Nationalist representatives have hitherto spoken, with divided voice upon this subject. There is one school of thought of which the most prominent member is the Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon), who do not think that the Budget is a bad one at all. That hon. Member had the courage to tell the Irish people, speaking of the Budget, that we were dealing with the most generous Government that ever occupied power since the Union, coming up fully to the level of tie Prime Minister.
  Mr. DILLON: Would the hon. Member quote my words?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Oh, I did not bring them with me.
  Mr. DILLON: If the hon. Member is going to make a charge against me, he ought to be able to substantiate what he says.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Does the hon. Member quest-ion the fact, which has been over and over again repeated on Irish platforms, that in a well known and notorious speech of his, speaking of the Budget, he declared that this was the most generous Government that ever governed Ireland?
  Mr. DILLON: No, I did nothing of the kind. The hon. Member will have to submit now to the painful duty of listening to what I did say. What I said was this— and I beg to draw his attention to the fact that I said it when submitting to a convention of my own Constituents for selection for Parliament—I said: "If we take the financial record of this Government since they took office in 1906, they have treated Ireland more generously and better financially than any Government since the Act of Union."
  Mr. E. CREAN: By killing Land Purchase.
  Mr. DILLON: And I am here to repeat that to-night, and I challenge the hon. Member to prove the contrary.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I said tweedledum. It appears I should have said tweedledee. The Committee has heard me and has heard the hon. Member. I thought from the solemn tones of his rebuke, that I was going to be utterly confounded. I may be utterly dull of comprehension, but up to this moment I cannot see any distinction between what I said and the correction which the hon. Member has made.
  Mr. DILLON: There is a distinction.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am sure that it is quite clear to the mind of the hon. Gentleman when he says so, but I am surely free to say that it is not clear to my mind. At any rate I selected the hon. Member for East Mayo as a very distinguished example of what I described as one school of thought upon the subject, namely, a school that thought this was a good Budget for Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: That is where the hon. Member misrepresents what I said. I ask him again to quote the passage of my speech. I was speaking of the whole financial record of this Government since they took office in 1906.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am entitled to my free appreciation. Discussing the Budget in an Irish assembly, the hon. Member told that assembly that we were dealing with the most generous Government that has ruled Ireland since the Union. I am entitled to draw from that fact the inference that the hon. Member thinks this is a good Budget. If he does not think it is a good Budget ho can get up and say so. The hon. Member is not singular in his view, because he knows there was a section in this party last year which proposed to vote for this Budget, and I have read speeches in Ireland by some of his colleagues who solemnly declared that their one regret in connection with this Budget was that the party had not decided to vote for it. Does the hon. Member deny that?
  Mr. DILLON: Can the hon. Gentleman quote any speech of mine to that effect. My position, is this, I deny the right of the hon. Member to make any charges against me without quoting the passage upon which he bases his charge.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. Member is too full of himself. My last charge did not relate to him, it related to Gentlemen whom I described as his colleagues. Now a man cannot be himself and his colleagues at the same time. I humbly submit that the hon. Gentleman may now at least restrain his repeated interruptions and permit me to continue the thread of my discourse. I said there were two schools of thought in the Irish party upon this question. One of these regarded this Budget as an excellent measure, and their only regret was that they could not vote for it, and the other and more responsible school represented by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who did not think that this Budget was a good Budget, and who thought it a bad Budget, and who profess that they are driven to vote for it by political exigencies which they consider make it the price for Home Rule. When the hon. Member for Waterford, however, avowed his intention of voting for the Budget, he told the world very loudly that if he was going to vote for it he was going to get certain large concessions. They were to be had for the asking. We heard all about them last night, and I am not going into them again. But without going into these concessions in detail it does occur to me that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to-night was of such a character as might well have drawn forth speech from a Gentleman who has shown himself so little reticent as the hon. Member for Waterford.
  10.0 P.M.
  We have heard to-night that we are to have no concessions, and we see that revealed in the Budget as it is put before us. The Government make no concealment about it; in fact, they avow it naked and unashamed. Ireland has bulked sufficiently large in this controversy both in this House and the country since it started, and though the importance of Ireland in the controversy has received renewed force since the electoral state of affairs which has developed after the General Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself so indebted to Irish votes and so little bound to consult Irish prejudices or to inform Irish intelligence that he did not think it necessary when he made his statement to-night to make even the smallest allusion to it. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think Ireland worthy of mention, and as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford leaves the case of Ireland to
  1994
  the feeble pleasantries of the hon. Member for Tyrone, it only remains for some incompetent person like myself to express as well as I can my views as to the relations of Ireland towards the Budget. It is said we have been talking in the wildest manner about this Budget, exaggerating it out of all recognition, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been left to his own strength to defend the Irish position, but he has from time to time received assistance from those who, instead of helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should have been helping Ireland. We are told we have exaggerated the effect of the Whisky Tax. But have we? A question has been arranged and asked from these benches to show that we have greatly exaggerated the effect of the Whisky Tax. That answer was given in the course of the last ten days, and it has been triumphantly shown that the Whisky Tax is only to yield about £500,000, or some figure of that kind. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to show how skilful his financial advisers are he tells the House that the Whisky Tax has fallen below his expectation, but he says it has only so fallen from special causes which will not apply in any other year. The Whisky Tax in Ireland only yielded about £500,000 last year, and that has been trumpeted all over Ireland to confront the inventions and misstatements of men like myself who have represented that its effect will be very different. The yield of the Whisky Tax is going to be very large when the anticipations of the Treasury estimates have to be justified, and when explanations have to be given as to why it did not reach the original estimate the yield is going to be small. You have been told that, instead of £500,000, which this tax yielded last year in normal times— instead of that being the amount, the yield will be £760,000, which it would have yielded in a normal year. We have also been told that the yield of the tax has been diminished by anticipation, and that is notorious. The fact is also notorious that the trade kept their stocks reduced almost to vanishing point. We hear also that the tax has been reduced by the fact that when the Budget was finally passed through the House of Commons uncertainty still prevailed as to whether it would be> accepted by the country, and that almost to the last month of the year the trade kept their stocks reduced to the lowest possible point, and thereby produced for this year an abnor-

  1995
  mally low yield which cannot be expected to prevail in any subsequent year.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that a fourth condition prevailed, namely, that the effect of the imposition of the tax was to reduce the consumption of spirits not only in Ireland, but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. He did not tell us to-night what he told us on the previous occasion that he anticipated that the turning away from whisky produced by his Budget would not be a permanent effect of the Whisky Tax in Ireland. In spite of the "put up" questions from behind me, I think our estimate of the effect of the Whisky Tax in Ireland is far more likely to be correct than the figures extracted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to mislead the Irish people as to what the ultimate effect of this tax will be upon a great Irish industry. But it is not the Whisky Tax alone that affects Ireland. I would almost take leave to say that nearly every provision in this Budget has been framed with a kind of malignant ingenuity to hit Ireland specially. There are some exceptions to that proposition, and the hon. Member opposite referred to one of them, namely, the Super-tax. I quite agree with the Super-tax, and I will also concede that the Income Tax generally will not be specially unjust to Ireland, and that it will not have any special effect upon Ireland. I also admit that the Land Taxes, with the promise that they shall not apply to agricultural land, are not burdensome upon Ireland. I would even go so far as to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in anticipating that a comparatively small yield from these taxes in Ireland does not greatly misrepresent the fact, but then I anticipate a small yield from these taxes in England. I think, with regard to these Land Taxes, it is a case of great cry and little wool, and that when they come into law, though they will not, no doubt, be specially unjust to Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may also receive a sad disappointment as to their effect in England. Still, I could never accept the view of the hon. Member for Waterford that these taxes make no difference to Ireland. They are a substantial increase of the Irish burden, they add to an already swollen taxation, and the fact that they hit specially one particular class in Ireland does not make them very much sweeter to me. I am better pleased, no doubt, if they
  1996
  are to come from Ireland at all, that they should come from the quarter they do than from some other quarter, but I do not want them to come from Ireland at all. These taxes have been defended in Ireland on the proposition that they only affect persons like Lord De Vesci and Lord Pembroke, and that has been repeated ad nauseum in Ireland. I come from the city of Cork, and I tell the hon. Member for Waterford that we have no Lord De Vesci in Cork. The land of Cork, I am glad to think, is owned by the masses of the people in Cork. We have no great landlords to extract rents from us in that city. The rents from Cork go, for the most part, into the pockets of local residents, and I do not want to see any resident in Cork robbed by this Budget, whether he is a landlord or a tenant.
  As regards the tax on reversions, I am satisfied that in all parts of Ireland and England that that tax will be ultimately paid by the occupying tenant. I am as satisfied of that as I am that I am here. Instead of Lord De Vesci, Lord Pembroke, and other obnoxious persons of that kind paying the Reversion Tax, the unfortunate tenants who occupy their houses in Kingstown and elsewhere will bleed to the nose whenever this Budget comes into law. That is my position even as regards these Land Taxes, though I can see that they are less burdensome to Ireland and less objectionable than other parts of the Budget. As an Irish representative, I will never be a party as long as the Irish people send me here, if I can help it, to submitting to having any class or section pay toll or tithe to the English Exchequer when we know that an English Royal Commission has already reported that some £3,000,000 a year of unjust taxation are being extracted from Ireland. I now come to the Death Duties. I said that most of the Clauses in this Bill were devised with a malignant ingenuity to hit Ireland specially. That is especially true with regard to one particular Clause relating to the Death Duties. I mean that Clause so often discussed last year and introduced, as I believe, for no other object than to deprive the Irish tenant farmer of the benefit of a judgment in a case, the Attorney-General v. Robinson, which the Queen's Bench Division conferred on him ten years ago. Hitherto the Irish tenant farmer has paid practically no Death Duties. Is that an injustice to this country?
  Mr. MARKHAM: Yes.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: You do not settle the question by saying "Yes." It is the question I am going to discuss. Is it unjust to the United Kingdom, as a whole, that the Irish tenant farmer should have the benefit of a decision which practically exempted him from Land Taxes? The English tenant farmer does not pay Death Duties.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Yes, he does.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Let us not quibble. The English tenant farmer, if he has £10,000, pays Death Duties, and so does the Irish tenant farmer; but the English tenant farmer, as a rule, has no such interest in his farm as makes it subject to Death Duties. He is either a yearly tenant or he is a tenant at what is technically called a rack-rent. He has no saleable interest in his farm. He has not built the buildings or made improvements on it. If he is unable to pay his rent, he hands over his farm to the landlord; he cannot sell his interest. Accordingly the English tenant farmer is in the position that, so far as his interest in his farm goes, he pays no Death Duties. What the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is that Ireland should pay two Death Duties where England pays one. In England the landlord pays the Death Duty on his land, and in Ireland the landlord pays the Death Duty on his land", but the landlord in Ireland will pay exactly the same Death Duty when, under this Bill, the tenant farmer has also to pay as he now pays when the tenant farmer pays none. That is a fact that cannot be denied. In Ireland, according to the Irish law, the Irish landlord pays his Death Duty under the Poor Law Valuation. That is the mode of assessment that prevails in Ireland instead of the mode that prevails in England. He pays according to so many years valuation under the Poor Law Valuation. He pays now, but the Irish tenant farmer in the past has paid no Death Duty. When this Bill passes into law the Irish landlord will pay his Death Duty just as before, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get a second Death Duty from the tenant farmer. I am treating this question from the national point of view—from the position as between two nations. I am not treating it from the position as between two individuals. It may be perfectly fair to say that, as between one individual and another, each owning certain property, each pays the duty on it. But if you are comparing the condition of two countries,
  1998
  and if you find that on the landed property in one country the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets the Death Duty once, while on the landed property in the other and the poorer country he is not content with getting it once, but claims it a second time, then I say he is doing an injustice to the poorer country. Let there be no mistake about this question. The law is exactly as I have described it. We Irish Members in this House have never attempted to make demands which cannot be justified by reason and justice. If I were satisfied that England would be treated in respect of these duties exactly as Ireland is, I would cry "Content!" but we cannot in a matter of this kind accept differential treatment. The Irish Members, as a body, have protested against these Death Duties for the reason I have given, namely, that, as between the two countries, they will enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get two taxes in Ireland where he only gets one in England. So much for the Death Duties. Next, I come to the Stamp Duties. Will anyone say that the Stamp Duties also do not affect Ireland in a manner in which they do not effect England? Of course they do. We all know that over half the area of Ireland the landed property is now held by tenant farmers, each of whom holds his farm subject to a substantial mortgage payable to the Irish Exchequer. Hitherto when an Irish tenant sold his farm, Death Duty was paid on the money got for the farm. Now, when he sells it, he pays Stamp Duty first on the money he gets for his farm, and next on the balance of the loan held by the Irish Land Commission, a loan which, in a few years more, if Irish Land Purchase had continued to work, would have amounted to over £100,000,000 sterling, and which, even as it is now, amounts to £75,000,000 sterling. When the Irish tenant farmer goes to sell his farm, the conveyance is taxed, and a tax is also levied upon the loan, as if the Irish tenant farmer, in selling his farm, was getting so much money put into his pocket. We are told that the same state of thing prevails in England? There you have the instalment mortgage, and no doubt there are in large English cities a considerable number of these instalment, mortgages, and we claim for the Irish farmer the same terms as are given to the English instalment mortgagee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken care to protect the English instalment mortgagee by giving him a special exemption. He fixes the sum in his case at £500,

  1999
  but in Ireland that limitation "will not relieve this class. I am only going through the headings of the Budget very briefly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should think my speech prolonged, but I do not come here of my own good will. We Irish Members are dragged here whether we like it or not. With great respect to hon. Gentlemen, I will say that I am the second Irish Member who has spoken this evening on this question, and I take the liberty to say that it is one on which the views of Ireland are entitled to be fully heard, even though at the end of the hearing we get very little satisfaction.
  The raising of the Legacy Duty from 3 to 5 per cent, in the case of brothers will hit Ireland more than any other part of the United Kingdom, owing to the great extent to which celibacy prevails in rural life, and to which families consisting of brothers and sisters live together and work their holding together. Now when a death takes place in a case of that kind, these near relatives—members of the same family —are to be treated as distant relations and have to pay 5 instead of 3 per cent., thus hitting Ireland in a way in which England is not hit at all. I claim, therefore, that those representatives of Ireland who are content, not as they did last year to stand by and see their country robbed by the Treasury, but who this year go a step further and are prepared to assist actively by their votes in the perpetration of that act of plunder, are betraying Irish interests. We are told that we forget old age pensions, but I might retort that Ireland is getting nothing in the way of old age pensions which England is not getting. Is Ireland specially favoured in the matter of old age pensions, and were we told last year when the Act was being passed that, though we should get them, we should have to pay the piper ourselves? No. When the old age pensions were introduced they were given to us, as we understood, as a free boon, and not one word was said of what we might expect in the coming year, when we were to find that we were to be fed up indeed, but it was to be a case of the dog being fed with a joint of his own tail. What is the fact about these old age pensions? Figures show that there are undoubtedly a larger proportion of old age pensioners to population in Ireland than there are in England and Scotland. But that is a temporary state of things. It arises from notorious historical facts. For
  2000
  the past fifty years the young and the strong have been emigrating from Ireland. Only the aged are left, and naturally there is in the year 1910 a larger number of persons over seventy per thousand of the population than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a state of things which will be lessening every year. The emigration is now fifty years old. It has been, thank God, for twenty years past steadily abating, and last year it reached a lower level than it had ever done since the famine. It therefore follows that the high proportion of old age pensioners in Ireland is a temporary state of things which will lessen year after year, while, as we are frankly told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the taxes to be levied by this Budget will increase year after year, and in ten years time we shall have less of the advantage which we are getting from the old age pensions, while the taxes which the right hon. Gentleman has inflicted on us will still remain.
  I have now only to deal with the question of the Amendment to this Clause relating to the Increment Duty so far as it affects agricultural land. As I understand, it has always been the position of the Government that they did not intend that the Increment Duty should apply to agricultural land. We heard to-night a somewhat fatuous boast that that was an Amendment which had been secured, for sooth, by the pressure of the Irish party. The right hon. Gentleman did not hear that boast, or no doubt he would have repudiated it. We know in fact that the Irish party had as much to do with this concession, if it is a concession, relating to agricultural land as they have to do with the changes in the moon. But that is not the important matter. The important matter is to secure for Ireland that the pledge which the Government has given upon this subject shall be carried out. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that under the Budget Bill as it was originally introduced, this tax did not apply to agricultural land. To make the matter clear, he introduced a Clause making it, as he conceived, still more clear that the increment did not apply to agricultural land, and he has now, as I understand, in response to pressure both from Ireland and from England, introduced some words into this Clause which he considers have the effect of making that position still clearer. But I do not consider that the new words

  2001
  which he has introduced at all effect the object he has in view, or, indeed, make even the most trivial difference in the Clause as it originally stood. However, I admit that I do not understand the effect of the words. I have given them such attention as I could, and discussed them with other hon. and learned Members, but I do not even understand how the right hon. Gentleman could think they effected his object. They are to me a perfect masterpiece of obscurity. I am quite willing to give a candid hearing to anything which the right hon. Gentleman, says in favour of the view that the words he has now introduced have the effect of substantially changing the clause, but, speaking for myself, and having given the matter such attention as I could, it appears to me that the words leave the clause as it stood, even if their effect is not somewhat worse and if they have not the effect of introducing a new element of obscurity. I thank the House most heartily for the patience with which they have listened to me.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Member (Mr. M. Healy) concluded what we all thought an interesting speech by saying that the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon the Paper in no sense changes the sense of the clause in which it is proposed to be inserted. That exactly carries out the intention of my right hon. Friend, because—
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I did not say that the words made no change in the clause. I was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman professed to make no change in the clause. What I contended was that the words did not carry out the expressed intention of the Government to make the clause clearer.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is a different point which is well worthy of argument when the proper time comes, and when the Amendment itself is being discussed, but it does not happen to be the exact point made by the hon. Gentleman. I pass that by, and for the moment, at all events, I do not profess to follow the hon. Gentleman into all the questions he raised in the course of his speech, because another, and I think a better, opportunity will be found for their discussion when the actual Amendments come before the Committee. I shall, however, endeavour to answer as best I can the questions put to me by the
  2002
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and other speakers in the course of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke with admiration of the extraordinary closeness of the estimates of the Budget, and he told us, first of all, that the Death Duties estimate was an exceedingly bad one. I think that was almost the only point in the Budget to which he took serious exception. It is quite true that the estimate in the Budget has not been realised to the extent of £978,000. That was not because the duties were not payable had the Finance Bill gone through, but because there is still an amount to be realised under the new scale when it is brought into operation. When that is realised it will be found that the estimated yield of the Death Duties will be within a small fraction of the original estimate. Then he went on to say that we laid much too great charges upon the capital of the country, and we were reducing that capital to the serious injury of the financial position of the country. That was a point that was also taken up, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. J. K. Foster) in a speech made later in the evening. Now there is no sign of this disappearance of capital when tested by the amount of income which has become assessible to tax every year, nor is there any sign of it in taking into consideration the amount of capital which pays toll to Death Duties in the course of succeeding years. Indeed, the contrary is the case, because, taking the year just ended and the period of ten years immediately preceding it, the amount of capital which has come under review for the purpose of Death Duties has risen from an annual value of £202,000,000 to £230,000,000, which is a substantial increase in the wealth of the country, while" the revenue has given a very satisfactory yield to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the other hand, they have not imposed any impossible or any undue burden upon the industrial and commercial community of this country. As the right hon. Gentleman is not here I will not go into all the smaller criticisms which he made, but there is one point to which I would like to refer. He charged us both in the case of the Land Tax and of the Inhabited House Duty, with doing something which was illegal. He said, "Why not, as you are bound to do, collect these two taxes?" and almost in the same breath he went on to complain of the charge which was laid upon the revenues

  2003
  of the country by the raising of money for the purpose of meeting the deficiencies of revenue. Now, both the Land Tax and the Inhabited House Duty, as the hon. Gentleman opposite probably knows, are collected at the same time and by the same agency as the Income Tax. I do not want to raise a controversial topic on this point, but it was impossible to collect the Income Tax this year. We had no authority to do so. If you proceeded to collect the Land Tax and the Inhabited House Duty by the same agency as collects the Income Tax, you would have burdened those two taxes with a very large sum for their collection. Therefore, from the purely fiscal point of view, it was much better to leave these taxes uncollected until later on, when we could collect the Income Tax.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how that is? I do not think that there is any charge for stamps or postage.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is the cost of stationery and of delivery.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The stationery is the same whether it is sent out with the others or by itself.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There would be the cost of collection in February or March. You would then have to make a fresh collection, with fresh statistics, subsequently in the month of April or May. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. Take the case of the Land Tax. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is payable by each parish, either upon the rateable value or upon Schedule A. The Commissioners, on one of those forms of valuation, would have issued their demand notes for payment, and then they would have had to go through precisely the same process later in the year. If you duplicate the collection of the tax, it is evident that you must increase the cost of the collection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) asked why we should be in a better position to estimate the yield of the Super-tax than we were in at this time last year. The answer to that is very simple. In the course of collecting such Income Tax as has been collected, and the making of such assessments as have been made, the collectors of Income Tax had only to be on the alert to notice and report the payers of large amounts of Income Tax.
  2004
  Wherever in the course of their ordinary assessments for Income Tax they have come across such large payers they naturally at once communicated that fact to the Inland Revenue, and that has put them on the track of any large payers of Income Tax. Preparations have already been made, when the Super-tax goes through, as I hope it will at no very distant date, to make demands upon those potential Super-tax payers. A point was raised by the hon. Member for South Bucks. He made a claim which would have entirely defeated the whole purpose of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty if it had been admitted, namely, that no tax should be laid upon agricultural land so long as it is used for agricultural purposes. The only result of allowing such a claim as that would have been that all land in the vicinity of towns which is ripe for building, and therefore ripe for the application of this tax, and in a condition proper to lay this tax upon it, would only have to be used for agricultural purposes in order to prevent any Undeveloped Land Duty being paid upon it. There is in existence at this moment an admirable society called the Society for the Cultivation of Vacant Lands, which lands are used for the purpose of employing persons who would otherwise be out of work. If the claim of the hon. Member for South Bucks were admitted, under the operations of this society a set of persons could be set to cultivate vacant spaces lying on the edges of a piece of land in order to defeat the whole purpose of this proposal. That is a claim which surely cannot be sustained even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, at all events, have agreed to the fact that such land should be laid under the impost proposed by these Resolutions, whether that impost should be devoted to local or to Imperial purposes. With regard to what was said on the benches opposite in regard to whether it is proper to place such land under contribution for Imperial purposes, I would remind the House that since it met this Session, in Germany, at all events, they have passed from theory to fact, and they have actually produced a Bill for the levy of Imperial taxation upon undeveloped land, and they propose, at any rate in the first years of their collection, to raise something like a million of money, and that, let it be remembered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, has been universally supported,- I am not certain that the prin-

  2005
  ciple was not introduced, by the agrarian or agricultural party in that Empire. There is a point which I wish to deal with which I do not think has been noticed by any speaker, at all events on this Bide, and which seems to me the most important point which has been raised yet in this Debate. It has been raised constantly by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and has been alluded to by other speakers in the course of the day. In an admirable speech, if I may venture to say so, by the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), he opened his remarks by saying that the credit of the United Kingdom was in a very unsatisfactory condition as compared with that of other countries. That is a favourite theme of the hon. Baronet opposite, and a theme entirely without justification, as I shall endeavour to prove, and which does incalculable evil to trade and commerce in this country, and which, if persisted in, as it is being persisted in by hon. Gentlemen opposite, cannot but react most disastrously upon the finances of this country. I will endeavour to deal with this point in detail. Take the case of the great cities of this country. Which will raise money most easily in the money markets of the world, the City of New York or the City of London, the City of Liverpool or the City of Philadelphia? I will come to the national question later, and am now dealing with the local question. What great community in the United States could raise money so cheaply as the great cities of this country? The answer is absolutely complete. There is hardly a great municipality in this country which cannot go to the money market of the City of London, and which, for either local or national purposes cannot raise loans at 3 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liverpool."] Liverpool has £2 12s. At what rate did the City of New York raise money the other day? It had to pay 4 per cent, for the money which it needed for municipal purposes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the stock of the City of Liverpool now yields £3 7s. 9d., and not £2 12s. Further, may I say that the point at issue is not what the City of Liverpool or any other city in England can raise money at now, and what the City of New York can raise money at now, but at what rate the City of New York could raise money ten years ago, and at what rate the City of Liver-
  2006
  pool could raise money at ten years ago. You will find that while the City of Liverpool has decreased in its credit the other has increased.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am coming to that point later on. I am dealing now with purely local finances, no unimportant factor in municipal considerations, both in this country and in the United States and elsewhere, because, after all, most of the moneys raised for the purpose of national development in this country have been raised as municipal loans in the course of the last ten years. Take the national question. What have we been doing? In the course of the last four or five months we have gone to the Money Market for the purpose of raising £41,000,000 by Treasury Bills. What other country in the world could have raised the money we have raised at an average of from 3¼ to 3¾ per cent.?[An HON. MEMBER: "France."]Certainly not. France could not have raised the sum at the price which we have done. I am not going into the question of who was light or who was wrong in the rejection of the Finance Bill; but it was the rejection of the Finance Bill which compelled us to raise that sum of money, and it was the necessity of raising that sum of money which has altered by an infinitesimal fraction the percentage at which this country can raise money for national purposes. The last time this question was raised here the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) told the House, which believes him, I believe, sometimes very recklessly in financial matters, that the credit of this country was not equal to that of France. It was not only equal, it was better. What is the case at the present moment? After raising something like £30,000,000 since that remark was made, the credit of this country stands on a parity with that of France. I will ask another question of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What other country, with the exception, I think, of Japan, is at this moment paying off any debt? What other country in the world is paying off its debt at the rate at which this country is? The hon. Baronet is silent, and he is bound to be, because there is no other country that I know of, with the exception of Japan, which has a regular Sinking Fund, is paying off its debt, and is reducing its liabilities; and there is hardly any country which is not financing itself at the end of the year by means of loans.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman said that I was silent. All I wish to say is that if his statements are correct, the credit of other countries ought to stand much lower than ours, whereas the reverse is the case.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will go into that particular point. What has been the real cause of the present position of Consols? It all arose from the conversion of the Two and Three-quarter per cents, by Mr. Goschen. Everybody knows that that conversion was made at a time singularly advantageous to the conversion itself, but far too previous from the point of view of the basis upon which this country ought to stand. The country was not ripe to stand on a 2½ per cent, basis; it is not ripe to do so at the present moment. The consequence is that the country has been working back to a 3 per cent, basis, and every other country in the world has been working up to a 3 per cent, basis. I do not wish to go into the whole of that controversy, which is a most interesting one. I will deal with another statement made by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Kenneth Foster). There is no greater fallacy in the whole of the present fiscal controversy than the belief that if you export capital you decrease the wealth of the country. In the periods when this country has been exporting capital, her export trade has always gone up. In the periods when this country has ceased to export capital, her export trade and her home trade has contracted. What was the origin of the present fiscal controversy? It began in 1903, which was the end of a period at which the export of capital from this country to foreign countries had ceased. After 1903 the exportation of capital from this country again began, and flowed in ever-increasing streams. From then up to the present time the export trade, and the whole trade, of the country has expanded in every direction, both exports and imports, to an amazing and unprecedented extent. These are fiscal facts which can be traced for a series of years with unceasing regularity, and constitute, not an accident, but economic truth.
  Another point: In what direction, and to what countries does this export of capital at the present time proceed? Take the case of railways. There is a large export from this country to foreign countries, to the Colonies, and to India, for the purposes of railway capital. That came to £55,000,000 last year. During
  2008
  the same period—last year—there were £5,000,000 employed in the creation of railway enterprises in this country. Why? Because you have in foreign countries large undeveloped tracts of land that require capital to exploit them and to create wealth; because what wealth there is is devoted to the creation of houses and buildings and the ordinary conveniences of life, and because all the old countries of the world have an immense amount of capital waiting for export, development, and profits. When you go from railways to commercial and industrial concerns, you find quite a different thing. A railway requires a great continental tract of undeveloped land. When you come to factories that can be put up in a comparatively few square yards, you find this— that the export of capital to foreign countries for the creation of industrial and commercial concerns amounted to £6,000,000, whereas the devotion of capital in this country to this kind of enterprise took no less than £8,000,000.
  You have room here for the creation of industrial concerns. You have not got room in this country for the creation of new railway systems. That is why you have a large amount of capital devoted in this country to the creation of industrial concerns relatively to the very small amount going into the creation of railway enterprises. The same argument and the same figures are true wherever you apply them to commercial undertakings which require a small amount of capital in contradistinction to those enterprises that require a great area of land. Ample answers to the many points which have arisen might be made, but I have endeavoured in the remarks that I have addressed to the Committee to devote them to the really serious aspect of the case, the continued prosecution of which I am quite certain does infinite harm and injury to every industry and every individual in this country.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to Move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only take a Motion to report Progress from the Government.
  Mr. DILLON: I suppose, then, I had better, in the few moments left to me, say a few words—
  And it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (SALARIES, ETC.).
Resolution reported, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salaries and Pensions of two additional Judges of the High Court who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session.
11.0 P.M.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. PRETYMAN: I thought we understood the Prime Minister to say yesterday that this would not be taken if not reached before eleven o'clock.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): That it would not be taken yesterday.
Mr. MARKHAM: If I can get any to vote with me I shall divide the House on this question. In my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous for the Government to come down and ask for additional judges. The judges' holidays are represented by 119 days out of every year excluding Sundays. There are 365 days in the year, and some years there are fifty-three Sundays. There are 313 working flays, and of these the judges have 119 holidays. In Hilary term they have twenty-two days, at Easter fourteen days, at Trinity eleven days, and at Michaelmas seventy-two days—a period of 119 days in all. I say that is a time out of all proportion to what other business men in this country are able to afford, and for the life of me I cannot see why the judges, who are paid large salaries, which no one can say is not reasonable remuneration for the work they do, should have this large amount of time, or why the Government should ask for additional judges. In the House of Lords we have four judges drawing £6,000 a year each. I have not been able to find out how many days these judges sit throughout the year, and cannot therefore give the House information on that point.
We have in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal five judges each drawing a salary of £5,000 a year, and the Master of the Rolls, who draws £6,000 a year. In addition, there are other judges drawing £5,000 a year, with a pension amounting to two-thirds of their salaries after serving
2010
twenty years. I do not think anyone will deny that that is a fair remuneration for the work they do. If that be the ease, let us now see what amount of time they devote to their work. The judges meet at the courts at eleven o'clock on Mondays, and they adjourn at four o'clock, and on other days they meet at ten and adjourn at four, after adjourning at 1.30 for half an hour, and often for a much longer period. This gives them an average working day of something like six hours. On Saturdays, the judges sit for a short time only, and on many occasions they do not sit at all. The question, therefore, is what amount of time do they devote to their duties outside the ordinary time when they are not sitting in the courts? It is impossible for a layman to answer that question, and no doubt judges have a great deal of work outside their official hours. Assuming that the amount of time they are occupied outside their official hours is two hours per day, that brings their work up to about seven hours per day. I say as a business man, having business to attend to myself, if I can get a week's holiday in the course of the year I am well contented, and I do not see why judges receiving these large salaries and pensions should be entitled to take 119 days holiday out of 313, together with half a day's holiday on Saturdays as well. What section of the community except the judges are able to take at the expense of their employers or their trade holidays to this extent? I contend that if the judges took the same amount of holidays as other citizens in the State we should have plenty of judges, to do the work required. Probably owing to the fact that there are 150 lawyers in this House these privileges are accorded to these weary Willies. The working men of this country are asked to contribute to the salaries of these men. Many working men have to work twelve hours a day all the year round, Sundays included. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame, but highly paid State servants are able to take the very large amount of leisure which other citizens are unable to take. Therefore, if I can get anybody to divide with me, I shall certainly do so against this Resolution.
Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 69.

Division No. 43.]

AYES.

[11.10 p.m.

Adam, Major W. A.

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Addison, Dr. C.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gilmour, Captain J.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Allen, Charles P.

Goldsmith, Frank

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Anderson, A.

Grant, J. A.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Greenwood, G. G.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Perkins, Walter F.

Bagot, Captain J.

Gulland, John W.

Peto, Basil Edward

Baird, J. L.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hamersley, A. St. George

Pretyman, E. G.

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Balcarres, Lord

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Pringle, William M. R.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Barclay, Sir T.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Barnston, H.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Reddy, M.

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

Heath, Col. A. H.

Rees, J. D.

Beale, W. P.

Helmsley, Viscount

Rice, Hon. Walter F.

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

Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Higham, John Sharp

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Beresford, Lord C.

Hill, Sir Clement

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Bird, A.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Black, Arthur W.

Hohier, G. F.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Boyton, James

Hooper, A. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Brackenbury, H. L.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rutherford, Watson

Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horner, A. L.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Brotherton, E. A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hughes, S. L.

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hunt, Rowland

Shechan, Daniel Daniel

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Illingworth, Percy H.

Shortt, Edward

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

tsaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

Soares, Ernest J.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Stanier, Beville

Carllie, E. Hildred

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Starkey, John R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cator, John

Johnson, W.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cautley, H. G.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Cave, George

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Strauss, A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Summers, John Wooiley

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Tennant, Harold John

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lambert, George

Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

Chambers, J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chancellor, H. G.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Toulmin, George

Channing, Sir Francis Ailston

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lewisham, Viscount

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Clyde, J. Avon

Llewelyn, Venables

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lloyd, G. A.

Verney, F. W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Verrall, George Henry

Courthope, George Loyd

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Mackinder, Halford J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Crean, Eugene

Macmaster, Donald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Croft, H. P.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Crossley, Sir William J.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wheler, Granviile C. H.

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line, Spalding)

White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Manfield, Harry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Davies, E. William (Eilion)

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

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

Meagher, Michael

Whitehouse, John Howard

Dawes, J. A.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Middlebrook, William

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Millar, J. D.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Dixon, C. H.

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Elverston, H.

Muspratt, M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Neilson, Francis

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Falconer, J.

Newman, John R. P.

Wing, Thomas

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Ferens, T. R.

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Forster. Henry William

O'Doherty, Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

France, G. A.

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

of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

2012

2013

NOES.

Armitage, Robert

Henry, Charles S.

Pointer, Joseph

Bentham, G. J.

Hodge, John

Ponsonby, A. W. H.

Bewerman, C. W.

Hogan, Michael

Radford, George Heynes

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Rendall, Athelstan

Brunner, J. F. L.

Jowett, F. W.

Richards, Thomas

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Joyce, Michael

Koch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Clough, William

Kilbride, Denis

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Clynes, J. R.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Seddon, J.

Cowan, W. H

Leach, Charles

Shackleton, David James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lehmann, R. C.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Delany, William

Lundon, T.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sutton, John E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Edwards, Enoch

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Twist, Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Wads worth, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walsh, Stephen

Gill, A. H.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Glover, Thomas

O'Dowd, John

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Hancock, J. G.

O'Sullivan, Eugene

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr

Mealy, Timothy Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Markham and Mr. Watt.

SUPREME COUKT OF JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

SUPREME COUKT OF JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Appoint Two Additional Judges.)
  (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint two judges of the High Court in addition to the number of judges of that court authorised to be appointed by the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1902.
  (2) The judges so appointed shall be attached to the King's Bench Division of the High Court subject to such power of transfer as is in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, mentioned, and the law relating to the appointment and qualification of judges of the High Court, to their duties and tenure of office, to their precedence [salary and pensions], and otherwise, shall apply to any judge appointed under this Section.
  It shall be lawful for His Majesty, after the appointment of the said judges, to fill any vacancy occurring among the puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, provided that whenever after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, the whole number of such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen, such vacancy shall not be filled unless and until an address is presented from both Houses of Parliament representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that such vacancy should be filled.
  Mr. WATTmoved in Sub-section (1) after "1902" ["authorised to be appointed by the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1902"] to insert the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall not be more than fifty-five years of age at the time of their appointment."
  I am not enamoured of this Amendment itself, but it must be read with an Amendment further down on the Paper, namely, that these judges should retire at seventy years of age. If I had put that Amendment on the Paper standing alone, I should have been met by the argument that if they were to retire at seventy, and had been appointed at a later age than fifty-five, then they would not have been entitled to any pension, and that would have entirely overriden my proposal that an age limit should be fixed for judges. I therefore thought it wise, in order to meet the argument which would be adduced against me, to suggest, as I do in this Amendment, that no man who is more than fifty-five years of age should be appointed to this post. I think it will be generally admitted that the judges of the land are, in many instances at any rate, too old. The average age of judges perhaps is not very high, but at least half of them have attained the Biblical maximum of three score years and ten. Indeed, in the part of His Majesty's realm from which I come the judges in many instances exceed even eighty years of age, and I venture to think that this question of the age of judges requires the immediate attention of Parliament. It is rapidly developing into a scandal. All the other, or practically all the other, subjects of the Crown have an age limit at which they

  2015
  are bound to retire. Those in the Army, Navy, and Civil Service are all bound to retire at early ages, and in the majority of cases the age of retiring is sixty-five. May I ask why a judge is not bound by the same rule? I feel that it is because their case in this House is so well represented by prospective judges that they are treated as an exceptional body. The question of an age limit for judges is more important than in the case of civil servants, because if a civil servant, say, the head of a Post Office department, is past his best and sleeps daily at his desk, no one is much the worse. The taxpayer does not get value for his money, but the taxpayer of modern days is getting used to that position. But in the administration of justice it is of vital importance that a judge should be at any rate awake.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): This is a Bill for the appointment of two judges, the appointment in each case being of a temporary character. There being now fifteen puisne judges in the King's Bench Division, two will be added; but as vacancies arise, if the number of judges left is fifteen or upwards, no vacancy can be filled except on an address by both Houses of Parliament, so that the Legislature will have a very vigilant and strong regard on any further and future appointments. It will be for the House to say whether the two next successive vacancies shall be filled up. A Committee sat for a very long time, heard a great deal of evidence, and devoted the greatest care to this problem in view of the arrears of business in the King's Bench Division, and decided that there should be at least two judges; but the Government, as represented by the Lord Chancellor, thought they ought not to add any greater expense than was inevitable. Therefore there is this provision, which occurs later in the Bill, stipulating that the vacancies should not be filled up except under the conditions I have mentioned. We are not therefore dealing with any general measure affecting judges as a whole. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that if it is desirable to limit the age at which judges may be appointed, or to fix the age at which they should retire, that should be done by a general measure and not by one which simply provides for the appointment of two temporary judges. No one would desire to have these two judges on a tenure different from that of any other judge.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I have heard the Attorney-General say the House is about to keep a very vigilant regard upon what is to be done in the future. Can that be expected after what we have witnessed this evening? The only objection which has been made to the appointment of more judges has been made by two laymen?
  Mr. WATT: I have the honour of being a member of the Bar.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: After all my hon. and learned Friend is a member of the Scotch Bar.
  Mr. WATT: No.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman has put an end to his legal career, and I am not aware whether he has ever practised at the English Bar. I wish very much that some members of the English Bar had given us the benefit of their opinions on this Bill. I believe they are all, or mostly all, in favour of an increase in the number of judges. I am also aware that such journals as represent legal opinion in England have declared themselves in favour of an increase in the number of English judges, but I cannot believe that there is any foundation for the statement of the learned Attorney-General that this House is going to keep a vigilant look out in future and exercise the powers contained in this Bill. I do not see in the attitude of the House to-night ay warrant for that statement. When the Attorney-General rose to move the passage of this first Clause I expected him to make some statement which would have warranted the House in agreeing to the Clause. What does the Clause say? "It shall be lawful for His Majesty—"
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman understands that there is an Amendment before the Committee to limit the age of the judges to be appointed to fifty-five years.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am quite well aware that there is an Amendment, but the Clause itself refers to the number of judges to be appointed. I was not in the House when the Bill, as a whole, was first brought before the House, and therefore I had not the opportunity of making the observations I should have wished to make on the whole Bill, but on its introduction I understand the Attorney-General did not give any reasons whatever—
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I spoke at considerable length, and it would be most unusual, certainly at this time, for me to repeat a Second Reading speech.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to speak on the first Clause he can do so when I put the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." At present we must confine ourselves to the Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: I desire to support the Amendment. The Attorney-General has given us no reasons whatever for not agreeing to an age limit. It is said that these are to be temporary appointments. I think that is an additional reason why we should limit the age at which they commence. What difference does it make whether the appointments are temporary or otherwise? What would the judges say if anyone "temporarily" took my watch? It may be said by some that we do not want any more judges. I believe that is right. But if we are to have more judges, let us have men who can do the work and not go to sleep on the bench as I have seen them, and then wake up and give a wrong judgment. Everybody knows that most of these appointments are political, and to a large extent what would be called "jobs" outside. One would think from the appointment of these judges that we had more money than we knew what to do with. As most of us know these judges have not got enough work to do, and take at least three months holiday in the year, and seeing also that we have a deficit of from twenty-five to thirty millions, I wish to know whether we have got any money to throw away?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: What I want is to carry this Amendment, so that at least if we are to have these judges they may commence at an age when they are fit to do the work. Otherwise it would be money wasted, and we have no money to waste. I hope therefore, although it is late at night, we shall endeavour to do our duty to the taxpayers and to the suitors. I am very sorry that the Government should try to force the Bill through the House at this late hour. It is a matter which ought not necessarily to be a party matter, and it should have been brought on earlier in the day.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going outside the Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: I thought I had a right to complain of the hour at which we are asked to discuss a matter of this sort. However, I will not pursue it further than to say that I hope, no matter how late it may be, the members of this Committee will do their duty to their country, and take care that old men who may not be able to either see or hear properly shall not be appointed judges.
  Mr. LEHMANN: I am afraid that I shall not follow my hon. Friend in his Amendment. It seems to me that to adopt this Amendment would be to limit without any reason at all the field of selection for the two judges whom we have decided to appoint. It is absurd to suppose that even at this moment a man like Lord Halsbury at an age considerably over fifty-five is not perfectly capable of taking his seat and judging any question that may be submitted to him; and to say that no judge should be appointed over the age of fifty-five years is seriously to limit the field of selection and to make it a matter of absurdity.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, and that time will not be wasted on a division. If it is right to adopt the limit of fifty-five it ought to be done generally and not be made simply applicable to two men. If there is anything in the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment that the existing judges are senile or asleep, and you appoint two judges under the condition which the Amendment proposes, they would be altogether out of place on the Bench, because they would be altogether different in their method of dealing with the business.
  Mr. WATT: I said half the judges were senile.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think this is neither the time nor place to make exceptions with regard to the ages of the judges, and it ought to be done generally or not at all. This Bill is urgently wanted, and I hope hon. Members will not press the Amendment, seeing we have had a Division on the general question.
  Mr. MARKHAM: When there is agreement between the two Front Benches I always make it my business to vote against them. I am quite sure that private members always suffer when the two Front

  2019
  Benches put their heads together. As to the age limit, why in the name of conscience should there be one law for the judges and another law for another set of public servants, who are required to retire at a fixed age? A working man is considered too old at forty. Looking down the Bench I see eminent King's Counsel, and, when there is this agreement, I wonder who is next to be appointed amongst them. Why should one set of
  public servants be privileged to continue their work when in many cases, owing to advancing age, they are unable to do it? If you give that privilege to one set of public servants why not to another? I shall certainly support the Amendment and oppose this Bill at every stage.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 72; Noes, 198.

  Division No. 44.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 p.m.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Cator, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  clough, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Richards, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, T.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seddon, J.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Doris, W.

  Manfield, Harcy

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  Martin, J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

  Edwards, Enoch

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Firench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph p.

  Sutton, John E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gill, A. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Glover, Thomat

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Twist, Henry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Hodge, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wing, Thomas

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  Johnson, W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt and Mr. Markham.

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  France, G. A.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cautley H. S.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Anderson, A.

  Cave, George

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Gulland, John W.

  Armitage, R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baird, J. L.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Chambers, J.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rostendale)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapple, W. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Clyde, J. Aven

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barnston, H.

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Croft, H. P.

  Hogan, Michael

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Hohier, G. F.

  Bird, A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Horner, A. L.

  Boyton, J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Denman, R. D.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Elverston, H.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Falconer, J.

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferent, T. R.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jones, Edgar (Meifhyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanier, Beville

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Keswick, William

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Strauss, A.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Summers, James Woolley

  Lambert, George

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leach, Charles

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridse)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Toulmin, George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Valentia, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Verrall, George Henry

  Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Pees, J. D.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rice, Hon. W.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Middlebrook, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Millar, J. D.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morpeth, viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Muldoon, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Muspratt, M.

  Rutherford, Watson

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Nellson, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Shortt, Edward

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "precedence," to insert the words "salary and pensions." —[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. C. E. PRICEmoved, after the word "section" ["appointed under this section"], to add the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall retire at the age of seventy years, and provided also that they shall not be entitled to a pension unless they have filled the office for fifteen years."
  The Amendment just divided upon referred to the age at which men should be appointed to the Bench; this Amendment refers to the age at which they should retire. I speak rather from the Scottish point of view. It is well known that in Scotland the age at which men have retired has been nothing short of a scandal. We are told that it would be better to wait for a general measure. Unfortunately, it is exceedingly difficult to get a general measure of this kind before the House and time to discuss it; therefore it is very desirable that we should take advantage of the present opportunity to assert this principle. I would say, in the interests of the Bar, as well as in the interests of the Courts of Justice, that it is advisable that there should be this age limit. For one thing, if men retired at that age promotion would flow more quickly. It is important, too, that when a business man brings a
  2022
  case before the Courts in which his interests may be vitally affected, that the judge on the Bench should have his wits about him, and be one who commands respect.
  I regret to say, speaking of Scotland, that the way men here cling to their posts has very largely destroyed confidence in the Courts of Justice. It is a very sad fact that there has been a reduction in the cases which have been brought before the Courts of Law. The figures show that they are fewer every year. The reason is that there is not that confidence in the decision of the judges which there was in former times. I know that many of the biggest business men in the country when they have a dispute do not bring it before a Court of Law, but before the Chairman of a Chamber of Commerce. They have every confidence in the justice of their business colleagues. Therefore I sincerely trust that business men in this House will vote for this, because there is so much at stake. Reference has been made to the ex-Lord Chancellor. He is a credit to his profession to retain his faculties so long, but he is an exception. We have the principle laid down in every other department of the State, and I certainly think we ought, in this light, to take the matter into consideration and take a course that will commend itself to the business men of the country.
  Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend is undoubtedly—
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I am not an hon. and learned Friend.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Is undoubtedly worthy of consideration from this House at any time at which this House is able to consider it. But I must repeat that all proposals of this kind are very appropriate to a general measure, though not appropriate to this particular measure. Let me, however, say something upon the merits of the proposal itself. As to the compulsory superannuation of judges at the age of seventy, I have no doubt that many hon. Members think with considerable certainty that at seventy any man should retire from an active life, if it lays any undue strain upon his physical or mental faculties. In the majority of professions and trades I suppose that is the case. There are, however, a few occupations in which at seventy a man does not feel the necessity for a bigger share of activity for the purposes of such movements as his business requires. It by no means applies in all professions that a man at seventy has come to an end of his usefulness. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will apply the opposite to this House. Some of the most respected Members—certainly some of the most distinguished—have long passed the limit imposed by the Psalmist of three score years and ten, and in this connection we have all watched with interest the late Lord Chancellor. We have heard to-night of some judges who have slept at their work. In a very lengthy experience now I have known some extremely rare cases where judges have indulged in somnolence in some few moments of temporary abstraction perhaps in the afternoon, but I do not think they were above seventy. I do not think somnolence is always peculiar to age. It certainly is not so in this House, where I believe somnolence prevails to a larger extent in the performance of duty than in any other assembly in the whole world.
  On the other hand, I could give instances, if I were called upon to do so, where the most effective, vigilant, and acute judges on the Bench are to be found amongst judges advanced in years. The best judges in our High Courts are to be found among the older men. I believe the experience is invariable that seventy does not constitute an age limit for the Judicial
  2024
  Bench. Speaking from experience I say that judges do not frequently remain longer upon the Judicial Bench than their intellectual activities justify. I have known judges of extreme old age, and suffering from extreme physical weakness, display the most amazing intellectual activity. That is the experience both of the Bar and the Country. Do not let us hastily deprive ourselves of the great judicial experience and knowledge and judgment of such members of the Bench. My hon. Friend spoke of business leaving the Courts because, as he said, some of the Commercial classes lost confidence in the judges. I venture to say it is a very great misfortune that business has been leaving the Courts, but it is not leaving the Courts for the reason suggested by the hon. Member. Cases are admittedly and notoriously diminishing in number because there are not enough judges— because people put their cases down and have to wait six months for judgment; and because they very frequently get their judgment when it is useless to them. Again and again we have had cases where the amount at stake was considerable, and where a person before receiving his money has been subjected to the most severe business strain, and all because he is unable to get the money to which he is entitled in time owing to the overcrowded and congested state of the Courts. If the hon. Member talks of business leaving the Courts, and commercial men losing their confidence in the Courts, it is not because we have too many judges, but because we have not enough judges.
  Mr. MORTON: The Attorney-General has given us no reason for refusing to accept this Amendment. He says we ought to deal with this point generally, but I should like to ask him if he is willing, on behalf of the Government, to undertake to bring in a Bill to do this. I note there is no answer to that question. Nobody knows better than the Attorney-General that a private Member of this House never could expect to carry through such a Bill as he has suggested. I believe the age limit now for professional services is sixty-five years, and it is not considered in the Civil Service or any other service that they ought to continue their duties after the age of sixty-five years unless specially appointed. We are asking that a judge may sit until he is seventy. I regret that this measure has not been brought forward earlier so that we should have had a proper opportunity of discuss-

  2025
  ing it, without wearying anybody. I am sorry the Government, in asking for more judges, have not found an opportunity before this of settling the question of the age limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] As this Amendment, in my opinion, is in the best interests of the nation, I hope it will be carried. I know that at the present time there are a good many cases kept out of Court because they have no particular faith in the judges, and that may refer very largely to the age of the judges. Surely on every ground it is not right to keep judges sitting in the Courts after they are seventy years of age. I hope the Committee will agree that this age limit ought to be inserted.
  Mr. MARKHAMmoved in the proposed Amendment, to omit the word "seventy," and to insert instead thereof the words "seventy-five."
  The Attorney-General said that private Members ought to deal with this question by general legislation and not by Bills of the character he has introduced. But it is not possible for a private Member to get an opportunity of raising the whole question of our Judicature. It is a question which can only be dealt with by the Government, and therefore we who do not answer the Whip of either of the two Front Benches have to take any opportunity of dividing when we think the proposals of the Government do not accord with the interests of the nation. The Attorney-General said that city and business men are on the shelf at seventy, but that judges are still in full possession of their faculties then and can go on longer. He gives away the whole of his case and justifies what we say—that the appointment of these two judges is necessary. The Attorney-General, in fact, said the old judges were the better men on the Bench.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member might quote me correctly.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I am in the recollection of the House, and I think hon. Members will bear me out when I say that
  the Attorney-General said some of the best judges of the day were old men.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Well, I do not wish to quarrel about a word, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman had better look out for squalls when he gets into court, and meets some of the younger men. He went on to speak of a natural age limit. I do not know what is his idea of a natural age limit, but I think the case would be met by moving an Amendment to the Amendment to make the age seventy-five. He also said that owing to the non-appointment of these judges, business men were being ruined, and that there was an overcrowded state in the Courts. He has only to accept our Amendment, that the judges should take fewer holidays, and the same number of judges could accomplish more work. The late Lord Chancellor is an exceptional man, a man of great ability, and perhaps one of the wonders of this or any other period of our judicial life; but we have to deal with the general case. I think my Amendment is eminently reasonable, and I hope the Attorney-General will agree to it.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The proposal of the Government is that the two judges shall be put on exactly the same footing—for better or for worse—as the other judges; that they should come in under the same conditions as to salary, age, and pension. I do not think I should like to suggest to the judges that seventy-five is under all circumstances, the proper age for retiring.
  Amendment, as amended, put: After the word "section" to insert the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall retire at the age of seventy-five years, and provided also that they shall not be entitled to a pension unless they have filled the office for fifteen years."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES.

  [12.16 a.m.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Crean, Eugene

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cater, John

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chapple, W. A.

  Delany, William

  Sarnston, H.

  Clough, William

  Doris, W.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bird, A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Falconer, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Gibson, James P.

  Mackinder, HaLford J.

  Strauss, A.

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Sutton, John E.

  Hammersley, A. St. G.

  Martin, Hon. J.

  Taylor, John w. (Durham)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cieophas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Twist, Henry

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, W.

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Richards, Thomas

  Wing, Thomas Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Lardner, James Carrige Rustic

  Rutherford, Watson

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanier, Beville

  Charles Price and Mr. Markbam.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester).

  Stewart. Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Anderson, A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Honmouth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Baird, J. L.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Hohier, G. F.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Horner, A. L.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beale, W. P.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Runcimm, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bentham, G. J.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Lambert, George

  Shortt; Edward

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Leach, Charles

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summers. James Woolley

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cautley, H. S.

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Thyune, Lord A.

  Cave, George

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, George

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Chambers, J.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Verrall, George Henry

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Muldoon, John

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Muspratt, M.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Dawes, J. A,

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Dixon, C. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Elibank, Master of

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Elverston, H.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ferens. T R.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  France, G. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

  Gill, A. H.

  Question, "That the word 'five' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. RAWLINSONmoved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "January" [" provided that whenever after the first day of January"], and to insert instead thereof the word "August."
  The Bill, as the hon. and learned Attorney-General has pointed out, is a temporary one, and after the 1st of January next year, no other extra judges will be
  2028
  appointed unless an address is presented from both Houses of Parliament as to the state of business in the King's Bench Division. The effect of my Amendment is to extend the temporary period from January to August. If you are to have two extra judges they will not have an opportunity of clearing off arrears unless you give them a longer

  2029
  period than to January next year. In. the discussion on the Second Reading not only the Government but practically everyone else was in favour of amending the Bill in some such way as this. Undoubtedly the Amendment carries out the recommendation of the Committee and the intention of the introducer of the Bill.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether the main object of the Amendment is not the possibility of having two Tariff Reformers appointed as temporary judges?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think we could quite carry self-sacrifice to that extent. The Amendment was suggested from various quarters on the Second Reading, and it was suggested that we had not allowed quite sufficient time for the operation of the two judges. The extension proposed is; in the view of the Government and most of those who know the state of business in the Courts, a very moderate one, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The opposition to the Bill continues to grow steadily, and if we only had time to go on till August, Government stock would be a long way below par. I shall divide against the Amendment.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: The Attorney-General said the reason there was a reduction of cases coming before the Courts was on account of the fewness of judges.
  The CHAIRMAN: That observation was not made on this Amendment, and it is not in order to refer to it.
  Mr. MORTON: I am told the effect of the Amendment is to make the Bill not
  temporary, though the Attorney-General has not explained that to us, but that is what we understand when we know where it comes from. Apparently there is an arrangement between the two Front Benches. We have known of these arrangements before, especially when they want to manufacture offices and salaries. It is an extraordinary state of things, especially after the way we have generally supported the Government that they refuse to consider an Amendment, but at once give way to the enemy. That shows that there is some backstairs arrangement. This reminds us again that when we have the two Front Benches agreeing, honest men are put between the devil and the deep sea. It is most unfortunate to find this Government deserting Liberals, and especially Scottish Liberals. Scotland is practically the only part of the United Kingdom where you can get good Liberals from.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been speaking for some time, but he has not said a single word about the Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: I am objecting to the insertion of the word "August." It is the month when we want to take a holiday. On this Amendment I do not think the Government are treating their own followers fairly. There appears to be an arrangment between the two Front Benches against the best interests of the nation.
  Question put, "That the word 'January' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 171.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES.

  [12.35 a.m.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Twist, Henry

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Ruthe

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Martin, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, E. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Markham and Mr. Morton.

  Hogan, Michael

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Bird, A.

  Anderson, A.

  Barnston, H.

  Birrell, St. Hon. Augustine

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

  Boyton, J.

  Baird, J. L.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rees, J. D.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Horner, A. L.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hughes, S. L.

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Richards, Thomas

  Cautley, H. S.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jackson, John A. (Whltehaven)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Chambers, J.

  Johnson, W.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Chapple, W. A.

  Lambert, George

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Clough, William

  Leach, Charles

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Clyde. J. Avon

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, E.

  Courthope, S. Loyd

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Captain Jamet (Down, E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Strauss, A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Summers, J. W.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Delany, William

  Macmaster, Donald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dixon, C. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Middlebrook, William

  Toulmin, George

  Elverston, H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, J.

  Muspratt, M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Verrail, George Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Neilson, Francis

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  France, G. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gibnn, James P.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gill, A. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Glover, Thomas

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wing, Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Quitter, William Eley C.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Radford, G. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

  Question proposed, "That the word 'August' be there inserted."
  Captain CRAIGmoved, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  There are several more Amendments on the Paper, and it is now nearly a quarter to one o'clock. We have been sitting here all day, and we have done a great deal of business, besides which it is very early in the Session to begin these late hours. There is no immediate hurry for this Bill, and a number of Members from Scotland would toe the better if they are allowed more time to think it over. I do not think, if we report Progress, that it would delay the Measure in any way, and I cannot conceive why we should go on any longer. The eleven o'clock rule was passed to enable us to get away in reasonable time, and, if it is to be suspended, it ought to be towards the later portion of the Session and not in the early part; we do not want the experience which we had in the last
  2032
  Parliament. I think we ought to close this discussion now in order that we may be fresher for the closing months of the Session. It is a very bad precedent to keep: these long hours, all the more that it is quite unnecessary. On these grounds, and on the ground that the Scotch Radicals are objecting to this Bill, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Sir W. ROBSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Motion to a Division. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully, but I hardly think that he puts it forward seriously. We have now only one uncontested Amendment remaining. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is absolutely uncontested. It has nothing whatever to do with the ages or the salaries or the numbers of the judges, and the House of Commons will exercise full control in the appointment of new judges whenever the number exceeds-fifteen, or whenever the number has

  2033
  reached fifteen, instead of having to wait until the number exceeds fifteen. The Amendment is merely to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee, and certainly there could have been no possible objection to it had it been introduced at an earlier stage. I hope, therefore, that we will be allowed to proceed, and that the Motion will not be pressed to a Division. I hope, therefore, we may be allowed to finish this part.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I hope my hon. Friends on this side will vote against this, because it is evidently a move on the part
  of our friends the enemy opposite to put the Government in a minority on this Question. There are far more serious things than this Bill. Although the two Front Benches have joined hands to make judicial places for their own friends, that it not sufficient reason for me to vote against the Government to the point of turning them out on this matter.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 57: Noes,. 128.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a. m.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Baird, J. L.

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Horner, A. L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Barnston, H.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bird, A.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Strauss, A.

  Boyton, J.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sutton, John E.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Selisbury)

  Twist, Henry

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Verrall, George Henry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of wight)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Craig and Viscount Dairymple.

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Martin, Joseph

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Glover, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Middlebrook, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Anderson, A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Muspratt, M.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nellson, Francis

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Beale, W. P.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Bentham, G. J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Hohier, G. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Johnson, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tyncmouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rees, J. D.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Lambert, George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Richards, Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Elibank, Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Elverston, H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Falconer, J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Shackleton, David James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shortt, Edward

  France, G. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Summers. James Woolley,

  Gibson, James P.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wing, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whyte, Alexander-F. (Perth)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Question, "That the word 'August' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Question proposed, "That the word 'August' be there inserted."
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I heard the argument advanced by the Attorney-General that it was so late that we ought not to proceed with our Amendment or further discuss the Bill. I protest against such an argument. This is a new Parliament, and it is too soon for it to be considered so effete that it cannot consider serious business between twelve and one o'clock.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must make his remarks relevant to the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: There is something to be said in reference to an argument used by the Attorney-General.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I did not say it was too late to go on.
  The CHAIRMAN: The remarks, whoever made them, were made on the motion to report progress. The only question now is whether we should insert the word "August."
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: In speaking to the very first Amendment that was moved by the hon. Gentleman on the other side, the Attorney-General did use the words, "at this late hour of the night." However, I will not pursue that, for I desire to oppose the insertion of this Clause in the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait till I put the question, he can do that.
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "upwards of'" ["such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen."] I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is in order very briefly to explain the purport of this Amendment, which is simply designed to give effect to the powers which the Committee desire the House to possess, that there shall be no further increase of the number of judges until Parliament has been consulted and has
  2036
  approved. The Amendment is intended to make it clear that Parliament shall have the power to prevent the continuance of these two extra judges after the necessity for them may have passed away. If the two judges should succeed with clearing off the great arrears of work, their places will not be filled until Parliament consents. It is in order to give full effect to that power of Parliament that this little verbal alteration is being made.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to apologise to you, Sir, in the Chair, for having misunderstood the question that you were putting from the Chair at the time. I take up the argument against the whole of the Bill. It assumes a certain state of things: "Provided that whenever after the first day of January, 1911 "—now August—"the whole number of such puisne judges to upwards of fifteen…" The reason why I submit to the Committee that no judges are really needed at all is that the Amendment assumes a time when business will not be congested. Why is business in the High Court congested? The business of the High Court is entirely a matter of management. The High Court is divided into three great divisions—the Court of Appeal, the Court of Chancery, and the Common Law Court. Take the Court of Appeal. There is no congestion of business there at the present time. Why? Because the Court of Appeal is managed so that there shall be no congestion of business. The same applies to the Chancery Court. Why is the Common Law Court so congested? It is all because there is not applied to it the same principles of management that are applied to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Chancery. There is another Court at the end of this building. Why did there used to be very great waiting and delay in the cases being heard there? Sometimes when a suit went up to the other place suitors had to wait for years before it was heard. I understand that the list in another place has been quite recently cleared more than two or three times. The Court of Appeal might also be taken as an example, because that was in a congested condition not many years ago, but

  2037
  the Judges of the Court of Appeal put their backs into the work, and they have reduced their arrears very considerably, so that at the present time the Court of Appeal is, so far as business is concerned, in a very satisfactory condition. This state of things in regard to the Court of Appeal in this building and the Court of Appeal branch of the High Court reminds me of a quatrain I came across a short time ago either in reading one of the State trials or the preface to Sir Thomas More's "Utopia." It runs thus:—
  " When More some time at court had been,
  No more suits did remain;
  The like shall never more be seen.
  Till More be there again."
  That was the result of the management of the last great Chancellor. He took good care that suits were not delayed, and that they were brought to trial. He exercised great supervision, over the courts, and had cases tried within a reasonable time and in. a proper manner, therefore his power of management was celebrated in the manner I have described. In moving this Amendment the Attorney-General might have told the Committee what is the reason for it so far as the fifteen judges are concerned. He might have told us, for example, what the state of business is. He might have told us the necessity for the appointment of these fifteen judges or upwards. He might have told us what the effect of recent legislation has been upon the congested state of business in the Law Courts at the present time. We have had no reason given to us for the appointment of fifteen judges or upwards. This Amendment of the Attorney-General's is the grip that he mentioned—the vigilance he mentioned in an earlier stage of the discussion. This is the grip that the Committee and the House is to hold over the appointment of judges in the future. I call that grip a mere sham. It is a grip that will never be closed. The moment you pass this Bill the number of judges that may be appointed, be it fifteen or upwards, will never again be interfered with, because I cannot see that in this Bill, or in any suggested Amendment in the future, there is any provision made for reducing the congestion of business at the Law Courts.
  The Committee might have been told by the Attorney-General that recent legislation, as I have seen it pointed out in the legal journals, has occupied so much time that the judges are not able to do their ordinary business. I mean the Court of Criminal Appeal. We
  2038
  see it stated in the legal journals week after week that in consequence of the sitting of the Court of Criminal Appeal the judges are taken from their ordinary business, and therefore there is a necessity for the appointment of two more judges. This Committee ought to be told what is the effect of the sitting of that Court of Criminal Appeal as regards the congestion of business in the Law Courts at the present time. Before the Court of Criminal Appeal was set up the congestion existed, and it has been growing ever since, not because of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but because of something that must have existed before that Court was created. What was the effect of appointing a Court of Criminal Appeal? They sit now, three judges at a time, about one day a week or one day a fortnight. A calculation can be made as to the effect for the whole year round of the sitting of three judges for one day. Has such a calculation been made? Has any evidence been given before the Committee or Commission that sat in reference to this matter? If so, the effect of that evidence ought to have been given to this Committee.
  In the public street the other day I met an official of the Court, and I asked him what was the effect of the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal upon the sitting of the judges all the year round. "In fact," said I, "I want to know how many judges per year it amounts to." He told me that he Had been asked to make a calculation by those most concerned, namely, the very head of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that it amounted to one judge and a quarter per year. Now we are asked to appoint two judges. The one judge was already provided for. He was appointed before the Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to sit at all. That was the recent measure making Lord Coleridge a judge. So there is only one quarter of a judge per annum at a loss, yet we are asked to appoint two judges, and it may be more. I submit to the Committee that if they agree to the appointment of these judges now, notwithstanding the statement made in good faith by the Attorney-General of this day. that this House will never again be asked to reduce the number below that limit, and I submit that, having regard to the work of the judges in the past, that this congestion will not be relieved by the judges whom you appoint even now, because it is quite apparent to those who

  2039
  have the opportunity of observing the work of these judges that the work is not being done that ought to be done by them. If the members of the Bar had only the courage to speak here in public what they say in their Inns of Court, there would be an entirely different complexion on this case. I have read the legal journals from week to week. I have read the arguments that are advanced by those who write those journals. I do not care three rows of pins for what they write in those journals. They are all more or less interested statements, and they are based upon statements as to the congestion of business at the present time, without making any serious attempt to explain the reason for the congestion. I do not hesitate to say that that congestion is due entirely to the mismanagement of the Division. I do not know whose fault it is. I do not wish to place the blame on any particular individual, upon any particular judge, or upon any particular committee of judges.
  I believe the business of the Division is managed by a committee. The judges of days that are past managed their business and gave satisfaction to the public, although their number was considerably less than the number now to be provided. Whether by their superior ability, their power of management, or their economy of time I do not know, but they got through more business. That will be seen in the evidence if Members of the Committee will examine it for themselves. They kept the arrears down—in fact there were no arrears at all. I do not think this Committee has reason to complain. No proper explanation of this Bill has been given, either now or upon the Motion for the Second Reading. We ought to be told much more about it than we have been told. I make that complaint most seriously. I have tried to observe for myself the way in which business has been done in the various Divisions of the High Court, and I make no complaint of what has been done for the past two years, at any rate, in the Court of Appeal. The judges of the Court of Appeal have put their backs into the work and have reduced the arrears. The judges of the Court of Chancery, than whom no better body of men could be found in the whole world, have kept their business within bounds. If Charles Dickens were alive to-day he would find no material for his pen in the Court of Chancery. He would have to go to the other Division of
  2040
  the Court, the Division to which I myself have the honour to belong as a humble practitioner. It is because I have wandered about these courts for many years and have seen how the business is done that I have come to the conclusion that the difficulty is not due to want of judges, but that it is because mismanagement exists that this congestion is created. This Committee and this House ought to exercise its power of supervision and of criticism on this Bill, and ought not hastily to accede to such an important proposal as the appointment of two judges to the High Court. That step ought not to be taken without the Committee and the House making serious investigation, and insisting upon further explanation and further reasons being given for such s, very important measure. I have made this observation with great seriousness, because I have satisfied myself there is no good reason for the appointment of these judges. This Committee would be well advised to stop the passing of this Bill into law.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have great ground of complaint against the hon. and learned Member for the speech he has made. He has told the Committee that there has been no sufficient reason given to the Committee for this Bill. The hon. and learned Member is an old member of the House. He knows perfectly well that it would not have been in order for me to have got up and made a Second Reading speech upon the Committee stage of this Bill. He also knows if he has given to this Question the attention he has assured the House he has given it that there is not a point raised to-night, not a solitary shred of a point, that I did not deal with, having before me the report of the Select Committee that considered this question. There is not one of these points that was not made the subject of prolonged investigation. Every one was considered, and the whole evidence was published in a bulky volume. A full report was made by the Committee, and I dealt with the evidence in the report on the Second Reading.
  The hon. and learned Member says he gravely complains that the Attorney-General has given no information! He says I have not dealt with the effect of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I dealt at considerable length with the effect of the appointment of that Court. I informed the House at the proper time—not upon a totally irrelevant Amendment, but at a

  2041
  proper time—that that Court had absorbed judicial work to the extent of one and a quarter judges, which now the hon. and learned Member announces as a revelation, and as a revelation to me! I went on to deal with the other causes. I pointed out that we were working now in the King's Bench Division, the great Court of the Realm, with the same number of judges as in 1876. I also pointed out what had happened since then—how we have diminished the number of cases, but in creased their importance; how we have enlarged the jurisdiction of the County Courts and have thereby, to a very large extent, removed from the King's Bench Division an immense number of small cases, the result being that the cases are much larger cases and have gone on increasing in number. Why? Because the population has increased from 24,000,000 in 1876 to over 42,000,000 to-day. Because the business of the day has increased enormously in volume and in importance. Persons now, when they go to a court of law, bring much greater forces into operation. They are fighting with much more money.
  Mr. MORTON: Law has got nothing to do with business.
  Sir W. ROBSON: If my hon. Friend is able to carry on business without the aid, the vigilance, and the help of the law, let him take care, or perhaps he will some day find acquaintance with the law in some manner not agreeable to his business practices.
  Mr. MORTON: I should like to say, now you have mentioned me, that I have always, in the course of my life, lost rather than go to law.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not blame my hon. Friend. It all depends what sort of case he had.
  Mr. MORTON: The better the ca-se you have the more likely you are to lose it at law.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I ask the Committee to take seriously into consideration the charge made by my hon. and learned Friend, and the grounds on which he has made it. There is not one single point he has raised which has not been fully dealt with. We are working now with a judicial staff about equal to that which we had thirty years ago, with, at the same time, the population of the country enormously increased, with the business of ithe country enormously increased, with
  2042
  the number of small cases getting diminished. All these are quite adequate grounds for this Bill.
  Mr. MORTON: I protest again against this Bill being taken after eleven o'clock, without any consideration whatever. As I understand the argument of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. J. O'Connor), he has given us the only information we have had about this Bill, and it is not fair to attempt to rush the Bill through at this time of night. It may be very amusing for the Attorney-General to use the Government Whips for this purpose. It certainly is wrong for him, in a matter of this sort, not to give us proper time to consider it.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I think that after the lawyers have stated their case a layman is entitled to reply. I do not think a layman has, in any less degrees as compared with lawyers, the common-sense which would enable him to consider ordinary business matters, and therefore I think the hon. Member who spoke last is quite wise and much safer to keep away from the lawyers.
  Mr. MORTON: All honest men do.
  Mr. MARKHAM: An hon. Member opposite has been shouting "agreed" all the time the Attorney-General was speaking. If there is one trades union in this country which is stronger than the others it is that of the lawyers and barristers. When it comes to a question of appointing additional judges, this union becomes far more strict, and we only hear a word against it from one member of one branch of the profession.
  An HON. MEMBER: A blackleg,
  Mr. MARKHAM: He is not a blackleg. The hon. and learned Member has, in fact, stated his experience, and I am sure that the Members of the House, and especially the laymen in the House, are deeply grateful to him. The hon. and learned Member has put his experience before us, and he is an old and valued Member of this House. Those of us who are laymen have to face in this profession the trades unionism of lawyers and barristers, and it is only when we get a "blackleg" that we are supplied with the facts. I am only, of course, speaking figuratively in using that word. This case for one and a quarter judge, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, has been met; because we had Lord Coleridge appointed for the

  2043
  Court of Appeal. I come back to the question that these judges have too much time given by the State, and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. That is my objection. But because you have this trades union, barristers and lawyers all joined together, we who do not sit behind the Front Benches, on both sides of the House, find that on a question of benefit-ting lawyers and judges, or any question of that sort, these two Front Benches are joined together to defeat independent members. We have no opportunity of stating our case. This is our opportunity, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him. So far as the County Court cases are concerned, it was high time that a change was made. If it were not for this trades union of lawyers, a great many of these cases which are now brought up to London at great expense would be settled by the County Court judges to the great benefit of the community.
  Question, "That the words 'upwards of,' [" the whole number of such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen"], stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment made: After "fifteen," insert "or upwards. "—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Personally, I may be allowed to say that I did not vote against this Bill on its introduction, because I felt that if it was necessary that judges should be appointed they should be appointed. The sole point which I raised was the age limit. May I be allowed to reply to the observations of the Attorney-General with regard to the reduction of the number of cases owing to the scarcity of judges? That point cannot possibly apply. I remember that when application was made to the Treasury to improve the Law Courts the point was that in Scotland there were too many judges, and with regard to the number of cases there was a large number—
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member to refer to Scotland. This Bill does not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. PRICE: I am speaking of the reasons given on legislation in the case of Scotland and the way in which the argu-
  2044
  ment about the reduction of cases was applied to Scotland. I can bring figures to prove that in the various Courts all over England there has been a reduction actually in the number of cases brought before the Courts of Law. I hold that is entirely attributable to the fact that the Courts have not now that respect for their decisions which they had formerly.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I do not wish at 1.28 in the morning to prolong the discussion, but I desire to make a suggestion to the Attorney-General in the interests of the British and Irish taxpayer. We all know in Ireland—and I am sure the Chief Secretary will bear me out in making this statement—that crime in Ireland at the present moment is at the lowest possible markr and all Irishmen are proud of the fact. Our gaols are being closed, and I believe I can make a statement even stronger than that of my hon. Friend opposite, who said that the judges in England had 119 days clear of work in the year. The working months of the Irish judges are six and a half out of the twelve in every year. I would like to make a suggestion to the Attorney-General which he may adopt instead of promoting this Bill, the effect of which unquestionably will be to provide for the temporary appointment of two new judges. These two gentlemen, by the Amendment of the Government, may be appointed temporarily at any moment after the passing of this Bill. They will remain not until January, 1911, but until August, 1911, and I say that once they have got that temporary appointment it will be only a question of a few weeks or months until they have a permanent appointment. That permanent appointment will mean at least £10,000 a year to the British taxpayer, and Ireland will have to contribute a certain amount of it. Seeing that the English judges are overworked, according to the Attorney-General, notwithstanding that they have 199 days vacation in the year, there is one thing certain—and I think the Chief Secretary will again bear me out on this point—the Irish judges are not overworked. We can always spare some of them, and instead of appointing two temporary judges, in order to promote the lawyers in this House, we can afford to offer the Attorney-General for England two of our Irish judges.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Or six.
  Mr. FLAVIN: We can afford two; arid if that is not enough we can give two or

  2045
  three more. I can speak with some experience, not as a lawyer, but as a citizen and a ratepayer. I have no hesitation in saying that the invariable practice all over Ireland to-day, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two counties in Ulster, before the county court judges and the judges of assize, has been the presentation to them of white gloves by the High Sheriff. So far the discussion has been wholly in the interest of the appointment of two new judges at an expense of £10,000 a year to the English and Irish taxpayers. If you want two judges in this country do not appoint two new men, but come across the Channel and take two, take three, take four, take the whole lot, if you want them.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The Attorney-General has not given any reply to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price) on the definite statement that he made that there has been an actual decrease in the number of cases brought before the Courts both in Scotland and England. If that is the case, surely there is no need for the appointment of two additional judges.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I know nothing about what takes place in Scotland. I dealt with the statement before the hon. Member made it. I pointed out that there has been an increase—a large increase—
  and that if you take the Courts generally there has been an enormous increase.
  Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask the Attorney-General if he will give me any reply?
  Mr. MORTON: This Clause is really the Bill, and we ought to have a little more information given to us before we pass it. What we have found out now is that these two new judges are not wanted and that they are being forced upon the taxpayers. I am astonished that the Government should attempt to put this Bill through.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has already said that several times.
  Mr. MORTON: I have had no answer from the Government as to the arrangement with the other side.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is entirely irrelevant.
  Mr. MORTON: When we find these new charges being put upon the taxpayers it is time that innocent and quiet persons like myself break out, no matter what time of day or night it is. If the Government refuse to give us information they must look out for squalls.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 20.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES.

  [1.35 a.m.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lambert, George

  Allen, Charles P.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Anderson, A.

  Ellbank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Baird, J. L.

  Elverston, H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Falconer, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, Sir Ft. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ferens, T. R.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  France, G. A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Gibson, James P.

  Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barnston, H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

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

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bentham, G. J

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Bird, A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Muspratt, M.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cautley, H. S.

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Hope, Harry.Bute)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Clough, William

  Horner, A. L.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Johnson, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Summers. James Woolley

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Richards, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Toulmin, George

  Wing, Thomas

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

  Shortt, Edward

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  NOES.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Twist, Henry

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dairymple, Viscount

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Clover, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Sutton, John E.

  Markham and Mr. Morton.

  Hogan, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  Ball reported; as amended, to be considered this day.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (SELECT COMMITTEE).
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every report made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for I the confirmation of such Order.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the Quorum.—[Master of Elibank.]
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes before Two a.m., Wednesday, 20th April.

  Old Age Pensions (Poor Law Disqualification).
  Old Age Pensions (Poor Law Disqualification).
  Irish Valuers.
  Irish Valuers.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Dublin Valuation.
  Dublin Valuation.
  Application for Labourer's Cottage, Thurles.
  Application for Labourer's Cottage, Thurles.
  Belfast Poor Law Union.
  Belfast Poor Law Union.
  Teaching Irish.
  Teaching Irish.
  Purchase of Holdings (Ballingarry).
  Purchase of Holdings (Ballingarry).
  Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
  Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
  National Schools, Ireland.
  National Schools, Ireland.
  Land Judges' Department, Ireland.
  Land Judges' Department, Ireland.
  Reinstatement Application, Carrigeen, County Kerry.
  Reinstatement Application, Carrigeen, County Kerry.
  Margison Estate, Tipperary and Limerick (Purchase Agreements).
  Margison Estate, Tipperary and Limerick (Purchase Agreements).
  Witwatersrand Mines.
  Witwatersrand Mines.
  Royal Indian Engineering College, Englefield Green.
  Royal Indian Engineering College, Englefield Green.
  Registries for Servants (Action of Local Authorities).
  Registries for Servants (Action of Local Authorities).
  Checkweighing (Women's Trades) Factory Act (Amendment).
  Checkweighing (Women's Trades) Factory Act (Amendment).
  Birching Boys.
  Birching Boys.
  Sir Robert Anderson.
  Sir Robert Anderson.
  Stray Dogs (Metropolis).
  Stray Dogs (Metropolis).
  Vaccination Act, 1907 (Declarations).
  Vaccination Act, 1907 (Declarations).
  Town Planning.
  Town Planning.
  Licensing of Craft (Port of London).
  Licensing of Craft (Port of London).
  Leases of Small Holdings.
  Leases of Small Holdings.
  Punishment of School Children.
  Punishment of School Children.
  German Imports and Exports of Cotton.
  German Imports and Exports of Cotton.

SAINT MARY, STOCKPORT, RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
PADSTOW HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
READING AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LITTLE HULTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords: The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl who leads the House is now in a position to supplement the statement which he made last week in reply to a Question by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, but I think your Lordships will be glad of any information regarding the adjournment for the Spring Recess and the course of business before and after that recess. We have in front of us
668
the Budget, which I understand will pass through the House of Commons on the 27th, the Resolutions of Lord Rosebery, and also the Resolutions of the Government dealing with the relations between the two Houses. With regard to the Budget, all I will venture to say is this, that I imagine it will be the general desire of the House that it should be taken here without a moment's loss of time, when the House of Commons has done with it. Lord Rosebery is not in his place, and I am unable to say what his intentions are in regard to his Resolutions. The noble Earl gave notice of a second batch on the 13th, and I have no doubt the House would desire ample opportunities of considering and discussing them. There remain the Resolutions dealing with the relations between the two Houses, Resolutions which the noble Earl who leads the House described, and not incorrectly, as of supreme importance. We should like to know, if the noble Earl is able to tell us, when he proposes to take those Resolutions. Perhaps I might also ask whether the Bill founded upon these Resolutions is likely to be produced before long. The Bill has, I understand, been read a first time in the other House, and is no doubt in a forward state of preparation. The noble Earl told us the other day that there would be no undue delay in the production of the Bill, but he was then unable to name the precise date when it would be produced. We should certainly be grateful for any information on that point; and, finally, we should be glad to know what the intentions are with regard to the adjournment of the House for the Spring Recess.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for having given me notice of his intention to put these further Questions. Since replying to Lord Salisbury a week ago I have had the opportunity of making some inquiries as to the general sense of the House with regard to the course of business. As regards the Resolutions dealing with the relations between the two Houses, we were quite prepared to deal with them at once, if that course had commended itself to the House, and I should have been prepared to put them down for discussion next week. But I am given to understand that that course would not be acceptable to the House in view of the position of

669
public business generally, and other questions to which the noble Marquess alluded. The Finance Bill now under discussion in another place is due to be finished in that House on April 27, and we should be prepared to put the Second Reading down for discussion in this House on the 28th, in view of the noble Marquess's expression of opinion that it should be proceeded with at once. Then as regards the recess, it is suggested that the House of Commons should rise for not less than three weeks at that time, and if, as I understand, it is the view of your Lordships' House that we deserve a similar holiday, we should be prepared, after disposing of the Budget, to adjourn for a similar recess. This would involve the postponement of the consideration of the Government Resolutions till immediately after that recess. That is the course which we are prepared to adopt in view of what I understand to be the opinion of noble Lords generally. It, I think, would mean—perhaps the noble Marquess will not bind me absolutely to dates—that the discussion on the Resolutions would be opened in the week of May 23, which, I gather, is the date at which the recess would close. As regards the Bill, I am not able to give the actual date at which it will be produced, but I am able to say that, in view of the discussion of our Resolutions, the Bill will Certainly be public property before the Resolutions come up for discussion in this House. As regards the Resolutions of my noble friend, I am not in possession of his
670
intentions with regard to their discussion, but I think I may assume that it is the desire of your Lordships' House to discuss them within a reasonable time. Perhaps I am right in saying that it would be the desire of the House if possible, in view of the fact that there is not much business on the Paper, to proceed with that discussion before we adjourn for the Spring Recess, but I have no knowledge of what my noble friend's intentions are, and therefore I do not know that I need say anything more on that point.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would like to ask on which day it is proposed that the House of Commons should rise. There is no doubt that the Budget will be passed, but I would point out that a great number of noble Lords may wish to take part in the debate, and that the debate may conceivably go over one day.
THE EARL OF CREWE: We shall be in the hands of the House in that matter. The adjournment for the recess is to be moved in another place, I understand, on the 28th, but if it should be desired to discuss the Budget further here, the Royal Assent would have to be postponed. It would simply mean that we would have to sit a day or two days longer.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.